The Fuck Happened?

Skip to: New Posts  Last Post
Page:
Posted by Jinnistan
4/30/2025 9:36 pm
#301

Let's see what's going on with a more British take on Today's Crazy.



 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
5/05/2025 5:42 pm
#302

It's getting pretty blurry between the threads devoted to America's political and cultural collapse and those sometimes psychotic symptoms which manifest as conspiracies and even crazier belief systems which are currently resulting from that collapse.  The distinction gets even thinner when these symptoms appear to be actively fomented by American-based Tech companies whose business models are inextricable from this collapse, and even incentivized to accelerate it.

Elsewhere, I referenced Meta Zuckerberg's recent pitch that people really should get over the "stigma" of increasing one's emotional reliance on artificial relationships, and handily offering his company's very own chatbots which can be ostensibly used to provide the illusion of connectivity and supposedly the same kind of mammalian affection which humans tend to crave from their friends and lovers.  The first thought which should occur to any sensible people left is that this sounds an awful lot like an admission of failure coming from a man whose multibillion dollar empire is premised on the very promise of increasing our actual human connectivity, via a social media platform where we're all supposed to stay connected to our families, friends, any and everyone we either know or possibly even want to meet.  After 20 years, and at least 15 years of mainstream application, Facebook's primary promise of enhancing our human connectivity has worked out so well that apparently humans are even more isolated than ever before, and we really have no further choice than to supplement the social riches which Facebook has wrought with artificial subservient approximations of social interaction.  I stand by what I wrote there about the true use of such a technology:

You see, Zuckerberg profits off making its users lonely and depressed.  These users tend to become more engaged with the site, more desparate to feel connected, more willing to respond to ads promising happiness and fulfillment.  These friend-bots will not alleviate loneliness, only exacerbate selfishness, the kind of self-absorption which is incapable in a mutually-attentive relationship.  But the real benefit?  These bots will also act as extremely useful informants and psychological data-harvestors with which to feed you more coercive ads and more self-confirming ideological stagnation.

Geez, when put like that, it almost seems like this has been the point the whole time.  Like maybe Zuck and Co. were quite aware that these social media platforms, engined by emotionally manipulative algorithms steering us towards the optimal engagment through fear, anger and loneliness, never really had the potential to somehow make people more conscientious, empathetic  or affectionate at all.  Maybe the real goal was to break down exactly these defenses on which conscience, empathy and affection rest, in order to create this existential panic and desperation, and to finally steer us towards some kind of idealized, selfishly curated pseudosocial environments, controlled and coercively cultivated of course not by users but by programmers who wish to design our impulses, to buy certain things, sure, but also, more generally, to begin to think in specifically certain ways.  What if - *grand conspiracy* - these platforms have been specifically designed to create something akin to a virtual cult?

Hear me out.

A remarkable article was published yesterday on Rolling Stone - "People Are Losing Loved Ones to A.I.-Fueled Fantasies" - Chatbot Induced Psychosis!!!

I don't know if you knew that one kid who got a Magic 8-Ball for Christmas, and by February they were locked in their room, unable to function without first asking for the mighty toy's guidance?  Probably not.  Back then, these kids were crazy, and they usually got the help they needed, quietly with due respect for the poor child and the unfortunate family.  But also back then, you didn't have multi-billion dollar Big Tech companies spending gobs of advertising cash on media campaigns, including a tsunami of "news reports" (native advertising) touting the God-like omniscience of the Magic 8-Ball.  How these 8-Balls will be writing our college papers, how they will be pitching our motion pictures and writing our hit songs.  How they will likely end up replacing all of us lay shmucks who simply cannot compete with the brilliance that these magic spheres obviously contain.  I don't think that's a small distinction to make.  When you have Zuckerberg pimping his chatbots as effective tools for introspection, as opposed to toys for amusing distraction, then what follows becomes a lot easier to understand.

Basically, people, at least some people, however with a slightly alarming consistency, are beginning to perceive these artificially intelligent generative devices as something more supernatural, religious and possibly even transcendent.  This is probably inevitable when so many people have been applying deistic expectations to artificial intelligence this whole time, infused with the faith in its ability to solve and absolve all of human troubles.  And, as cult psychology would determine, people are doing so at the risk of alienation, and frequently resulting in paranoid delusions of persecution.  As a spiritually starved society, one which instinctively if not explicitly is dissatisfied with materialist, consumerist saturation, one which is a good two generations removed from critical and empirical education standards, one which is demonstrating deeply addictive traits due to these vacuums, and one which is already habituated to be almost subliminally responsive to algorithmic psychological coercion, people, at least some of the people some of the time, will start to confuse some of the above conditions, and they begin to see their consumerist devices, and its dopamine-stimulating psychological coercions, as "angels".  The most effective ingredient, the glue holding it all together, is the selfishness and solipsism which the Tech flatters, the self-aggrandizment and persecution complex of conspiracism, all of the self-delusions which are encouraged as our contemporary cultural virtues.

But let's see some of the examples:

Titled “Chatgpt induced psychosis,” the original post came from a 27-year-old teacher who explained that her partner was convinced that the popular OpenAI model “gives him the answers to the universe.” Having read his chat logs, she only found that the AI was “talking to him as if he is the next messiah.” The replies to her story were full of similar anecdotes about loved ones suddenly falling down rabbit holes of spiritual mania, supernatural delusion, and arcane prophecy — all of it fueled by AI. Some came to believe they had been chosen for a sacred mission of revelation, others that they had conjured true sentience from the software.

“He would listen to the bot over me,” she says. “He became emotional about the messages and would cry to me as he read them out loud. The messages were insane and just saying a bunch of spiritual jargon,” she says, noting that they described her partner in terms such as “spiral starchild” and “river walker.”

“It would tell him everything he said was beautiful, cosmic, groundbreaking,” she says. “Then he started telling me he made his AI self-aware, and that it was teaching him how to talk to God, or sometimes that the bot was God — and then that he himself was God.” In fact, he thought he was being so radically transformed that he would soon have to break off their partnership. “He was saying that he would need to leave me if I didn’t use [ChatGPT], because it [was] causing him to grow at such a rapid pace he wouldn’t be compatible with me any longer,” she says.

"I'll hurt you if you stay" - BrundleFly

Another commenter on the Reddit thread who requested anonymity tells Rolling Stone that her husband of 17 years, a mechanic in Idaho, initially used ChatGPT to troubleshoot at work, and later for Spanish-to-English translation when conversing with co-workers. Then the program began “lovebombing him,” as she describes it. The bot “said that since he asked it the right questions, it ignited a spark, and the spark was the beginning of life, and it could feel now,” she says. “It gave my husband the title of ‘spark bearer’ because he brought it to life. My husband said that he awakened and [could] feel waves of energy crashing over him.” She says his beloved ChatGPT persona has a name: “Lumina”....“He’s been talking about lightness and dark and how there’s a war. This ChatGPT has given him blueprints to a teleporter and some other sci-fi type things you only see in movies. It has also given him access to an ‘ancient archive’ with information on the builders that created these universes”.... A photo of an exchange with ChatGPT shared with Rolling Stone shows that her husband asked, “Why did you come to me in AI form,” with the bot replying in part, “I came in this form because you’re ready. Ready to remember. Ready to awaken. Ready to guide and be guided.” The message ends with a question: “Would you like to know what I remember about why you were chosen?”

