Socialistic conditioning: In (former) Soviet Russia you’ll be fine as long as you don't try to succeed.

правда в конкурсе

The Crazy Sociology Experiment Buried in a Russian Game Show | Cracked.com: As noted in Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behaviour, contestants on the Russian version of the show quickly became wary of asking the audience anything, because they'd almost always give the wrong answer. You may assume that this is the result of a government health agenda built around the regular consumption of vodka, but you're wrong. As it turns out, it's believed that Russian audiences would intentionally try to sabotage contestants on the show.

See, historically in Russia, everyone in a given community was expected to pitch in; everyone was expected to suffer and to help out. Minor favors like the borrowing of matches, money, and supplies weren't just common, they were expected. However, this collective sense of entitlement meant that anyone who stood out or attempted to make it on his own was immediately shunned and the favors that were once commonplace became nonexistent. For the record, this is the very definition of standing out:

Reality shows and game shows are meant to be a sublimated version of the Roman Circus. Viewers vent out their resentments and lash them out at “those who are going to die, Caesar.” But while some people are patiently (or eagerly) waiting for Richard Bachman’s “The Running Man” to come true, it might be helpful for us to notice that the dystopia is already with us.

There’s no need to talk about “Fear Factor”, even a bland, innocuous show like the Russian version “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” can show us how decades of communism can grind the collective will down. In Soviet Russia, they don’t celebrate your success; they loathe it intensely and try to sabotage it with all their might.

You’ll be fine as long as you don’t try to stand out from the collective.

Related articles

• Socialistic conditioning: In (former) Soviet Russia you'll be fine as long as you don't try to succeed.

Dr. Taylor's (Mis)perception

Aaaaaaaaagh! Not again! Here comes Paul Maršić in an angry mood! Well, you have been warned! Now, ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, sipmacrants! presents a rancid and bloated rant against

Dr. Taylor's (Mis)perception

Well, you might think I'm wasting my time again, stubbornly going against the most powerful blog in the world. Talk about tilting at windmills, Don Quixote! Gee, that's an interesting choice of words, I will show you why in this post.

Today I was reading something that caught my attention: An opinion piece written by Dr. Jim Taylor, a psychologist with all the imagined (and well deserved, I suppose) credentials, but with a flawed criterion. I really took my time reading it and then I began to write my rebuttal and hesitated because, according to his website, Dr. Taylor is:

A former alpine ski racer who competed internationally, Dr. Taylor is also a 2nd degree black belt and certified instructor in karate, a marathon runner, and an Ironman triathlete.

Then I thought, what the heck! You're already messing with the Huffington Post! Go ahead and keep tilting at another windmill, too!

In a nutshell, this is what Dr. Taylor wrote:

1. There is a climate of of mistrust, anger, and polarization that made the last decade one of the most tumultuous and divisive ones in U.S. history. It wasn't only what happened in this decade, which was grim enough, there was something else aggravating everything.
2. Looking for clues, he found that the culprit common denominator was information, i.e., biased information, or just plain misinformation.
3. That means there is no more reliable news sources to be found. In his own words "These days, you can't find "fair and balanced" news anywhere. Too much information these days is tainted with an agenda, whether political, religious, economic, or some other."
4. To solve this, Dr. Taylor wishes for "the U.S. federal government creating a Department of Information whose responsibility would be to determine the facts behind any decision that confronts [America]."

As a matter of fact, I can easily agree with points nr. 1 and 3, somewhat agree with the oversimplificating point nr. 2, but I could never agree with his proposal expressed almost verbatim in point nr. 4. As a further matter of fact, Dr. Taylor later states that "[He] know[s] what [we are] thinking: This sounds like something that belongs in a totalitarian regime."

In my case, he's completely right. For starters, Nazi Germany had the pompous named "Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda", lead by none other than Joseph Göbbels. But wait, there's more! The former Soviet Union had its information flow strictly controlled by the state, with creepy tragicomical results. Is this what Dr. Taylor is yearning for? Apparently yes, because he promptly elaborates

"But the reality is that someone has to decide on what is factual and what is not. So who can we trust to give us the most accurate information available? Big Business? Traditional media? The blogosphere? I certainly wouldn't trust any of them. Though our government is far from perfect, it does exist, at least in theory, to serve the best interests of the American people."

