The pros and cons of information overload

 One of the effects of social media was to free up information but it also:

a.  Creates a flood, a torrent, of seemingly disparate data snippets

b.  It allows "disinformation" to be deliberately fed in, intermingled, as if it is authentic

The severe limitations of the blog, vlog and tweet (or Gab) format includes the now shortened attention span of the reader. My mate up the road has openly admitted that unless all key points are contained within the first, say, half page, he loses interest, clicks out and goes somewhere else ... that "somewhere else" could include scrolling down a trusted blog's front page, even to the next page.

One way of looking at this phenomenon is the rise of the "influencer" as a "thing", an item, and big bikkies go to such people who use a variety of techniques, intuitive and learned, to push agendas. The "spellbinder idea was put by someone quoted by Amazing Polly some years back:

Given that this depends on the political, moral, cultural and spiritual retardation of a people got at at a very early age ... by low quality parents, plus Woke teachers (the only ones now employed, including heads of schools and major job holders in those schools) ... then, along with outside Spellbinders, a system is in place to arrange and direct people's thinking, a role which used to be played by the newspaper on the commuter train or on drive time radio in the car.

That's no bad thing if the spellbinders are pushing the society's underpinning framework but if it's pushing the breakup of the society's underpinnings by being first influenced themselves to believe simplistic "grabs" on ideas, e.g. in Das Kapital, plus they're using techniques (scroll down this post in order to see examples):

https://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com/2008/02/groupthink-gentle-art-of-persuasion.html

... which are beyond the newly "demoralised" to be able to either be interested in or to comprehend, let alone to counter ... then it can only go one way for a society which is convinced of its own sophistication and rationale (ego) ... as it becomes impervious to counter ideas.

In the mid 80s, a former Soviet agent with the pseudonym Yuri Bezmenov gave a series of interviews on this process of "demoralisation":

Just a refresher by patchdotcom on Yuri B's four points again:

1. Demoralization - the moral fibre and integrity of the country is put into question, thereby creating doubt in the minds of the people ... manipulation of the media and academia is required to influence young people ... the younger generation embraces new values ... the older generation slowly loses control simply through attrition. True facts no longer matter ... but rather creating perceptions are of paramount importance.

2.  Destabilization - to change the status quo, particularly the country's economy, foreign relations, and defense systems. The intent is to create massive government permeating society, becoming intrusive in the lives of its citizens ... again with the active support of academia pushing youth in this direction. Here, entitlements and benefits are promised to the populace to encourage their support. Basically, they are bribing the people to accept their programs.

Bezmenov claims after this stage is completed, the naive college professors are no longer needed and since they will undoubtedly protest government policies when they discover the truth, they will be disposed of quickly.

3.  Crisis - involves a revolutionary change of power. This is where a cataclysmic event upsets and divides the country thereby creating panic among the citizens.

4.  Normalization - the final stage is where the populace finally acquiesces and begins to assimilate communism [in our case, via Wokery].

"Demoralisation" is an interesting word in itself ... it can mean the removal of moral scruples, of ethics, of a moral compass such that a disrespectful, ignorant, childlike, impetuous, shallow reasoner is all that's left and just as in The Who's song 905, there, in one, is "the new citizen", the new Eloi.

Already, this series of short grabs is way too long for many to have retained interest and that's Q.E.D. in itself. But we've hardly begun, as what follows now is a torrent of "grabs", of short snippets, seemingly disparate and yet all the result of the process at work. I'll save my comments till the end, if you're still there by then:

Contained within those screenshots, mercifully unlinked as you'd be there half the day, let alone having to sit through 40 minute podcasts and vlogs where the presenter drones on and on about something you could read a summary of in ten bullet points ... well, contained within there are the results of the demoralisation process referred to before the graphics.

Now, assuming you're a reader with the ability to see that things are simply not right, that there is huge misreading of reality going on out there, aided and abetted by platforms trying to "counter disinformation", counter critical thinking, trying to get you to attach yourself to this camp or that, to become dismayed, edgy, fearful, ready to jump at wonder solutions, e.g. for your gut unease ...

... assuming that, then how exactly should the pundit like myself organise and arrange the information ... the mass of information, all the while countering shortened attention spans these days?  And I'm not even using esoteric language, rhetoric and jargon.

And even were I able to do so, could seven or eight other pundits do that?  What about two million of us?  What about four billion people developing the ability to discern genuine news from bollox? What chance? /END.