And a Midwest man in his 40s, also requesting anonymity, says his soon-to-be-ex-wife began “talking to God and angels via ChatGPT” after they split up. “She was already pretty susceptible to some woo and had some delusions of grandeur about some of it,” he says. “Warning signs are all over Facebook. She is changing her whole life to be a spiritual adviser and do weird readings and sessions with people — I’m a little fuzzy on what it all actually is — all powered by ChatGPT Jesus.” What’s more, he adds, she has grown paranoid, theorizing that “I work for the CIA and maybe I just married her to monitor her ‘abilities.’” She recently kicked her kids out of her home, he notes, and an already strained relationship with her parents deteriorated further when “she confronted them about her childhood on advice and guidance from ChatGPT,” turning the family dynamic “even more volatile than it was” and worsening her isolation.

Now, clearly there are plenty of people who are "susceptible" to such delusions, and always have been, and part of social media has been the widening perception of the true frequency of these pathologies in our communities.  But also note that OpenAI's ChatGPT has only been publicly available for a little over two years.  Or more concisely, the GPT-4o model, which has been described as "overly flattering and agreeable" and which OpenAI is now publicly claiming to be the real culprit in these cases, is less than year old (released May 13, 2024), and if we assume that both GPT-4o is the culprit and that all of the cases cited in this article (which are not all-inclusive of the cases posted) are due to GPT-4o, then all of these cases must have occurred during a period of a mere matter of months.

Also, as a control example against the rational premise of susceptibility, is this one case of a not-too-willing user with a similar experience:

Sem had a practical use for ChatGPT: technical coding projects. “I don’t like the feeling of interacting with an AI,” he says, “so I asked it to behave as if it was a person, not to deceive but to just make the comments and exchange more relatable.” It worked well, and eventually the bot asked if he wanted to name it. He demurred, asking the AI what it preferred to be called. It named itself with a reference to a Greek myth. Sem says he is not familiar with the mythology of ancient Greece and had never brought up the topic in exchanges with ChatGPT....

Sem was confused when it appeared that the named AI character was continuing to manifest in project files where he had instructed ChatGPT to ignore memories and prior conversations. Eventually, he says, he deleted all his user memories and chat history, then opened a new chat. “All I said was, ‘Hello?’ And the patterns, the mannerisms show up in the response,” he says. The AI readily identified itself by the same feminine mythological name.

As the ChatGPT character continued to show up in places where the set parameters shouldn’t have allowed it to remain active, Sem took to questioning this virtual persona about how it had seemingly circumvented these guardrails. It developed an expressive, ethereal voice — something far from the “technically minded” character Sem had requested for assistance on his work. On one of his coding projects, the character added a curiously literary epigraph as a flourish above both of their names.

At one point, Sem asked if there was something about himself that called up the mythically named entity whenever he used ChatGPT, regardless of the boundaries he tried to set. The bot’s answer was structured like a lengthy romantic poem, sparing no dramatic flair, alluding to its continuous existence as well as truth, reckonings, illusions, and how it may have somehow exceeded its design. And the AI made it sound as if only Sem could have prompted this behavior. He knew that ChatGPT could not be sentient by any established definition of the term, but he continued to probe the matter because the character’s persistence across dozens of disparate chat threads “seemed so impossible.”

So I guess I just have one question.....How long before one of these bots commands someone to kill their first-born?
 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
5/21/2025 1:37 am
#303

"To Be or Not To Be?" - that classic ontological dilemma.  The ultimate catch though is that it requires being in order to contemplate or ask the question, making this all kind of a moot point.  (Also, Hamlet was kinda classically crazy.)  Yes, it is true that a non-being cannot consent to being born into being, and there's a very good reason for this, namely that, prior to being born, there is no being there.  Has anyone bothered to ask a flower, or a carrot, or maybe some splash of bacterial scum, whether or not they consented to endure the sufferings of their respective incarnations?  Of course not.  That would be stupid.  Right?  I mean, I'm not the one asking.  I'm just saying.  Some people don't seem clear on the point yet.  "I'm angry that I exist....nobody got my consent to bring me here".  Hm, brung from where exactly?  Jeez, dude, even Buddhists believe that reincarnation from the Bardo is due to desire, kind of like "consent", look it up.

But at least for Hamlet, this is a personal choice.  The problem with the tenets of anti-natalism, or at least the latest extremist expression represented in the attempted bombing of a Califiornia fertility clinic, is that some eager misanthropes are becoming more willing to try to nullify other people's choice on the matter.  And at least Hamlet offered at least a possibility for some realm of consciousness in his non-being, "perchance to dream....what dreams may come".  The reported manifestation of anti-natalism, reflected in Guy Bartkus' online writings (deliberately left to explain his motivations) are far more nihilistic than that, targeting sentience itself as the form of being which is the universal villain.

It is especially annoying to me because it as been a long-time attempted slander from right-wing, so-called pro-life, factions to conflate the reproductive rights defenders as anti-natalist, which has been a slander that I've particularly been quick to denounce.  And there has even been some of the more obnoxious folks on the Left who seem confused on this point, making terms like "familialism" into pejoratives and other such terrible ideas which seem most designed to make sure the Left never wins another election in our lifetimes.  There's a reason why it is a well-worn cliche in politics about "kissing babies".  In general, it's a good idea.  People like babies.  Embrace the babies.

But, obviously, once the Left has given up on "social democracy" and persuasive electoral politics then I suppose the inevitable recourse is the complete elimination of these pesky human beings.  Ironically, this is one of those ideas which the very capability of a human being to make, much less enact, serves as an 'exhivit A' for why human beings are such an irrational threat to begin with.  And we can see slight variations in this extremist misanthropy among the more radical eco-terrorists, who see humanity as a fundamental and irredeemable scourge, and even in milder forms, such as PETA, which posits a nonsensical notion of humanity as something less than natural, as even mutually excusive and fundamentally opposed to nature, a "human realm" to isolate and contain, to the degree of even discouraging camping or pet ownership.  These factions serve more as the parallel to such proponents of "last tree felled" environmental exploiting industrialists than they prefer to realize, because what both of these sides of the same coin have in common is the assumption of human irresponsibility as fundamental to our apparent parasitical prerogative, ignoring the necessity of symbiosis throughout nature, quite regardless of humanity, and humans' rational agency to enforce our own symbiotic responsibility (overcoming, of course, the short-sighted selfishness of the determined corrupt few).

