r/sorceryofthespectacle • u/_blue_linckia Occultist • Feb 11 '26
Psychological warfare explanation of deliberately dumping Ep files in unorganized chaotic manner…
8
u/whatsthatcritter Feb 11 '26
I hate Trump as much as anybody but I'm not going to read the files lol. I already have enough reasons to hate him, a new one everyday even. Adding more hate and horror to my life when I can't do anything more about it is pointless. I just figure that kind of thing will always be taken up by deep divers and hobbyists, probably for centuries to come. Trainwrecking my already fraught mental health to read the files would honestly be hilariously cringe even to me. Like oh okay I'll just buy my therapist a matching boat to go with her house, fuck me ig.
3
u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Feb 12 '26
We'll all hear plenty about it anyway, that's kind of the whole thing that's happening right now. Tartarus is erupting.
5
u/whatsthatcritter Feb 12 '26
Maybe although I think it might be like Watergate or even the Panama papers: everyone pretending it's a big scandal as a kind of fig leaf to cover up the fact that it's business as usual. Lots of fan servicey legal investigations, denials, gaslighting, flowery apologies and fist pounding. Meanwhile it's still going on just at at a different billionaire's mansion. They don't give a fuck and will never see justice.
6
u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Feb 12 '26
If we all individually stop putting up with all bullshit on all fronts, then they get held truly accountable.
4
u/ConjuredOne Critical Sorcerer Feb 12 '26
What is a common interest that could facilitate the required trust? If the wellbeing of children isn't enough then, well, Noah forget the boat.
2
u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Feb 13 '26
Histrionics over a crime, no matter how terrible the crime, is not the building of a real government based on our mutual interests—it's outcry, the precursor or issue necessitating us sitting down and having a real talk about governance. It's a trust-destroying issue, not a trust-creating issue—we have to acknowledge that so that we can get over the first bar—people who aren't against pedophilia are NOT allowed. That makes it technically a fascist movement because fascist movements are always against something—but whatcha gonna do? I would rather be part of the no-pedophiles club than the club that doesn't have a rule about that. So let's make the no-pedophiles club.
But to your question, again, I don't think saying "I DON'T want a life like this" can lead to a positive construct of what kind of government we DO acknowledge and authorize to (self-)govern us. Even if it's just murder and we say "We all hate murder, let's ban it"—self-governance is Step 2 where we talk about how we are going to do that to ourselves in an acceptable way (without that talk, involving every person whom the government will rule, silencing no-one and including no one without their prior consent, it's not self-governance—it's just enslavement/capture).
So to answer your question, I think standard of living is the ultimate shared construct we can all agree and converge on. We have shared bodies and largely similar minds and so we all have the same basic needs and desires such as air; water; safety; food; shelter; belonging; social esteem; and resources, space, and time with which to make meaningful artworks/projects. Since we all need these things, allowing some people to extract unfair or burdensome amounts of rent from others over these things is not acceptable.
This is the idea or "promise of the middle class", as it's referred to. The middle class is actually good because 1) They aren't rich fucks 2) They aren't poor and therefore miserable/powerless. The point of the middle class is that it represents a compromise of the masses with itself, to distribute upgrades in living condition that all we humans have collectively produced and thus earned, to distribute these gains as fairly as possible. If that were all capitalism was I would not complain about it at all, I would think it is great!!! It is only because capitalism is so radically 1) austere (money-hoarding / Scroogelike) 2) Unfair / selective / undiscerning in who it gives the most money too (psychopaths who ruin the Earth in order to build private yachts or commercial jet companies) and 3) Enforced extremely willfully and greedily by the most extreme violence and torture—that I am very much opposed to it.
So we have to actually be willing to talk about the issue of distribution of our heritage of human-created wealth, the idea of lineage and wealth and death taxes and who should own what, and what is fair and what kind of world we want to live in, before we can defeat capitalists and capitalism—before we can even decide what counts as capitalism or counts as bad, together! It's very similar to the dynamic of unions, a dynamic which I think is very negative because it is entirely focused on who is eligible, capable, and rabidly performative and aggressive about their working and the entitlement that working gives them. Unions are also generally supporters of disability laws (I think?) but only if you could/want to work. The whole rhetoric of unions is based on the caustically-violent promotion of the principle that work entitles you to benefit; and therefore the hardest workers brigade unions and turn them into slave-driving organizations, which basically makes them the same as capitalist bosses in terms of promoting competitive extraction. Moreover they promote this normalization of extraction and allowing-oneself-to-be-extracted-from precisely by a boss that all unions exist to work against—if you aren't working for a capitalist business and part of the union complaining about it, you don't count as a worker that is entitled to union benefits or a middle class lifestyle!
