One of the ways reflexive propaganda campaigns spread on social media is through what we should call "reflexive network dynamics." This is a very important concept for understanding not just propaganda today but also the gaming and weaponizing of the algorithms.
Reflexivity
First, a quick review. Reflexivity refers to a propaganda technique in which the same message appears everywhere all at once, reflected from all angles, until it takes off virally.
Ultimately, "reflexivity" in this regard springs from the tools George Soros laid out for doing "social alchemy" in his 1992 book The Alchemy of Finance. In that book, Soros explains that while the natural sciences are actually scientific, the social sciences are actually alchemical. One might say that the point of studying society is not to understand it, but to change it, even.
Soros indicates that the difference between social sciences (or, as he calls it "social alchemy") and natural sciences is that the participants in social sciences are themselves influenced by participation in the situation. He recognizes that this "reflexive" state of affairs can be arranged inorganically to create social change and refers to reflexivity as a "dialectic" and a theory of "historical change."
Soros's point is that reflexivity occurs when changes in perception start to cascade into greater changes in perception, and this only happens when people's beliefs are out of alignment with reality, with the more the better. He understands that reflexivity can also be manufactured by getting people to start to believe false things, and that belief is largely a social process.
Manufacturing Reflexive Environments
The mechanism for manufacturing a reflexive environment is to make a lot of people say the same thing, or close variations on the same thing, at roughly the same time, usually in similar ways. The goal is usually to make this appear as natural and organic as possible, as though many people are suddenly seizing upon the same observation at the same time.
The old saying in propaganda is that a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth (what people believe and treat as true, including by acting upon it), but with reflexivity it's a little different. It's a lie that is repeated by enough voices in a short enough time becomes truth. When everyone is suddenly saying the same thing, it must have something to it, right?
A reflexive environment can therefore be manufactured by getting lots of apparently distinct and independent voices saying roughly the same thing at the same time and letting it pass into common belief. It doesn't matter if it will get debunked eventually. All that matters is that it takes off for long enough to achieve some operational or strategic end before that happens.
Reflexivity is, in some sense, like a flash bomb of propaganda.
Agency Networks
Here's the secret sauce of how social media narratives are made: networks, particularly agency networks. An agency network is a network of people who operate in the same talent or promotional agency. That is, while they may not work for anyone in particular, their promotional reach is managed by some hub or node in the network.
Usually, these networks operate rather like country clubs, although they can work like cartels or mafias too. You have to get invited in, and there are club rules.
First, you at least tacitly, but frequently explicitly, agree to cross-promote other members of the network.
Second, you at least tacitly, but frequently explicitly, agree not to criticize other members of the network publicly. All criticism will be handled strictly in private.
Third, you will not disclose the existence of the network or these operational rules.
Think of it like Fight Club for people in media.
The perks for you is that not only do you have the agency itself promoting you and giving you access to things (parties, dinners, meet-and-greets, conferences and backstages, galas, etc.), you gain the weight of the whole network boosting your stuff. They cross-promote you, have you on their shows, come on your shows (if applicable), etc., even if it's just sharing and resharing social posts.
The way you "pay" for this access and opportunity is through your participation. You will also cross-promote, and you will never criticize anyone else in the network. If you do, you're out, and your access is gone. More than that, you're likely going to be marked as ineligible for any other network of the same kind because you're not trustworthy to be let into any others. You go from top of the world in promotional circles to completely cooked. RIP your opportunities and career. (And these opportunities can be millions a year in income, nevermind exclusive access to important and powerful people.)
That is, talk about Fight Club, and you're out of Fight Club. Fight outside of Fight Club, and you're out of Fight Club. Refuse to come to Fight Club, and you're out of Fight Club.
Of course, these aren't all untoward or inappropriate, and they're almost never illegal in their structure or activity. They're ethically gray with black and white flecks: sometimes perfectly good, sometimes really bad, usually just kind of a little icky in the "that's just how the world works, baby" kind of way.