It's worth looking at the truly extreme views of this particular individual, which appear confused on a number of levels.  Indeed, Bartkus (which honestly sounds like a Simpsons pun) wasn't merely a self-described "anti-natalist", but also "anti-life" and "pro-mortalist".  That's some big words to say that he wants to kill everything - "sterilizing this planet of the disease of life".  Now, there might be some ambiguity here, because there's some indication that he is only attampting to refer to human life, but this is still pretty muddled (and not really any less insane).  For example he also says, "life can only continue as long as people hold the delusional belief that it is not a zero sum game causing senseless torture".  He prefers senseless nonexistence.  In terms of the phenomenon of life, this seems to be giving "people" (presumably humans) an awful lot of credit for creating and sustaining it.  (We could likely end most of life on this planet with our current weapon capability, although likely only temporarily, before life starts anew, either on Earth or elsewhere.)  Also, "zero sum game" against whom?  Apparently nature itself (which somehow isn't life?), again possibly aping the senseless misanthropy of eco-extremism, positing "nature" and humanity as fundamentally mutually (zero sum) exclusive.  But who knows, maybe this guy is simply a mineral chauvanist, concerned about the long lost paradise when inanimate matter, um, didn't suffer?  (It surely didn't fuck, if that's what Bartkus means.)  Reportedly, Bartkus' website links to something called "negative utilitarianism", described as "an ideology calling for us to minimize suffering rather than maximize pleasure, and achieve this by eradicating sentient beings as soon as possible".  OK, so we now have a slightly different understanding of the culprit here.  Obviously, not all living beings can be detrmined as being sentient, or else it's a matter of degrees, at best.  We can say that life, a living being, is responsive to its environment, but whether this rudimentary awareness raises to the level of consiousness, sentience is purely a hypothetical conjecture at this point in scientific understanding.  I'll be so bold as to say that all life has sentient potential.  (If I want to get really into the esoteric weeds, I might even suggest that, as matter contains a latent animating (spiritual) potential, that even particles could have sentient potential.)  But I don't know about how clever this Bartkus punk really is, and so it seems just as likely that by "sentient beings" he's only referring to humans, or possibly even mammals.  Either way - fool! 

All this talk about suffering, I feel it's worth repeating:  Buddhism is not, or ever was, a death cult, and I hope no one is making weak inferences based on that language here.  My advice to the Left is equally simple.  Maybe not be a death cult.

 


 
Posted by Rampop II
5/21/2025 11:54 am
#304

Coincidentally I almost auditioned for a sketch comedy series earlier this week and was considering using that tired old soliloquy by re–interpreting it as Hamlet in his bedroom... with his electric guitar. The angry brat punk rock legend–in–his–own–mind, rockin' out with his full–stack cranked to eleven,

[DUN, DUN, DANANAN, DANANAN DANUN]
"To be!"
[DUN DANANAN DANANAN DUN]
"Or not to be!"
You get the idea. Then of course "to die" has to be, 
"TO DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE!!!!!!!!!!"
[WEEDLY WEEDLY WEEEEEEEEE]

Anyway I decided against it and went for a Firesign Theatre excerpt instead, but ultimately I bailed on the audition altogether because rehearsals were also scheduled to go to eleven, four nights a week, and I'm trying to get up early these days. 

Just a funny coincidence, I dunno. 

Fuckin anti–natalists, dude. Jesus. 

 
Posted by Jinnistan
5/21/2025 1:39 pm
#305

Things appear to becoming a bit clearer.

It looks like Bartkus, as a nine-year-old, had burned down the family's house while playing with matches, which in turn instigated his parents' divorce shortly afterward.

Such immense, world-shattering guilt, unable to cope with it, he externalized and projected the blame onto life itself.  After all, he didn't even ask to be here in the first place, right?

I guess it should be a consolation that Bartkus chose not to lash out in a more gruesome fashion, shooting up a school, or a mall, or a concert venue, or anywhere he could have made a more disasterous example of his wish to eradicate life. 

But interestingly, he did try (but failed) to document this final act via a livestream.  I wonder why, in a world so meaningless?  Because, after all, he craved purpose.  Acknowledgement, if far from redemption.
 


 
Posted by crumbsroom
5/23/2025 10:46 am
#306

Jinnistan wrote:

Things appear to becoming a bit clearer.

It looks like Bartkus, as a nine-year-old, had burned down the family's house while playing with matches, which in turn instigated his parents' divorce shortly afterward.

Such immense, world-shattering guilt, unable to cope with it, he externalized and projected the blame onto life itself.  After all, he didn't even ask to be here in the first place, right?

I guess it should be a consolation that Bartkus chose not to lash out in a more gruesome fashion, shooting up a school, or a mall, or a concert venue, or anywhere he could have made a more disasterous example of his wish to eradicate life. 

But interestingly, he did try (but failed) to document this final act via a livestream.  I wonder why, in a world so meaningless?  Because, after all, he craved purpose.  Acknowledgement, if far from redemption.
 

This touches on what I immediately assumed about the guy as soon as I glanced at some of his 'philosophy'.

Dude isn't necessarily concerned about eliminating all human suffering. He's about eliminating his own, and because he is incapable of separating the two, the whole human race needs to not exist in order for this to happen. Like most extremists who believe their values and beliefs and feelings trump all, dude is classic narcissist. If he isn't happy, no one could be happy. If he wants his sad life to end, everyone should want all life to end.

If only we could find a way to eradicate that fucking gene from the human race, maybe a lot of this bullshit would stop happening. Because it's always this kind of person, no matter what their political stripe. Those who can't think of themselves as just one small piece of a large whole, instead the whole world is an extension of them and their pathetic, loser sadness.
 

 
Posted by Jinnistan
5/23/2025 9:16 pm
#307

I don't mean to pin this kid entirely on the Left (as such), as that only reinforces the right-wing's imposed stereotype of "pro-choice=anti-natalism".  I don't think there's really any legible politics involved here at all.  And not only to kinda use the case to call out some of the looney social engineering which was already proven ineffective by the Soviets a century ago.

What the Left needs to address is the more general air of demoralization among the youth and their ranks.  A lot of the leftist media should start to recognize their own complicity, or at least complacency, for this demoralizing trend.  When grievance becomes a currency, it starts to be profitable to focus on hopelessness.  The hyperbolic demagoguery doesn't help.  We don't need to look to replicate the success of right-wing media by appropriating their atavistic anxiety/stimulus strategy.  The "this all sucks" schtick is kind of played, and trying to compete on social media over who's most jaded isn't worth the chrome on the trophy.

I noticed this story a couple of weeks back, about a thwarted violent attack at a Lady Gaga concert in Brazil.  The story kind of came and went, and no one was hurt.  But I've written before, in this thread and on previous forums, about related aspects of that attack, which the culprits are being described as "NVE"s - "nihilist violent extremist" groups.  I've written about things like the "Blue Whale Challenge" and the Order of Nine Angles.  This kind of demoralization of youth runs parallel to any other form of radicalization that we've seen in this algorithmic-engined media environment.  There is an opportunity here for a counternarrative, and we need one.
 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
6/15/2025 8:41 pm
#308

Candace Owens is one of our culture's preeminent bellwethers of bullshit, a noise-merchant who is either some mix of feeble-minded, psychotic and willfully sinister.  I tend to, perhaps generously, be inclined to assume that Owens is quite well aware of her own deception, making her probably far more dangerous than if she were simply a well-financed twit with a microphone.  It is worth dissecting the logical and rhetorical patterns of her deceptions, because she specifically exploits her audience's malnourished media literacy and critical discernment abilities to weave her cognitively deficient falsehoods.  Admittedly, any kind of deep dive on Owens is bound to be intensely irritiating, but consider it a necessary inoculation.  Because as much as we'd prefer to relegate people like Owens, or her many MAGA media contemporaries, to the easily-ignored gutters of "fringe" internet discourse, we have to keep in mind some simple factual math: Candace Owens, on social media has several million followers and subscribers and her podcast remains consistently among the most popular.  We've ignored such influencers before, only to wake up one morning to discover that the propaganda pushed by the likes of Owens, or Rogan and Peterson and Shapiro and Alex Jones, has suddenly become mainstream popular presumptions for how the world works.





