Then they succeeded. That's what they wanted; to demoralise you, to make sure you know that everything you care about, even movies about space wizards, will be subverted, corrupted, and thrown back into your face.
The reason we (high trust societies) play the game is to win. We want more resources, better technology, and greater acheivements. To this end, yes, we would want people to keep playing (contributing) to get us more of everything.
That is not the game anyone else is playing. They are playing so that everyone else loses. They don't care if all of our amazing systems collapse so long as they are the ones sitting on top of the pile at the end.
What did Schwab write? 150M people, globally, to act as serfs for a tiny technocracy? Does that look like "winning" to you, even if you're one of the elite? No more progress or innovation, no spiritual development, massive drops in standards of living, but you and yours get to wear the big boy pants? Because that's what winning looks like to the people producing these movies.
And then they will find that thing you are engaging with and destroy it too. This the the pattern we've been watching unfold for years now. It's why GamerGate made them lose their shit, it was one of the only times they've encountered active resistance rather than passive acceptance and a quiet retreat.
If what they wanted was to destroy the circuses that kept people distracted from their subversion, then they aren't very smart. People were happy to blindly play their games and watch their slop tv while the world burned. And now a whole lot of them want to glass Israel so they can go back to playing their games and watching their tv.
Yeah, well the world is burning, the bread is stale, the circus is a dud, and people still aren't doing a damn thing.
The bread and circus thing only applies to high trust society where people identify with the State. They aren't even really a distraction, rather they're a reassurance that, even though things look fucked, the State is able to feed and entertain everyone. They're a reassurance that things will be okay if you just keep plugging along.
What does it mean when the State is not the one putting on the circus? Then it really is a distraction; the whole point is then to have people make peace with their predicament (by, for example, viewing yourself as the "enlightened centrist" who has it all figured out), rather than reassure them things are under control.
Therefore, nothing is getting worse because everything always sucked. Star Wars is a movie about space wizards with glowsticks, not a moral story about redemption, sacrifice, faith, or loyalty. James Bond and Indianna Jones are goofy, aging, bozos, not embodiments of the masculine hyper-competence needed to face the evil plotting to destroy the world. Oh, and Animal Farm is a generic kids story about funny talking farm animals, not an iconic, scathing critique of a totally failed ideological system (that is rearing it's ugly head in popular discourse yet again).
But under all of that surface level stuff is the message that the State is pathetic, corrupt, and incompetent by it's very nature. You would be a fool to sacrifice even your spare change because they'd only use it to replace you. When people lose faith in the State, even if they're correct, polities die.
Then they succeeded. That's what they wanted; to demoralise you, to make sure you know that everything you care about, even movies about space wizards, will be subverted, corrupted, and thrown back into your face.
That's not success. Success is keeping people playing the rigged game, not walking away from the table.
We can go read, watch, and play something else. And most people have.
We aren't playing the same game.
The reason we (high trust societies) play the game is to win. We want more resources, better technology, and greater acheivements. To this end, yes, we would want people to keep playing (contributing) to get us more of everything.
That is not the game anyone else is playing. They are playing so that everyone else loses. They don't care if all of our amazing systems collapse so long as they are the ones sitting on top of the pile at the end.
What did Schwab write? 150M people, globally, to act as serfs for a tiny technocracy? Does that look like "winning" to you, even if you're one of the elite? No more progress or innovation, no spiritual development, massive drops in standards of living, but you and yours get to wear the big boy pants? Because that's what winning looks like to the people producing these movies.
Sure.
And people completely walking away from their influence does not help them achieve that.
And then they will find that thing you are engaging with and destroy it too. This the the pattern we've been watching unfold for years now. It's why GamerGate made them lose their shit, it was one of the only times they've encountered active resistance rather than passive acceptance and a quiet retreat.
If what they wanted was to destroy the circuses that kept people distracted from their subversion, then they aren't very smart. People were happy to blindly play their games and watch their slop tv while the world burned. And now a whole lot of them want to glass Israel so they can go back to playing their games and watching their tv.
Yeah, well the world is burning, the bread is stale, the circus is a dud, and people still aren't doing a damn thing.
The bread and circus thing only applies to high trust society where people identify with the State. They aren't even really a distraction, rather they're a reassurance that, even though things look fucked, the State is able to feed and entertain everyone. They're a reassurance that things will be okay if you just keep plugging along.
What does it mean when the State is not the one putting on the circus? Then it really is a distraction; the whole point is then to have people make peace with their predicament (by, for example, viewing yourself as the "enlightened centrist" who has it all figured out), rather than reassure them things are under control.
Therefore, nothing is getting worse because everything always sucked. Star Wars is a movie about space wizards with glowsticks, not a moral story about redemption, sacrifice, faith, or loyalty. James Bond and Indianna Jones are goofy, aging, bozos, not embodiments of the masculine hyper-competence needed to face the evil plotting to destroy the world. Oh, and Animal Farm is a generic kids story about funny talking farm animals, not an iconic, scathing critique of a totally failed ideological system (that is rearing it's ugly head in popular discourse yet again).
But under all of that surface level stuff is the message that the State is pathetic, corrupt, and incompetent by it's very nature. You would be a fool to sacrifice even your spare change because they'd only use it to replace you. When people lose faith in the State, even if they're correct, polities die.
That's the goal.
It’s been a 10 year process in this instance. It’s working for them all across culture right now.