They're very useful not only for cross-promotional behaviors and amplification, etc., but also for monetization. These networks, maybe more than anything else aside from building visibility and portfolios, game monetization schemes and algorithms. That which is popular becomes more popular, thus gets promoted, thus gets paid, and the network exists to make everything from within its network artificially popular.
This means, by the way, that you don't actually have to have a dark-money Mr. Money Bags paying people for certain messages. You just have to get certain messages into these networks and let their monetization structures make all the money for the participants, who are individually incentivized to participate and never have to take any cash directly from anyone.
Reflexive Network Dynamics
These agency networks are how basically everything big in the promotional universe (thus, on social media) works now. They allow for decentralized mechanisms by which personalities and careers can be "made" or broken. Willing players (the compliant and corrupt) are advanced rapidly into prominence. Everyone else is gatekept. Almost no one breaks the rules.
This makes them perfect for both organized and disorganized reflexive campaigns. The mechanism is simple. The network starts to move, either by direction or because some within it take initiative, and everyone boosts the signal. The cross-promotional mechanism turns into a reflexive amplifier. The prohibition on criticism makes sure no one diverges from the message, contradicts it, or calls anyone out. The prohibition on speaking about Fight Club makes it look natural and organic.
That is, what is actually a highly coordinated messaging apparatus looks like a bunch of individual actors who are, at most, loosely connected. They all say the same things at the same time and never contradict one another or call each other out, but they also don't have any formal ties to one another at all. They just have the same agencies. And everyone has an agency, or whatever.
These agency networks are therefore perfect in their dynamical structure for creating the reflexive dynamic. Thus, we could call them "reflexive networks."
A bunch of seemingly (mostly) independent actors all say roughly the same thing at the same time without anyone ever contradicting anyone else or criticizing anyone or any messaging (at worst, staying silent when they don't agree) until it "becomes true" and a maker of Sorosian "historical change."
That is, the same lie suddenly comes out of a hundred influential mouths at the same time, all pointing in the same direction, and there's not even a big, bad man somewhere behind the scenes pulling the strings, at least not necessarily (the biggest of these networks are usually tied to some REALLY BAD SH*T). The same lie hits you from everyone, gets reflected around and amplified by the algorithm the network is designed to game, and they're all getting paid without getting paid. And the lie becomes "the truth" in the process.
Summary
We're exposed to this behavior every day on social media, and that's without the increased amplification and modification by bots and other manipulative forces. Agency networks create something like reflexive echo chambers that make it seem like everyone around us believes the same things at the same time, and that influences us profoundly through the dynamics of social psychology.
Sometimes those inorganically amplified messages are the results of so-called string pullers, sometimes advertisers, sometimes bad actors or infiltrators in the groups, sometimes bids to game the algorithms for bigger social payouts, and sometimes just arise from the demon-core structure of the agency network.
In all cases, for those of us outside of these networks, it's almost impossible to understand that's what's going on, or that the people who would expose such things are systematically gatekept from them, reducing the chances you will ever even hear about them. And for the people in them, they're easy to rationalize. They're making money, getting big, taking opportunities, and it's just the way the world works, anyway, isn't it?
And yes that's an image representing the Demon Core, which you 100% should look up if you don't know about it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From my Woke Encyclopedia, an explanation of the "friend-enemy distinction" of Carl Schmitt, which is the Woke political logic. Link at the end!🧵
(1/13) The friend-enemy distinction refers to the cornerstone object of the political and judicial philosophy of a German theorist named Carl Schmitt, who wrote a number of works of right-wing political philosophy and thought before becoming such an enthusiastic Nazi in 1933, just after Adolf Hitler took power, that he earned the informal title “the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.”