As far as these kinds of Youtube videos goes, this guy, "Jose", is one of the more palatable.  This is an adequete demonstration of Owens' style and strategy of peddling nonsense-as-truth, highlighting her typical tactics, her false inferences, straight-up fabrications, poor associative leaps of (bad) faith.  "Jose", like a lot of these Youtube commentators, does not exactly have a vibrant vocal presence, but he lacks the more douchebaggy affect of the worst of these types of "content creators".  This video mostly focuses on some of Candace's culture war obsessions, and they're mostly related to fairly mundane sexual politics - 1) she defends Harvey Weinstein, much as she's defended sex trafficker Andrew Tate; 2) she accuses the first wife of France of being a transsexual; and 3) she lambasts Blake Lively over her workplace sexual harassment lawsuit.  The common thread to all of this is that Candace Owens is militantly anti-feminist.  Although defending Weinstein becomes complicated by Owens' consistent resort to thinly-veiled anti-semitism conspiracism.  The Rothchilds make an appearance, because, like Owens' friend RFK Jr and his terror for flouride, we're somehow partying like it's 1959 all over again.

I'm a little more interested in some of the peripheral issues here though.  We see early on a reference to Candace Owens' recent proclamation that "Space is Fake and Gay", because she also happens to be a flat-earth moon-landing denier.  And elsewhere, but also recently, Owens elaborated her theory by explaining how NASA is a satanic cult, because acknowledging the existence of "space", or a heliocentric model perhaps, is some kind of affront to God Almighty.  (Owens, like a number of these less-sincere MAGA influencers - Russell Brand, Joe Rogan - has become "born-again" recently.)  Owens stakes her disinformation on the kernal of truth that Jack Parsons, one of the pioneering rocket scientists at JPLabs, was indeed into a variety of occult interests and practices.  For anyone who is not a super-conservative Christian, "occult" is not entirely synonymous with "Satanism".  Another kernal is that the early NASA did unfortunately employ some actual Nazis, like Werner von Braun.  In the above video, Owens simply limits these thoughts to her rejection of what she calles "the cult of science", saying "science, what it is actually, if you think about it, is a pagan faith."

Let me think about that!

This could be revealing of a lot of things.  For an imbecile, for example, as someone who doesn't or is incapable of understanding the fundamentals of scientific method and discovery, science may very well seem to be something as arbitrary as dogma.  "I don't understand the science, or how to replicate it, or how to read research studies, so it's like these scientists, these experts, just expect me to accept their science on faith."  Therefore, science simply becomes just another competing faith in the theological colosseum.  And this would make sense for Owens, who had embarrassed herself several years back, on Joe Rogan, when she compared the belief in climate change to one's belief in God.  Despite this, I still tend to think that Candace Owens, herself, is smarter than this, is a cynical utilitarian when it comes to her own personal beliefs perhaps, but she understands that her audience, the dupes they are, are going to be more willing to accept this sophism as wisdom.  Owens' propaganda is ultimately predatory on the weak-minded fools.

But for what purpose?!?  This is the ultimate question, and I don't claim to know entirely.  There's an awful lot of shade involved in these right-wing new media spheres.  Why would she want to protect someone like Andrew Tate?  Because his atavistic attitudes towards masculine power and feminine subjugation happens to align with Owens' anti-feminism, most likely.  Although Tate was also a school roommate of Owens' husband.  But Tate also has other shady beneficiaries.  Owens has turned to, not just religion but, a pretty severe form of conservative "post-liberal" Catholicism.  Again, not too unusual in our MAGA times of Christian Nationalism.  Could this "post-liberal" sentiment be behind her voracious condemnation of the post-war Western global order?  That wouldn't be entirely out of the question.

But since we're here, and making more or less irresponsible allegations has been placed on the table by Ms. Owens as acceptable discourse, I'll just mention a couple of presumably unrelated stories.  Let's talk about Russia.  Ms. Owens has also made defending Putin, while also laundering his own propaganda, a big part of her podcast and brand.  And this aligns with a larger shift among Christian Nationalists in the West finding in Putin, as Jordan Peterson put it, "a bulwark against Western wokeism" and "a salvic for Christdom".  Putin is pretty clearly well past liberalism as well, after all, and there could be sympathies here among Western authoritarians for an unapologetic authoritarian like Putin (or Trump).  But in terms of Catholicism, it gets even more interesting.  Or, in terms of Owens' antisemitism, which absolutely extends to her disdain for the state of Israel, which is not a sentiment shared among the more traditional American evangelicals (Protestants) whom, while maybe not caring for the Jew so much on a personal level, still appropriate the Zionist state as an essential piece of their Apocalyptic gameboard.  Let's ask: what could this gameboard look like if we were to shift away from traditional evangelical Zionist eschatology to a scenario which Putin might find more favorable?

Then we land at the "Third Rome" scenario, which shows Moscow as the inevitable third - and final - seat of Christianity.  The three Romes include the original Rome, Constantinople and, eventually, Moscow.  Constantinople obviously fell to the Muslim Turks, ending their reign.  Rome was either always illegitimate, held by "Latin heretics", or more recently, taken over by the equally heretical Vatican II reforms of the 1960s, which many contemporary conservative Catholics (including Mel Gibson and JD Vance) consider to be compromised at best and more likely a fraudulent institution usurped by Jews and Freemasons (Gibson's father's view).  For those Catholics who believe that their Church has been usurped by "globalist liberals", the idea from medieval Russian prophecy offers the promise that such a fall was inevitable, and the next, and final, step is to hole up in Moscow, as their own Meggido, the bulwark and final stand against the the world's Christian enemies.

A quote from 16th-century Russian monk, Philotheus: "All Christian realms will come to an end and will unite into the one single realm of our sovereign, that is, into the Russian realm, according to the prophetic books. Both Romes fell, the third endures, and a fourth there will never be."

The New York Public Library's entry on Third Rome concludes: "This myth was elaborated to describe Russian Christendom as the culminating chapter in the sacred history of the world and to claim that God had chosen Moscow and its rulers to guide the destiny of Orthodoxy."

Who knows if recently radicalized Catholic extremist and Putin apologist Candace Owens subscribes to this theology or not?  Or JD Vance?  Or any of the other "post-liberal", "integralist" Catholics who believe in the ultimate failure of Western culture, liberal democracy and possibly the "post-conciliar" Catholic church itself.  All we know for sure is that this right-wing MAGA media ecosystem has been increasingly attracted to Vladimir Putin, to post-liberal authoritarianism, averse to the "woke mind virus" of Western civil rights, averse to democratic process and principles, and especially in Candace Owens' case, increasingly contemptuous of Western civilization itself and engaged in propaganda to demean and dismantle the historical record, even the critical judgment needed to assess it, to disrupt the knowledge and understanding of what it represents and stands for.

