pack animals – Observations and Misunderstandings

There once was a man called William T. Riker. He was a fictional character in Star Trek, quite a popular and well known one apparently. There was also another man called William E. Riker, he was less fictional and created his own city called ‘Holy City’. He was a cult leader who also happened to be a conman and a white supremacist. Now is not the time for his story, I recommend either you check out his wikipedia page if you’re boring or listen to the latest episode of ‘The Dollop’ if you have a spare one hundred and two minutes and like jokes. In short though the city itself was at it’s height in and around the 1920s, 30s and 40s. It became a white supremacist theme park of sorts, people gave up their wives to him and he seemed to thrive on people’s attention. It was based upon his teachings of God, his love of Cadillacs and the ability to make money from selling fuel and access to peep shows. He also ran for political office multiple times and failed miserably each time. To put it simply he was a total character and he died a grumpy old man at the age of ninety-six. The land still contains one of the original buildings and was sold recently to Robert and Patricia Duggan for six million dollars. Robert Duggan recently made three and a half billion dollars selling an oncology drug and is a very wealthy man. He also donated twenty million dollars to The Church of Scientology making him their largest financial donor.

What I don’t understand, amongst many things, is how someone can look at that land and it’s history, I assume recognise it was once owned by a crazy cult and then turn around without one iota of irony and give twenty million anything to what is also clearly a crazy cult. The Church Of Scientology is based upon a science fiction novel, my brain does not understand the complexities of the human mind sufficiently to understand what it is that allows people to ignore that overwhelming fact. At least the Bible has fear built into it and large enough numbers to give it credibility in the minds of pack animals. When people started believing in the Bible we barely had science and still believed the world was flat…he says with a hint of irony. It also tells you that while money might be useful it’s clearly not the answer as people embrace whatever it is that Scientology has to offer. Do people living in the niche bubble of the super wealthy really have such lives devoid of the reality that we know, they see truth in a cult like Scientology? All the money in the world and they’re still searching for answers and happiness. Saying that we can’t dismiss the possibility that Scientology actually is the answer and that they allow themselves to appear to anyone who wasn’t denied the contact of a mother as a baby as crazies to keep the riff raff out. It’s a possibility but I’m sticking to the laws of probability here. I’m sure were I to give myself more time and read some psychology papers, if anyone has any please email them to me, that point out the everyday things I most likely do that are comparative to the offerings in a cult. Money, celebrity, power would probably feature but I would love to know the things I’m completely unaware of, the things I’ve been brainwashed not only into believing but so brainwashed I am unaware they are even things. Isn’t the mind wonderful. Now believe in mine for it is God. And give me your wife if you have one.

It is very hard in this day and age to know what is true and what isn’t. The internet is arguably the fount of all knowledge, and when we’re not looking at pictures of cats and stalking ex-partners we are quite simply blessed with the opportunity to discover – or to google which is a disturbing example of the evolution of language – the answer to any question we may want to ask. The problem here is that it seems very easy to get a variety of answers to one question. On the one hand that is great, difference of opinion will further debate and understanding within and of society. On the other though you have powerful financial interests manipulating which arguments are most easily accessible, the only inevitability is that debate becomes inaccurate and corrupted. There are few long term positives of such things unless you are the one doing the corrupting.

While this is all seemingly quite obvious, what appears to be the outcome are articles using public opinion to validate the argument, angle or narrative they are attempting to push. For example if you want to push a news story about public perception of an issue, it is very simple to go on the idiots validator – Twitter – select a few tweets – cringe – and post them within your article as proof of your argument. While it may seem obvious that people will dismiss the arguments of morons or people who are clearly not experts in the field – a corruptible concept too – people for one psychological reason or another seem unconsciously more likely to agree with the article if they believe it to be the majority opinion.

I saw an article recently describing how the left have disowned George Orwell because it had come out that he gave the names of suspected communists to the British government in 1949. The article was backed up by a few angry tweets criticising and disavowing him from people who clearly missed the point and didn’t understand the background to why he may have done that. This was in The Independent too which is a left wing British newspaper but it was total bullshit being validated by total bullshit.

The same could be done on the news. When a segment presents interviews with three people in the street for example, we often see two or three with one opinion that supports the overall message and one who doesn’t, how do we know that they only ever interviewed them and not ten others. The point is the media is as corrupt and untrustworthy as the politicians have always been yet we take what they say at face value. With eighty-three percent of mainstream media in the UK owned by three corporations, they can pretty much convince anybody of anything with enough coverage. They can be corrupt and it doesn’t matter. We have vaults of information online but who really looks beyond supposedly trustworthy news sources such as the BBC, or their equivalent in other countries and cultures.

Ultimately we’re as much a pack animal as dogs and if we believe the majority think something we’re more likely to go with it to remain part of the group. If you have such an array of opinions all appearing to validate something it has never been so easy to convince people even when it is in your interests and actively against theirs. The internet is arguable the greatest invention since the printing press, and with such knowledge comes the opportunity for rebellion and sedition live never before. Unfortunately it also seems to bring rise to the polarising and manipulating of peoples the world over. It is though early days, the internet is but a baby in the long history of information. There is still time yet.

Tag: pack animals

Teach Me O Wise Leader

A Manipulated Mass