Though most of his significant political thinking was done both before and after he was a Nazi, during the years when he was a part of Hitler’s National Socialist movement and Party, he contributed strongly to the legal theory that justified the Nazi “total state,” including writing the 1933 piece that gets rendered in English as “The Legal Basis for the Total State,” which is significantly based upon the friend-enemy distinction.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(2/13) Schmitt’s thought is primarily of interest on the Woke Right, where he is a favored thinker and model political mind. He is vigorously forwarded for a handful of his political concepts, perhaps most visibly his “friend-enemy distinction” as the essential criterion of what makes politics political. This idea is first presented and developed in full detail in his 1927/32 book The Concept of the Political.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(3/13) For Schmitt, what makes the politics political is the distinction between (public) friend and (public) enemy, where enemies are defined as those who are interested in destroying one’s way of life and friends are defined as those who are willing to band together in its defense.
Schmitt specifically compares the essential nature of this distinction in politics to the distinction between good and evil in morality, beautiful and ugly in aesthetics, and profitable versus non-profitable in economics.
That is, politics is only political to the degree that it recognizes the possibility of factions that exist in mutual enmity underwritten by the potentially existential threat of violence. Of course, that means that Schmitt believes the essential criterion of politics is war, which he reveals also in part by making his point by completing the identity contained in von Clausewitz’s famous remark that “war is politics by other means.”
All radical movements find themselves in a pinch: they can only really advance when people don't know their true intentions, but they can only really advance by going public with what they're doing. It's an intrinsic dilemma that only rare figures in rare circumstances can win.
Mamdani is a good example of a rare figure (extremely good at presenting himself disingenuously while looking real) in rare circumstances (terrible primary opponent, then running against a terrible combination of Cuomo/Sliwa, then still not winning by huge margins).
The primary reason NYC got Mamdani isn't something to do with the electorate, the climate, or anything else. Mamdani, with tons of weird money, ran a very strong campaign (rare figure) in very weird circumstances, most of which were candidate-specific, not conditional.
Fun fact: If you had a time machine and could go back in time to this day in 2019 but couldn't take any physical evidence with you, you could not convince almost anyone to take the Woke Left threat seriously and would get mocked and yelled at for trying, even by friends.
Your left-leaning friends (if you have any) would make fun of you for not getting it. Your right-leaning friends would laugh at you for making a mountain out of a molehill. No one really understood there was a serious problem with the Woke Left until after summer 2020.
The reason I know this is because I was there and doing this full time already by that point in my life.
Introducing to you two of the "intellectual" Woke Right's favorite contemporary thinkers: Patrick Deneen (left) and R.R. Reno. Here, they demonstrate their inability to see what is plainly in front of them—a Marxist insurgency through Leftist elitist capture—because of their preference for theories of cultural rot and decay.
These kinds of theories about why we are where we are aren't just dangerous misdiagnosed; they're also self-flattering humblebrags, saying in effect, "things got bad because everyone went to shit except people like us who are better than that." Typical Woke virtue signaling except in "modest" conservative form.
Yes, they are popular with Woke Right propagandists.
It's Saturday, and the world is a mess. Perhaps it's a good time for a little humor with a point. To that end, allow me to reintroduce the "Grievance Studies Affair" to the world. This will be a longer thread (20+ posts) introducing every single paper of the Grievance Studies Affair individually in a new, never-seen-before way.
The Grievance Studies Affair (or, "Sokal Squared") was an academic hoax project done seven years ago by @peterboghossian, @HPluckrose, and I with the help of @MikeNayna, who also produced a documentary (The Reformers, 2023) about what we affectionately named "the project" as we did it.
It involved writing 20+ academic hoax articles and sending them to peer-reviewed journals in the "theoretical humanities," things like gender studies and sexuality studies, to reveal a kind of ideological academic rabies we now refer to as "Woke (Leftism)". In the end 7 of these papers were accepted, 4 were actually published, 1 received recognition for excellence in scholarship in the field of "feminist geography," and 7 more were still under peer review on October 2, 2018, when the Wall Street Journal blew our cover.