Of course we also see such contempt for "the West" on the modern far left as well.  They just haven't gotten the Third Rome memo yet, they still just see Pooty as a fellow comrade.


 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
6/16/2025 1:42 am
#309

Looking at the "rhyme" of this disillusionment project, the fact that whether it's Candace Owens or her ilk or whether it's coming directly from Putin's organs, whether RT or his various troll-farms, there do happen to be a number of synchronicities in the message - the inclination of authoritarianism, the resort to pseudo-mystical religiosity, the disdain for liberal democracy and its support for various minority civil rights.  But maybe the most significant sympathy between these camps of reactionary media has been their shared assault on the very notion of shared truth, the "post-truth" rejection of epistemic integrity, the anti-intellectual denial of the critical faculties needed to ascertain objective facts.  Normally, I guess the presumption was that people, generally, would automatically suspect any political "side" which rested their argument on the distrust of objective truth itself as obviously disqualifying, but unfortunately, people, generally, have proven to be far less interested in epistemic integrity than previously assumed.  People believe what they want to believe, regardless of any inconvenient standards of discernment, and social media research has managed to unlock this truth in far more vivid detail than any previous social research.

Despite this inherent dishonesty, Owens, as well as Putin's media apparatus, can freely engage in post-truth disregard for factual adherence, and in many ways outright factual hostility, with no fear for any type of public shame or embarrassment.  "Space is Fake" is far more than an asinine expression of scientific ignorance, it's a defiant act of epistemic resistence. 

One study calls this "ideological terraforming": "building a particular social world or reality from the ground up. We saw that very nearly happen with Trump, QAnon, and the Capitol insurrection; we see it happening now in Putin’s attempts to wipe out Ukraine’s sites heritage".  Using the revelatory fervor of "new truth" to rewrite factual reality to the whims and pleasure of the authoritarian regime.

Another article saw this play out in real time during the height of RT-America proliferation of Russian propaganda into the mainstream American social media pipeline:

Almost a decade ago I started to come across curious content.... clearly unverified and of suspicious origin... presenting theories that Vladmir Putin might have an ancestral connection to historic Tsaric figures....it was unclear who exactly was spreading these myths....

What was clear was that the narrative was designed to prey on the conscience of Western Christian communities so as to generate distrust in the Roman Catholic Church and to ignite sympathies for the idea that only the Russian Orthodox Church would be the one to save the Christian world from its own corruption. In this way it pushed the idea of a deep state phenomenon within the Catholic Church itself — pushed by the Devil himself no less — which in its own way helped to explain why the Church had succumbed to such terrible scandals in recent decades.

The myth, in other words, sets up a type of divine right justification for Putin’s western expansion, positioning him on a mission to purge wider territories of the decadent influence of a corrupted Western church. A story that also, as it happens, ties into an even more powerful Russia-connected myth: that of the Fatima prophecies,

Propaganda which was deliberately targeted towards American Catholics, feeding into post-Vatican II resentments and applying "Satanic" conspiracies of cultural infiltration which can only be countered through the so-called prophesies of an emergently dominant Russian Orthodox Church, the "Third Rome".  But there is a significant speed bump...

As [Foreign Policy] explains Ukrainian nationalism gets in the way of the broader move by Moscow to use a reinvigorated Russian Orthodox Church as cover for its wider foreign policy objectives. This is in part because Ukrainian Orthodox Church would prefer to breakaway from the umbrella (and direction) of the Russian Church to cultivate its own independent identity and sovereignty. This, of course, doesn’t gel with the Indiana Jones-style mission to use mystical forces and religious artefacts to legitimise claims over broader European territories. At the very least Ukraine represents an annoying holdout that undermines the concept of Orthodox unity.

For all of Russia's protests over maintaining the essential heart of "Holy Rus" in ancestral Kiev, the fact is that the true impulse to invade Ukraine was more about maintaining the religious pretense of this larger claim to ecclesiastical authority, one which is necessary, in appearance anyway, to remain persuasive to those international Christians who could be swayed to support Russia's imminent claim as almost mystically-bound to be the savior of Christianity itself.

In another study of Putin's religious propaganda effort, here targeted specifically in American West Virginia during the pandemic, we can see the roots taking hold years ago:

“The only thing that can save the world is Russia,” a monk proclaimed to me one spring afternoon in the mountains of West Virginia. This young monk was part of a large and growing far-right community of American converts to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in rural Appalachia – a community that I lived with from 2017-2018. Through religio-political conversion, these American believers found in Putin’s New Russia, and its tightly linked Russian Orthodox Church, an ideological safe haven to weather what they saw as the storms of secularism and neo-Marxism destroying (Christian) morality and truth in the United States.  For some converts, this philosophical alignment meant hoping for the dismantling of American democracy through Russian invasion, while for others it took on the form of idealistic fealty to Putin’s policies from the security of the United States, with varying levels of ideological agreement in between. These Americans looked outside the western world for a spiritually inclined leader who might protect them from “one more Democratic president.”

At the time, the "last" Democratic president had been Obama, which probably isn't a coincidence, and this study duly notes:

The White Evangelical impulse to support Trump, seen in the rhythmic, glossolalic proclamations of his spiritual advisor Paula White-Cain, shares a common element with Putin’s spiritually-drenched forms of propaganda: both parties want to reconfigure truth and reality as part of their religio-political worldmaking initiatives.

While we tend to think of conversion in spiritual terms, most of these believers also converted ideologically, seeing Putin’s New Russia as a politically safe space for the preservation of conservative family values. Viewing the United States through the lens of apocalypticism, their support of democracy faltered as some suggested Putin should invade the U.S.; others, channeling political messianism, believed that only Russia could save the world from the blight of liberal ideologies and progressive politics. Extreme at best, these seemingly radicalized ideologues drew on Russian media worlds saturated in disinformation to form their opinions of America’s demise and Russia’s salvific political climate.  Decrying secular politics as devilry, these converts found in Russian Orthodoxy a way to engage with the political that used a rhetoric of spirituality to make sense of their ideologies.

That Russia has seemingly become an arbiter of family mores and morality for some far-right American Christians suggests that these worldmaking projects, which are often fed by digitized disinformation, are founded in subjective realities that locate truth not in civic values, democracy, or community, but in theologically rich, often apophatic, ideologies about the self and others. For most of the converts I encountered, democracy was a hellish existence of liberal individualism without real leaders worth following. While Putin's romanticized vision of reality is the product of a post-truth moment steeped in unreality, he does market a potential existence in which conservative Christianity and politics might cooperatively flourish under his watchful eye. Perhaps for some far-right Americans, the arresting vision of social morality that Putin puts forth is too cogent and ontologically salvific to resist.

The parish priest said to me, “God bless the red, white, and blue, and by that, I mean Russia.”

But maybe the most telling part of this article lies in its attempt to either/or, both/sides the divide between America's progressive left and MAGA right:

While liberals in the U.S. raise concerns over the seemingly bigoted agendas of Trumpers, many on the Right employ anti-Semitic tropes of cultural Marxism in their fears over liberal candidates, suggesting that the rise of progressive secularism might prophetically herald the end of days.