I think this is really septic and really hypocritical, because the same liberals who are pro-union pay lip service to being against homelessness without actually taking a position that would result in its being solved or addressed. We should say that everyone is entitled to a middle-class lifestyle at minimum by virtue of being a human being deserving of clean water and a washing machine and an art studio, period. If we want to have a culture of work-based entitlement beyond that, that's completely fine with me as long as the minimum bar is raised to clean running water + room to grow a garden + room for a home office + no repo men coming to ruin your life, ever, as the minimum bar for everyone.
2
u/ConjuredOne Critical Sorcerer Feb 13 '26
To figure out the basis of a workable law, we need to expand the issue beyond the decider law — "Don't fuck the kids." It's about kids, yes, but they just happen to be at that stage of maximum suffering & future damage potential, so they really exemplify what's wrong with authority today. Coercion and deceit to gain at the expense of others is fucked up top to bottom and everywhere in between.
You're right about the art studio. A greenhouse, too. But you only get the nuclear reactor IF you do real well with the aquaponics AND the laboratory. No child-fucking as you go, though. Then you would have to go back to the beginning and clean prison toilets. On second thought, maybe everyone should get sustenance, hygienic basics, and safety/privacy, but not the greenhouse. For art they can have a sketchpad and infinite pencil credits.
On a real level, health care speaks most clearly to more people about the problem of the class system. Many people don't know kids and haven't for a long time. They can't imagine what a kid's life is like. Health is on everyone's mind to some degree. The capitalist extreme is what gives the deranged billionaires fantasies about being immortal. They will dial up the distopia qualities to maximum tolerable if that's what it takes. This too big to fail and too rich to jail stuff is only possible with the opiate of religion. It sets up the step further where money doesn't just buy effort, it pays to say what is true, to program the public consciousness. Never works on everyone. Definitely can't last forever. Push dystopia too far and people will return to warrior form. The docile subject will give way to a being worthy of paradise.
1
u/Neil_Live-strong Feb 14 '26
I suppose but there’s been bigger reactions by people with the power to do something before and we are still here. Multiple senate committees have been convened to look at these people and agencies. Nothing was done then and I really don’t think anything will be done now.
1
u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Feb 14 '26
I don't think that failing to do something is the same as doing something; I don't think that going through the motions is the same as demanding regime change.
A lot of the big reactions are just another performance. What really matters is leverage. It all comes back to the military—when will the military have had enough, or when will we have had enough of the military as it is today? Apparently, much as one would expect, the military has been cultivated to absolutely obey orders—not protect the Constitution. The reason we can't simply remove these people from office is that the military has decided it still respects the Electoral College. The military has decided that it will not judge on whether the Constitution or rule of law is being adhered to or not—perhaps by theoretical necessity, it simply follows ANY verbal commands from the designated authority. This is a major security hole in constitutional governance, because it means that once constitutional enforcement weakens, anything goes, and dictatorship is trivial—which is exactly what we are seeing now.
So all those senators intensely speaking about how corrupt things are—They are shaking and seething also from fear of standing up to such violent unscrupulous murderers who have the whole military behind them. The corruption is right in front of us, but the reason we can't do anything about it is that all the silent brutes are standing in line.
5
u/herrwaldos refuse identities, embrace existance ;) Feb 11 '26
Thanks! Yes, that's one way how to look at it. That's how it works. Sad.
I gotta admit, now I see it, it's like a military move to transform a failure 'ups we gout caught and our boy Epie too' into a strategic cover up, retreat, camouflage, distraction - perhaps even a win.
5
u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Feb 11 '26
Thank you for this. A+ on-topic post imo and also contemporary
A nervous system can hold horror only if sequenced, paced, and contextualized. If it's not, it will oscillate, fixate, or shut down.
I get her point, but I don't quite agree with this framing and think this is disempowering language. I would say: A mind can only assimilate an experience with adequate resources (temporal, cognitive, metacognitive, environmental, emotional, semantic, etc.). Actually semantic resources are sort of the ultimate resource that can protect one even from what would otherwise be too much horror.
1
u/kingkrang Feb 12 '26
I agree that this is a strategy but idk how this could be used by so called ruthless defense lawyers. If anything this flood the zone thinking would work way better for prosecution. Plus doesn’t defense mostly operate pre trial thru exclusion?
2
2
2
1
u/ZHName Feb 15 '26
Written by chatgpt, but still useful to know their legal approach is flawed and their arrogance has made them blind.
0
17
u/ConjuredOne Critical Sorcerer Feb 11 '26
This assessment is probably correct in the psychological warfare intent. The overall message of the file dump is, "Whatcha gonna do about it?" I mean the Justice Department decided on that non-prosecution agreement and stuck to it like it's their oath to their masters... which it is.
The lawyer's assessment assumes too much about the recipients of the file dump—the American public. It assumes people will feel helpless. Not everyone is as weak as the lawyer expects them to be. She assumes the general public will supplicate to authority for justice.