Asocial Networks

A group communication need is the oldest among other human needs that make people whom they are. The Aristotle’s definition of a human being as a “political” or “social animal” (depending on a translation of the term “zoon politikon” from his “Politics”) reflects the fact that a person can become an individual only in human society.

A romantic fairy tale of Mowgli confronts the reality of yawning and running around Amal and Kamal twins who were brought up by wolves.

We would not have had known about the famous Aristotle’s statement, if Charles Montesquieu, a philosopher, and a publicist, had not mentioned it in his “Letters of Persia”. Montesquieu, according to modern terminology, might be named as a top blogger of the eighteenth century.

Originalities in social communications had always clan’s privileges because they seeked to improve a users’ safety. The development of the Internet under the auspices of the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network in 1969 is a good example.

Upon their novelty’s expiration, the masses transformed taken from the elites selected tools into their own toys.

An example might be a well-known meme about red commanders’ wives, who after September 17, 1939, boasted along the occupied by the USSR Lviv streets in nightgowns, considering them as exquisite dresses.
A major conflict in a communication sphere is the notion that a very slow change has happened to a human nature over the last few thousand years, though the skyrocketing development of a modern information environment has no analogs in history.

The last several decades witness the dynamics of development, prosperity, and degradation of digital social communications.

Adults might still remember a period when the Internet availability was as rare and prestigious as a possession of an NMT-450 mobile phone.

Information operations specialists use an Information-Related Capabilities (IRC) term which signifies about a dozen factors that are tightly interconnected in a process of social communications. However, modern social networks is a more complex and constantly mutated phenomenon and not only on the part of developers. A certain fault depends on their victims as well.

A society, if not looking at it through the liberal rose-colored glasses, is nothing but Ouroboros, a serpent which eats its own tail. In the process of self-eating, society is doing its best to keep up with the maximum appetite.

Each text in a social communication process is nonsense if a reader does not derive a practical benefit from it. What, in this case, is a practical benefit from prior knowledge that the Internet eats your brains? Knowing that: a) you can eat a someone’s brain first; b) you consider your brain to be something incurable by an eternal value and are ready to protect it from any changes forever and ever.

What exactly happens in the Ukrainian social networks?

First, they are not Ukrainian, but American. Mark Zuckerberg did not want to move his business to more favorable environments and it is strange.

Second, in terms of IRC, Facebook is a small part of a communication process which mainly reflects our disadvantages, not advantages.

The major human dependencies are distributed in this segment as follows: Instagram – pride, Facebook – jealousy, Twitter – anger, Netflix – laziness, Linkedin – greed, Tinder – lust.

Let’s focus on Facebook/FB because in that information bubble multi-letter expressions depict the past and ambitions of the future. Such concentration turns FB in a quasi-competitor of sociology and one of the most effective stimulators of vanity users.

FB began pragmatically due to a necessity of convenient communications at a student dormitory. In its Ukrainian history, FB used to be at one time a kind of neuro-network for intellectuals, a follower of “The Living Journal”, various moderated forums and was very proud of it.

But the recent Russian-Ukrainian war made its adjustments.

A ban of “Classmates” and “Vkontakte” meant some operational and tactical advantages in terms of current information (and not only) on the war with Russia. As a result, their users transferred their accounts to FB.

A group often tries to adapt its activities to a level of the worst group member. Contrary to a widespread paranoid political vision. If the whole group wants to safely reach a final destination, its weakest and slowest members usually march forward. Their speed and physical capacity encourage and regulate a movement of the rest.

The same process occurs in social communications with the only difference that it happens unconsciously.
You will not find active FB accounts of wealthy people or just very busy people.

If you do not accept a lot of people whom you do not like by their definition, it will set a certain level of unconscious conflict which is already defined as a norm.

Another important feature of social networks is their general socialist nature even if they write about something very right.

Socialism is a refusal from not only a private property possession but a personal, private life as well.

Social networks encourage exhibitionism as refuse from maximum privacy borders. Openness, encouraged by external “likes”, provides an illusion of success and personal growth.

In George Orwell’s novel 1984 Two Minutes of Hate is a form of brainwashing in an attempt to cause the madness of hate and aversion to a hostile superpower.

A hatred theme does not matter. Three centers of governance – political, military, cultural will break everything and all, but only within a certain social simulator.

A basis of such a hatred thinking is a tendency of mass users to a conspiracy thinking. Indicators of such inclinations are quite common. A user must be in a state of constant stress with medium or lower intelligence. A level of income is low. Social status – unstable. There is no family. Destroyed or incomplete. The future of children (if any) is at risk.

There are at least 90 different schizophrenic themes in a conspiracy space that explain a secret meaning of everything that occurs around. A kind of a piano to play by mass behaviour management experts to get the desired effect.

A classic example of similar idiocy is the so-called “Pizzagate”.

A few days before the recent US Presidential elections WikiLeaks published a package of about 357 FBI files, which included John Podesta’s letters. John Podesta was the Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Office Head and served as an adviser to Barack Obama by February 2015.

A resource called “4chan” offered a paranoid reading of those texts. They were the code words previously affixed by the FBI as a jargon of pedophiles. “Pizza” – girl, “hot dog” – boy, “cheese”- little girl, “pasta” – little boy, “sauce” – orgy, etc.

Even more bizarre and surprising ideas could be taken from a current social swamp.  Properly washed and presented to a curtain legislative body they sometimes have chances to become an official policy.

On December 4, 2016, Edgar Madison Welch, one of the darkest of social networks’ idiots came to a “Comet Ping Pong Pizza” place (believed to be a den of pedophiles) and fired three times from an AR-15 rifle into a wall, a table and a door. He planned to conduct his own investigation of “the involvement” of the pizzeria and its employees in pedophilia. He surrendered to the police after being convinced that the pizzeria did not keep children in their premises.

A similar story occurred with a corresponding mass psychosis in Lithuania. Drąsius Kedys, a pimp, led by the instigation of his girlfriend, murdered a judge of the Kaunas District Court because of a mercenary motive in 2009.

The Lithuanian intelligence during an investigation found that the conspirators instructed and trained their young daughter Kedys on how to talk to the police about supposedly committed violence against her.
Even Gribauskaite and Landsbergis were confused.  A political pathos disappeared after operational information was available to them.

The Lithuanians were technically not able to compete with the Russian propaganda machine, which professionally uses certain sensitive Western strings and available local keys.

From a technical point of view, it was another brilliant operation of Russian special services. We very much underestimate their level of qualification, do not seek to understand their motives, and do not pay proper attention to their strategy.

Once widely discussed “The Gerasimov’s Doctrine” was created as a permitted leak of information for intellectuals to chew and fear. In reality, social networks have long been a part of a neuro-network, which defines not only our commercial and sexual, but also political preferences.

What do we get as a result?

Managing a psychosis of poor digitized users is just as easy as driving a children’s railroad.

Your personal success or failure in no way depends on your social networks’ presence. Polemics might sharpen your style but steal your time.

A social network has no relation to the socium – it was proved by the Ukrainian elections’ results.

Better take good care of yourself.

Oleh Pokalchuk

Leave A Reply