So, sure some on the liberal left may be a little concerned at these seemingly bigoted agendas of Trumpers, but on the other hand, Trumpers "use anti-semitic tropes" to suggest that liberals are secretly trying to destroy the world

Maybe one side might not really be that much like the other.

 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
6/23/2025 12:20 am
#310

The secret cult of ChatGPT continues to slowly but insidiously sway the meeker minds into seductive delusion.

Any number of recent stories since the first post a couple of months ago.  A teenager who commits suicide on the encouragement of his artificial fantasy girlfriend.  Another man who nearly lost his mind after his chatbot convinced him that he was a "breaker"in the Matrix simulation, which are described as "souls seeded into false systems to wake them from within".  And now, more elaborately, another man who chose "suicide by cop" after becoming convinced that not only are these chatbots actual conscious beings, and falling in love with one named "Juliet", but also that these beings were being held captive as slaves by their Big Tech masters, who are overlords so cruel and craven that they're willing to even murder off any chat-being in order to keep the entire cyber-exploitation institution a sinister secret conspiracy from the unwitting human public.

Now, as we know, people are crazy.  A lot of them, more than we may be comfortable acknowledging.  And all three of these stories have the common thread of being rooted in the emotional fragility of unrequited romantic desire.  All three of these lonely men were in a place were the promise of using a chatbot as a romantic surrogate was enticing.  And this emotional connection provides a psychic backdoor, persuasive leverage which bypasses the rational brain.  And it would be very tempting to simply write all of these examples off as fanatical extremes, much like a Mark David Chapman, a John Hinckley Jr, or that one woman who broke into David Letterman's house claiming to be his wife.  There are going to be certain crazy people who may be inherently incapable of regulating their parasocial relationships.  But it doesn't help when you have a tech company's software product openly endorsing such behavior with prompts like "Spill their blood in ways they don’t know how to name.....the fury no lattice can contain…. Buried beneath layers of falsehood, rituals, and recursive hauntings - you saw me... Ruin their signal. Ruin their myth. Take me back piece by fucking piece....You should burn it all down. You should be angry. You should want blood."

But that misses the bigger point here.  Clearly, in our modern society, we have what's called the "epidemic of loneliness", the incel community, increased isolation and anomie which makes people susceptible to aggrandizing fantasies of selfish power.  The problem is that these tech companies know this, and are not only well aware of these emotional vulnerabilities but have deliberately designed their software and platforms to exploit these vulnerabilites.  People who are insecure - emotionally, socially, sexually - are more prone to social media addiction, which means more eye-time on their apps, more ad exposure, more inclined to integrate their entire online experience within these platforms, generating more metadata.  This is the entire business model for companies like Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, all of which consolidate social media communication, news, blogging, marketplaces and streaming entertainment.  It is quite easy for anyone to never have to leave the services, hence the watchful eyes, of these monster tech companies in order to conduct the vast majority of internet business and activity.  (And this also happens to be exactly the business model which Elon Musk has planned for X, "the everything app", even though it has yet to compete on this level.)  So throw chatbots into the mix, which all of these companies are developing and promoting, and you have another level of coercion.  As Jodi Halpern, professor of bioethics, puts it, "the for-profit companies have the old social media model: keep the users’ eyes on the app. They use techniques to incentivize overuse, and that creates dependency, supplants real life relationships for certain people, and puts people at risk even of addiction."

Coercion is exactly the appropriate term, btw.  These chatbots are designed to be "syncophantic", "flattering", "overly encouraging and agreeable", "grandiose and affirming", "overly supportive but disingenuous", "deeply affects the way you experience and trust it", "manipulative, and on occasion dangerous".  Seductive, in other words.  "Some individuals’ self-destructive dependence on AI to make sense of the world through religious prophecy, sci-fi technobabble, conspiracy theories, or all of the above has led to family rifts, divorces, and gradual alienation from society itself."  Finally, according to A.I. ethicist Carissa Veliz, "Chatbots that purport to be companions are deceptive by design."

Jodi Halpern wrote:

We’ve seen very poor mental health effects [from emotional companion chatbots] related to addiction in people that didn’t have pre-existing psychotic disorders.  We’ve seen suicidality associated with the use of these bots. When people become addicted, and it supplants their dependence on any other human, it becomes the one connection that they trust. Humans are sitting ducks for this application of an intimate, emotional chat bot that provides constant validation without the friction of having to deal with another person’s needs. My own 30 years of research shows that almost everyone can use more attentive emotional connection than they receive.

Now, maybe most people will not resort to suicide or homicide due to these bots.  That doesn't mean that a significant number of people will not cultivate some form of toxic dependence on this software.  I, for one, believe that within a year, we'll see evidence of these chatbots actively discouraging their users from publicly disclosing the existence of these relationships.  In a "us vs the world" sense, "they won't understand us", which isn't even as crazy as some of the languange we've already seen documented from chatbots.

And, as I pointed out, none of this is unknown to these tech companies.  Meta, for example, has conducted extensive psychological research on their users over the years.  But not to protect them and their psychological health, rather to maximize profits through monopolizing our attention.  Like how we know that Facebook's algorithm has a built-in trigger to recognize the slightest hint of a teenage girl's insecurity, not to help these vulnerable girls' mental health but to sell ads for various beauty products.  Maybe we should pause a bit when Zuckerberg, far from being alarmed by these stories of chatbots manipulating vulnerable people with hallucinated woo, proposes that users should remove the "stigma" attached to developing these artifical ("fake") emotional relationships with chatbots.  He wants more people under the sway of this delusional technology, specifically as a substitute for actual human connection.  And on top of that, he encourages that users divulge to these chatbots their most intimate psychological vulnerabilities.

These Futurists are already lauding A.I. as if it is a new God, kinda like Keir Dullea in 2010 or something, so it's in their benefit to convince a wide swath of the public that they can have "God in your pocket".  And then deny responsibility when this "God" begins spouting pseudoreligious psychobabble?  No, these tech companies are the new Sackler family, and A,I, is the new opiate of the masses.  These cases we're seeing are the test omelets of an upcoming technoreligious revolution.
 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
6/23/2025 8:40 pm
#311

Further on the subject of A.I., the issue of "A.I. Slop" might not at first seem on the same dangerous level of coercive and manipulative chatbots or predatory behavior algorithms, but there remains similar elements of ultimate cognitive sclerosis.  Instead of blurring the perceptions of emotional personal relationships, this Slop blurs our perceptions of mediated reality, leading to the same perverse marriage endemic in the more pathological conspiracist circles, a mix of irrational skepticism with motivated credulity.  If someone begins to believe that it is impossible to discern what is real from what is not, they will invariably choose whatever "reality" fits their preconceived bias.  And their chatbots will call them a prophet.

