David Bennett

Dear People

We are subject to being affected by messages. We know this is true in advertising. Companies spend millions and millions affecting us. We are affected by volume. The more messages, the more we are affected by them.

The companies that spend the most on advertising turn the most people into customers.

Of course there is crummy advertising and clever advertising.

Trump spent years getting a well-known public face on The Apprentice. When he turned to politics, people already knew him.

He repeated his message and affected people. Biden did the same and beat Trump.

Politicians hired companies to profile people they could affect. The companies hacked into people’s profiles and delivered just the right message that would push people’s buttons.

A politician needs skill and needs to understand that people are affected by messages. The more messages the more they are affected.

Trump launched his original platform on the message of Drain The Swamp. Now on June 5 this year he has launched Swamp The Vote USA.

Now we have a dirty player in the game. He bought an internet social media company so he could tailor the algorithm to swamp the platform with messages in support of one candidate and smother messages from the other side.

He is not listening to people, he is using unfair, hidden means to affect people.

Postscript

It is not just straight consumerism or politics. Notice how bands playing on stage have made bigger and bigger displays. The bigger the display the more it burns into and affects the person.

Letters From An American

I subscribe to Letters From An American, written by Heather Cox Richards.

Because what she wrote yesterday is so relevant to what I am saying, I am repeating a chunk of it here. You can read the full article here.

Early this morning, X owner Elon Musk posted to his more than 200 million followers: “Yes, they are literally using YOUR tax dollars to import voters and disenfranchise you! It is happening right in front of your eyes. And FEMA used up its budget ferrying illegals into the country instead of saving American lives. Treason.” On Wednesday, Dana Mattioli, Joe Palazzolo, and Khadeeja Safdar of the Wall Street Journal broke the story that Musk has been financing groups with ties to Miller since 2022.

But of course, it is NOT happening in front of anyone’s eyes.

China And The Sea of Japan

North Korea Russia China border at the Tumen River

The Russia – North Korea border is at the Tumen River that opens into the Sea of Japan. China’s border is at the Friendship Bridge upstream.

The Friendship Bridge connects the Russian town of Khasan with the North Korean town of Tumangang.

To get to the open sea, Chinese goods cross into North Korea by road. Then overland to the port of Rajin further down the coast, a port that was built by the Chinese.

To reach the Sea of Japan by sea, Chinese ships have to leave from Shanghai or Dalian and travel up the strait between South Korea and Japan.

Just this summer Russia proposed that they and North Korea allow China to navigate the Tumen River to the sea.

If that was all that was proposed it wouldn’t make much difference to China. The river is too shallow to allow large ships to pass. And the Friendship bridge is too low.

But the proposal is to dredge the river to allow larger vessels to navigate it, and to demolish the Friendship Bridge. And presumably to rebuild it but higher to allow large ships to pass.

Large ships would include the Chinese Navy. If the project happens it would mean a strategic change in the region.

Define Success

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Even if a person was a castaway, all alone on a desert island, he or she would still have in mind the approval of people back in the civilisation.

Imagine the castaway is fishing. He or she would measure his or her success as a fisher in terms of proficiency, skill, manual dexterity, as seen through the eyes of people back in civilisation.

If the castaway became really proficient at making a shelter, finding food and dealing with their desert island world, he or she would imagine the admiration of others. He or she would be proud of how much more ‘real’ they were than the others back in civilisation. Even disdain is by reference to other people.

There are those who devote themselves to the materials and to the task in hand. They are absorbed into the task, and the work is its own reward.

How many are there like that? Many? Not many?

Who even has the work in which they can become absorbed?

Tell me it isn’t so.

The fact is that except for sociopaths, in our heads we all live in a community of other people.

And nearly all of us do everything by reference to other people.

So now, what is success?

Is it where each person sees the others as a springboard to their own personal success?

Is it where each person does not care about whether the others are successful – except insofar as a lack of success that others achieve endangers or helps their own chance of success?

Is it where success means a common success?

A common success means each person feels that success is only success when everyone succeeds. It means each person feels responsible for everyone else.

Are we any good at feeling that kind of desire for communal wellbeing?

Why should we be when the arc of human development over the past centuries has been for all of us to search for and find our individual voice. We may be polite, accommodating, civil, or pushy and grasping – with all shades in between – but in truth we are all making our individual way forward.

Tell me, how is it working out?

And now that we (or at least Google and Facebook) have access to big data, we learn that our precious individuality is in large part a mirage. We are predictable. We give off signals all the time.

We leave such a trail of data points that we have become exposed for the predictable creatures we are.

So where is our individuality that we guard so preciously?