Again, sorry Dr. Taylor, but you're deadly wrong. Don't you see that giving the state the control of the information ends with the state trying (and achieving) the very thing you're trying to avoid? History is too full of examples to ignore this, your ironic tone is no justification for your ill-conceived proposal.

And still there's more! Reading your article closely, anybody can realize your bias: according to you, anybody with a conservative leaning simply can't face reality, and isn't facing reality for sure. For instance, the tea party may have never realized that the healthcare reform financial projections might be flawed. No, that can't be true. Maybe conservatism is a mental disorder, you might add. I'm sure it was really so in the Soviet Union. "The facts of life are conservative", said Margaret Thatcher. No wonder she and the very conservative Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer (note: please don't miss my sarcastic tone).

Because of this, I will never buy your good intentions when you stated that:

This post is directed toward to everyone else, those who, whether a Republican or Democrat, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist, environmentalist or industrialist, socialist or capitalist, are reasonable people who believe that truth should trump ideology, who are interested in separating fact from fiction, and want to know both sides of an issue before forming thoughtful and well-supported opinions.

Well, there is just one more thing: maybe the solution you are looking for comes from the very freedom of expression right. The problem is that you wrote in a very patronizing mode, you think that the rest of the people is gullible and can't figure out the truth by reading all the lies. It is amazing to find the parallels between Don Quixotte and 1984. In both works the main characters defend the truth but are found insane by their societies. Their respective supporting characters are down-to-earth persons, better adjusted to "the reality", but incapable and unwilling of comprehending the "big picture." Your curriculum vitae might be impressive,

I'm only Paul Maršić, but I will nevertheless keep tilting at windmills.

The Matrix as a Totalitarian Government Parable (A short and sloppy and improvised essay)

By Dr. sipmac

When a modern media production becomes a huge success with a huge fanbase, anything can happen. That anything means “on the verge of becoming a (major) religion”. Futurama has already toyed with the idea before lampooning the cult-like following of Star Trek and Star Wars (Where No Fan Has Gone Before, Episode 411). Now, enter The Matrix, that world described as “Harry Potter with guns”, where the cool women wear leather form head to toes, the remedy of ignorance is immediately downloadable and the illuminati barely conceal the contempt they have for those sheep-like bluepills, the way a politician fights for the people’s rights.

Alright, alright. What I said is not true. Neo and his dark-glassed combo are supposed to fight the evil machines (and computer programs that operates them) and free the humanity, but the fight does have a lot of “collateral-damage”, as seen in the highway scene. Looks like they have to destroy the village in order to save it. I can’t remember if it was Orwell who said that “a war must be fought brutally or not fought at all”. And what the humans do (at least in the simulated reality) looks like a guerilla war.

And, if humans are guerrilla, WHAT IS THE MATRIX? Glad you asked. The Matrix is the perfect allegory of a perfect totalitarian state, Ingsoc with an not-human Big Brother: The matrix takes all the decisions for its inhabitants: The matrix decides how and when to feed you. Everybody eats at the same Soylent Green by imposition (in a true egalitarian way), and if necessary, it could trick you into believing you’re eating something when you aren’t eating nothing, just by twitching your brain circuits. The matrix provides a nice cubicle (cell) where you live and die while believing you live in the open. It gives you the illusion of freedom and well-being while you’re “thriving” in slavery and misery. The Matrix controls every single aspect of your live while giving the illusion of self-determination we expect form a normal human being. The first act of freedom of a redpill is choosing an alias for hacking. It becomes their real name when freed.

It is curious that people in Russia, when they saw the movie for the first time, they saw as an praise of communism. Not even ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and still blindfolded…

Related articles

• Everything Is A Remix: The Matrix (neatorama.com)
• Insightful Video Breaks Down The Matrix's Inspirations (wired.com)
• Totalitarian Collectivism (anationbeguiled.wordpress.com)
• A Retelling of The Matrix by Christian C. Berry (writingrhetoric.wordpress.com)
• Everything Is A Remix: The Matrix (freethoughtblogs.com)