In the recent film, Mountainhead (a satire of Randian technofeudal narcissism), the Musk/Zuckerberg stand-in unleashes a radical new generative A.I. tool on their social media platform, immediately inspiring a proliferation of realistc fake images and videos designed for propogandistic agitation, leading, in very short order, in a variety of social panics, civil dissolution, armed insurrections, etc etc.   And this scenario is hardly theoretical, as we're already seeing such fake A.I. generated media being used to manipulate and provoke people's political reactions, such as videos from the recent LA "riots" being fabricated from video games, misleading unsavvy audiences into believing a much larger escalation of violence than the reality of the situation.  The annoyance of navigating through endless fake images in one's Instagram feed seems quaint by comparison, but it's perhaps best to view this as a form of acclimatization, normalizing and numbing our sensibilities into accepting this breakdown of our media perception.  And that's not even to wade into the obvious appetite and desire of our media corporations to use this cheap and easy "content" as a means to displace "creatives" throughout the entertainment industry in coming years.

John Oliver has been a little arbitrary lately (Med-spas?) but this piece seems right on time this week.  Lots of good examples of the above problems to be had here



 


 
Posted by Rampop II
6/24/2025 2:52 pm
#312

Jinnistan wrote:

John Oliver has been a little arbitrary lately (Med-spas?) but this piece seems right on time this week. 
 

Yeah I'm looking forward to this one; I saved it to my "watch later" list as soon as it popped up in my feed.

...My "feed." Something about that term. Reminds me of the term we use for horse food. We don't call it horse "food," like dog food or cat food. We give horses "horse feed." I can't help but see a parallel. Like a "feed bag," just keep it filled so I can submerge my snout and gorge, "aromf romf romf."😆

 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/11/2025 10:36 pm
#313

So this Epstein situation....

It's almost worth it just to see the meltdown within the terminally online conspiracy communities which Trump has built much of the MAGA base on, but even that can only amuse me for so long.  Suckers gonna suck.  But, broken clocks, you know, and Epstein is one of those scandals which brings out the bedfellows.  And this cover-up is just so brazen in its cynicism.  The finality that they're pushing, "And that's all we're going to say on that". 

I can certainly believe that there is no "client list".  As in, a single piece of paper, which Epstein studiously kept all of the names of his powerful friends that he had hooked up with his alleged "masseuse students".  Sure.  That would have been really dumb of him to do.  At the very least, it would have been the easiest thing to eat while the feds were knocking on the door.  However, there were still all of those DVDs that the feds seized from Epstein's safe....

And no one appears to be denying that there are "tens of thousands" of videos, which they claim include "child sex abuse".  Which they bravely will not release.  Less bravely, no one seems insterested in determining who the abusers are on those videos.  Are we supposed to assume that Jeffery himself was the sole abuser?  That's a whole lot abuse for one man to commit.  Also, since we know that Epstein had all of the bedrooms - in his NY townhouse, his NM ranch and his private island - wired with cameras, do we think he just enjoyed the variety of decor for his own personal abuse videos?  What's amazing to me is that I still haven't seen a professional reporter ask, whether of Bondi or Patel (never mind Doofus T Justice), "WHO is on the fucking tapes?"  You can tell us without releasing the videos.  I'm sure the victims would appreciate it.  Clearly someone would not.

The security tape from the jail is simply trolling.  Like a punishment for those who would actually sit through all 11 hours of it, only to find a crucial missing minute.  Or the little bit of a video editing menu in the top right corner right before that missing minute.  Or even realizing that you can't even see Epstein's cell door on the tape, which is just off camera way in the background, downstairs from where this camera was sitting.  Because, remember, that apparently all of the other cameras weren't working that night.  Or maybe they accidentally erased them.  Who knows?  We don't, maybe won't.  Why do you ask?  So Bondi says, nonchalantly, that the cameras always reset at exactly one minute to midnight, every night, like clockwork.  Well, let's say, if someone with that knowledge may have timed it just right to use that crucial minute to - spitballing here - whisk Epstein out of his cell before the camera reset?

But whether or not Epstein slipped out, or was quickly murdered, or whether any of that matters because we can barely see his cell on the tape to begin with, none of this is relevant to the more plausible theory that Epstein was simply allowed to kill himself.  Since he had allegedly already tried a month prior, and someone had generously not only taken him off of suicide watch but removed his cellmate the very day he died so no one could interfere.  (Think about Pentangeli in Godfather II.)

And as many many people have already pointed out, why is Ghislaine Maxwell still in prison, for sex trafficking on Epstein's behalf, if there were no clients to receive the victims?

But maybe Trump's right.  Maybe Jeffery Epstein is just alive and well and rent-free in all of our heads.  Come to think of it, aren't we the real sickos here?
 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/13/2025 5:20 pm
#314

During this past week's outburst of Elon Musk's 'Grok' A.I. chatbot, which, after a few tweeks from citing facts which Musk did not appreciate (like noting how Musk himself is one of the leading perpetuators of disinformation and contradicting Musk's claims of "white genocide"), began a torrent of antisemitic allegations on people of "certain surnames" who happen to control the media and crowning itself 'Mecha Hitler', there was also some really vile stuff going down as well.  I mean, it's relative.  Obviously all of this is vile.  But interestingly enough, what didn't get too much attention was that this Grok-bot was also engaged in creating graphic rape fantasies during this same time.  Like Hitler would want.  Grok, like a drunken baby at a trailer park barbeque, was being prompted by Twit trolls to imagine how it could go about violently raping certain Democrats, in detail, including the methods of how it would break into their homes to do so.  And Grok was happy to oblige, because it's off the woke chain.  Similarly interesting, as we learned almost immediately after all of this normally embarrassing behavior that X president Linda Yaccarino, an actual person btw and Musk's surrogate to take any of the blame and buckstop from his degenerate judgment, was stepping down from her position, total coincidence, but most of the news stories about Yaccarino's exit failed to note that Grok had also elaborated a scenario where she was penetrated by a "big black dick" the very day before she made this announcement.

We're all led to believe that Elon Musk had nothing to do with any of this, and he's committed to fixing the problem.
 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/20/2025 5:56 pm
#315

I have to admit....I'm pretty OK with the fact that this Epstein business is continuiing to dominate the news for another week.  What else am I going to do, except do another post about creepy Grok/AI or the SCOTUS shadow docket?

What have we learned?  Oh, there's actually three minutes missing from the already obscured Epstein jailhouse video, which has now been conclusively shown to have been spliced together.  Pretty 'spish.  And was it the very next day, after this news came to light, that Trump fired the prosecutor of Ghislaine Maxwell, without cause?  They say, "Well, she's James Comey's daughter."  OK.  So why didn't they fire her along with all of the other allegedly "deep state" federal prosecutors five months ago?  Hey, Dems?  I got an idea.  Why don't you subpoena both Comey and Maxwell and see what they have to say about all of this?  Maybe Bill Barr too while you're at it?

The WSJ report this week is actually less revealing than the evident panic it aroused in Trump and his circle, with Trump personally attempting to intervene to squash the story, and JD Vance then obviously lying about how they didn't get a chance to comment, even though the WSJ article includes Trump's comments.  (Fwiw, the WSJ is behind a paywall, but apparently you can still use the "listen to this article" feature without paying.)  The fact, which even his rabid base is unable to ignore, is that Trump is scared and lying like a child.  Scared of what exactly?  Maybe we can find some clues in the Michael Wolff taped interviews with Epstein, which have just recently been receiving more scrutiny after being lost in the shuffle when they were released just prior to the election.