In truth we are tied to avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. Follow our trails over the years, and you will know us.

So, my idea of my success – is my idea of success even mine?

How far did I choose my pleasures? Keeping up with the Joneses stretches a lot further than the neighbour’s new car.

Suppose a person comes to realise that everything they do is built around an image of success they didn’t themselves create.

Or that they started with an idea and then just continued out of habit.

Suppose a person comes to realise they are in a race defined by success and rejection where they themselves are the only person they care about.

Suppose a person comes to feel they want everyone to succeed and not for they themselves to succeed at everyone else’s expense.

Perhaps the first conscious step that person can take if they feel that, is to put themselves among the kind of people who share that vision and that they aspire to be like.

Define success. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Even if a person was a castaway, all alone on a desert island, he or she would still have in mind the approval of people back in the civilisation.

Imagine the castaway is fishing. He or she would measure success in terms of proficiency, skill, manual dexterity, as seen through the eyes of people back in civilisation.

If the castaway became really proficient at making a shelter, finding food and dealing with their desert island world, they would imagine the admiration of others. They would be proud of how much more ‘real’ they were than the others back in civilisation. Even disdain is by reference to other people.

There are those who devote themselves to the materials and to the task in hand. They are absorbed into the task, and the work is its own reward. 

How many are there like that? Not many.

The fact is that except for sociopaths, in our heads we all live in a community of other people.

And nearly all of us do everything by reference to other people.

So now, what is success?

Is it one where each person sees the others as a springboard to personal success?

Or is it one where each person does not care about whether the others are successful – except insofar as a lack of success of others endangers or helps their own chance of success?

Is it one where success means a common success?

A common success means each person feels that success is only success when everyone succeeds. It means each person feels responsible for everyone else.

Are we any good at feeling that kind of desire for communal wellbeing?

Why should we be when the arc of human development over the past centuries has been for all of us to search for and find our individual voice. We may be polite, accommodating, civil, or pushy and grasping – with all shades in between – but in truth we are all making our individual way forward.

Tell me, how is it working out?

And now that we (or at least Google and Facebook) have access to big data, we learn that our precious individuality is in large part a mirage. We are predictable. Predictable and we give off signals all the time.

We leave such a trail of data points that we have become exposed for the predictable creatures we are.

So where is our individuality that we guard so preciously?

In truth we are tied to avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. Follow our trails over the years, and you will know us.

So, my idea of my success – is my idea of success even mine?

How far did I choose my pleasures? Keeping up with the Joneses stretches a lot further than the neighbour’s new car.

Suppose a person comes to realise that everything they do is built around an image of success they didn’t themselves create.

Or suppose a person comes to realise they are in a race defined by success and rejection where they themselves are the only person they care about.

Suppose a person comes to feel they want everyone to succeed and not for them to succeed at everyone else’s expense.

Perhaps the first conscious step that person can take is to put themselves among the kind of people they aspire to be like. Then maybe they can be clear enough in the head to define success.

I wrote this piece on May 2nd, on Typeshare. That was a copy of the article I published on 22 January 2023 on Bear Blog. There may be a yet older version that I wrote.

Who In Germany Knew

An article of 27 May 2011 in Der Spiegel describes the German occupation of Poland in WWII. Hans Frank had the task of clearing eight million Jews and Poles out of part of Poland. His job was to make room for ethnic Germans. These ethnic Germans were imported from around the Baltic and from Volhynia and Galicia in western Ukraine.

The article recites that in 1940, Frank told a reporter for the Völkische Beobachter newspaper the following:

“In Prague, for example, large red posters were hung up announcing that seven Czechs had been executed that day.” That had made him think: “If I had to hang up a poster every time we shot seven Poles, we’d have to cut down all the Polish forests, and we still wouldn’t be able to produce enough paper for all the posters I’d need.”

It’s quite a boast. More to the point, who back in Germany at that time knew of Frank’s boast?

The Völkische Beobachter was the paper and party organ of the NSDAP (the Nazi Party). It had a circulaton of over 120,000 in 1931. By 1941 its circulation was over one million, and by 1944 it was one million seven hundred thousand. Its last edition appeared in April 1945.

So when Frank made his boast, it was quoted in the newspaper of the Nazi Party with a circulation of almost one million.

In 1940, the population of Germany was almost seventy million. It was greater if we include the countries and territories Germany annexed, but let stick with Germany itself.

Three and a half million Germans were in the armed forces. So that means the newspaper circulated to one in sixty six of the population in Germany. And it was a spectacular quote.

So it seems reasonable to say that it was commonly known in Germany that the Governor-General of Poland was executing Poles in their thousands, and proud to boast about it.