What we learned from the project is ultimately that peer review is only as good as the peers. If the peers are corrupted in some way, that corruption will be validated as "knowledge" and passed into the intellectual foundations of society through the existing system. The implications are vast. Of course, while we revealed a form of ideological corruption in academia, there are other forms as well: political, economic, corporate, etc., all of which matter in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons.
While the Grievance Studies Affair itself is now over six and a half years old and thus an article of history, I don't think it has ever been more relevant. To this day, it still has not been reckoned with in the slightest. Our knowledge-producing institutions have ideological rabies and corporatist cancers that will be our undoing. Until we see complete reform or replacement of much of our research, higher-education, and primary and secondary education institutions and apparatuses, we are at risk of complete societal collapse. It really is that serious, and absolutely none of it has been stopped yet.
This thread isn't just a reminder of the Grievance Studies Affair, however. It's also an introduction to a Grievance Studies Portal I have published on @NewDiscourses through much effort of my team. In this thread, each of the 20+ papers will be introduced individually with direct links to their new home on New Discourses so that you can read them and laugh (or cry, or be horrified) and share them with ease. I hope you appreciate them and all the hard work that went into them and their publication here.
For my part, it has been a great opportunity to take a day to reflect and reminisce about one of the most challenging and most fun times of my entire life. I don't think I will ever be blessed with the opportunity to work so hard while laughing my head off ever again, nor will I ever regain the innocence I had going into this project. I thought it was funny when I started. By the middle, I realized it wasn't just serious but a legitimate threat to civilization. I changed my entire life as a result, and not a lot of that has been so funny.
I hope you enjoy this thread. Below, you will find the release video Mike Nayna produced that we put out on October 2, 2018, minutes after the Wall Street Journal outed us. It has been seen millions upon millions of times now and legitimately has changed the world, just not enough. It will serve as your reminder and introduction to the absolute insanity you'll find in the posts below.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Like I said from the start, mostly I hope you'll find this at least as hilarious as it is terrifying, and maybe you'll share it with your friends.
The Grievance Studies Affair has never been more relevant.
The New Discourses Grievance Studies Affair portal is located at the link below. In it, you'll find information about each of us, our motivations, our original write-ups and analysis about the project, as well as every single paper and its peer-reviewed commentary, as available (not all papers made it to peer review).
I hope you will find it a useful and sharable resource about the plague of ideological rabies that has taken over our institutions. newdiscourses.com/grievance-stud…
What became the Grievance Studies Affair began with a trial-balloon paper that @peterboghossian and I wrote in late 2016, hilariously titled "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct." It's one of the funniest things I've ever written, rivaled only by a couple of the later Grievance Studies Papers (YMMV).
It is not housed on the Grievance Studies Affair @NewDiscourses portal, but perhaps it should be, because it wasn't part of the Grievance Studies Affair properly. It might be its second most-famous contribution, however.
In the paper, Peter and I took inspiration from a real paper that had been published in the highest-ranking gender studies journal, Gender & Society, characterizing menstrual blood as a social construct. We argued that penises are not best thought of as male reproductive organs, in part because "pre-operative trans women" also have them (which was effectively repeated in the Supreme Court argumentation this week in the Skrmetti case). Instead, they should be thought of as social constructs that create toxic masculinity and rape culture and cause all the problems in the world, especially climate change.
This paper was ultimately accepted by means of a related but passed-over academic publishing scandal in a (likely) predatory journal called Cogent Social Sciences after a clear sham peer review process after being rejected and transferred from a masculinities journal called NORMA.
Because of the low quality of the journal and the one-off nature of the stunt, it was left ambiguous if Peter and I had proved any point about gender studies and related fields ("Grievance Studies" fields) at all. We were admonished to write more papers, target serious journals, and be more accurate in our claims, and we accepted this challenge happily.
"The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" was published in Cogent Social Sciences on May 19, 2017, and by June 7 Peter and I had resolved to start the Grievance Studies Affair to do the job right. skeptic.com/content/files/…