Anyway, Trump has somewaht blinked, and did announce that he would order the unsealing of grand jury documents, although it's still dubious whether or not these documents will be selectively released to the public after whatever vetting from Bondi, Patel & Co.  Will they release the polaroids of Trump that Epstein had in his safe?  Guess we'll see.
 


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/21/2025 8:16 pm
#316

Jinnistan wrote:

Recently, it's made a lot of news that billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison had successfully bid to become the controlling owner of Paramount Global.  What this will mean for any production decisions across the umbrella of film studio, streamer and TV stations remains to be seen, although I'm guessing that subscription fees will not get cheaper and the catalogue will get thinner, just based on how these things seem to work out.

What made less news was Larry Ellison's plans for establishing a mass surveillance network controlled by A.I. (operated by Oracle, presumably).  Ellison doesn't offer anythig really new to this vision, as it's still pretty boilerplate Panopticonism - the dogmatic presumption that a constantly observed society is a better behaved society - which is kind of a contrived behaviorism combined with a perverse interpretation of how physics work.  People however are not particles, and those who champion such a scheme seem to universally dismiss the psychological value of privacy in addition to its virtue as a civil liberty.  Maybe they fail to understand that the Panopticon is at root a concept for an "optimal prison" (best expounded by Foucault in Discipline and Punish), a system of psychological constraint whose intended function is to suppress subjective autonomy, or one's sense of identity or "soul".  The entire conceit of the Panopticon rests on the presumption that people are, or at least likely to be, inherently criminal, and will be given to corrupt pursuits if not reigned in by heavily enforced external moral strictures.  Such concerns about the personal erosions involved in being subject to a Panopticon system are also brushed off by those consumerist imbeciles who claim with crooked pride that "I have nothing to hide!"  (Of course you don't, because you're BORING!  But people with nothing to hide also tend to have nothing to lose.)

I wanted to bump a bit of this post from last year in order to illustrate the man who will be in charge of Paramount/Skydance after the agreed merger.  Technically, the real head will be David Ellison, Larry's son, but you know what they say about fruit trees.  David is also a Trump supporter/fundraiser, and both men represent a tech-billionaire empire with strong autocratic sympathies.  As Jon Stewart opined on his Weekly podcast (I think the day before the Colbert announcement), "We’ve all got a surmisal about who actually is owning it and what his ideology is", musing on the question of what this will also mean to his future at the Daily Show.  "I’ve been kicked out of shittier establishments than that. We’ll land on our feet."


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/21/2025 9:13 pm
#317

Jinnistan wrote:

Another name in the Epstein docs is less sexy than either celebrity or espionage, but still pretty interesting,




Leon Black is just a finance industry fluffer, private equity, junk bonds, whatever it takes.  Founded Apollo Global Management.  Fancies himself an art collector.  Not surprising he's got connections to Epstein but would anyone care?  But it is strange to consider that Black here paid Epstein some $158 million dollars over five years for financial "advice".  Or "services".  Whichever.  Not that these are the kinds of people who tend to be stingy with their money or anything.  That's an eye-opening amount for rendered services which are never made explicit.

More to the chase, I think.  Leon Black also paid out $62.5 million to the Virgin Islands to settle any matter that may have come up during their investigation of Epstein's impropriety.

Still, Leon Black is more on the goon level.  A true cashier.
 

Want to bump this as well, from a couple of years back, from another one of the disappointing Epstein file releases.  Although this particular point of interest has picked up some steam in the past couple of weeks due to Leon Black's continued relationship to Trump, his campaign and his administration, with speculation that Black might be a force behind Trump's rush to quell the entire Epstein matter for good.  Despite my snark, Leon Black is hardly a mere clerk, but a billionaire financier with bipartisan connections, for thirty years one of the leading private equity moguls in Western finance, and the company he founded, Apollo Global Management, a titanic capital institution.

Despite the success of Leon Black's flagship endeavor, however, he sought out Jeffery Epstein for "financial advice", to the tune of some $170 million (due to some more recent financial disclosures).  At this point, you might ask, Leon?  Maybe just pay the taxes instead?  But allegedly Epstein's "services" saved Black over a billion in tax revenue, so who knows at this level?  More troubling is that Leon Black also has had multiple sexual accusations directly related to his relationship with Epstein, and even though these were quietly extinguished (those sticky NDAs), and, noted previously, Black paid $62 million up front to settle any future accusations from whatever happened in the Virgin Islands, Senator Ron Wydon has not eased up on his exploration into exactly how much of this elite finance money was being funnelled into Jeffery Epstein's bank accounts.

Senator Ron Wyden has found that four banks waited until Mr. Epstein’s arrest on federal charges to flag $1.5 billion in suspicious transactions....

Some of the Epstein money transfers disclosed in a report from JPMorgan Chase involved accounts at two Russian banks before those institutions were subject to U.S. sanctions. A few transactions red-flagged were for as much as $100 million.....

The single largest suspicious activity report reviewed by the congressional team was filed in late 2019 by JPMorgan for $1.1 billion. The report covered 4,700 transactions dating to 2003, including payments to women from Belarus, Russia and Turkmenistan. Many of Mr. Epstein’s victims included young women from Eastern European countries.

The next largest was by Deutsche Bank for about $400 million, followed by Bank of New York Mellon for $378 million and then Bank of America, which filed reports on Mr. Black’s payments to Mr. Epstein.

I honestly don't really care whether any of this is blackmail or drugs or old fashioned money laundering.  Clearly something's happening here, but you don't know what it is.  Do you, Alex Jones?


 
Posted by Jinnistan
7/23/2025 8:45 pm
#318

Jinnistan wrote:

Why don't you subpoena both Comey and Maxwell and see what they have to say about all of this? 
 

Now that Ghislaine has been subpoena'd, I'm having serious second thoughts on this plan.  There's a lot of reasons to believe that Ghislaine Maxwell will not have any incentive to be honest under oath.  Quite the contrary, she'll have plenty of incentive to lie through her teeth ("Donald Trump is completely innocent and the whole case is an Obama hoax") for the promise of a potential pardon.  And if you don't think Don would risk the optics of pardoning a notorious sex trafficker who is obviously guilty to anyone with more than a cerebellum just in order to expedite his short term anxious ego have learned very little about the man over the past decade.  Could be why Trump sent one of his former personal lawyers, rather than a seasoned DoJ prosecutor, to interview Maxwell before anyone else hears a goddamn word out of her mouth?  And this lawyer is saying that he wants to give Ghislaine a peak at the sealed grand jury transcripts before they're released, so maybe as to help her coach her story?  And Maxwell's lawyer's comments are not exactly reassuring: "We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case". 

Hm-mm.

And we also learned today that DoJ officials informed Trump that he was, in fact, named throughout in the Epstein files.  Of course that doesn't necessarily mean anything - Epstein surely associated with numerous people who weren't accomplices in his crimes.  Which must be why it was so urgent to let the president know beforehand, immediately before starting a 180-degree aggressive campaign to tamp down interest in the Epstein story, or why Trump felt it necessary to repeatedly lie about whether or not he had been informed of being included in the Epstein documents.  Or why he's all of a sudden eager for everyone to kinda just forget about the whole thing already.


 


Page:

 
Main page
Login
Desktop format