In the previous chapter we reviewed psychological warfare, and it can be a daunting subject. One can feel as if there is no escape.
Another fact about the previous chapter: TLDR
No one wants to read that shit, so I’ll try to be MORE parsimonious from here on out … it’s a DANIFESTO not ATLAS SHRUGGED!
Sovietology developed as a discipline at CIA, Langley, during the Cold War. American analysts had the job of reviewing soviet newspapers, journals, books, etc., all for the purpose of deriving useful information from what is superficially propaganda garbage. It kind of worked, in the way reversing entropy can “kind of work” but not really. You could say Sovietology is a subset of hermeneutics: the study of true meaning in text.
As a Sovietologist, it was your job to:
- keep track of outright lies
- keep track obvious contradictions
- interpret the use of propaganda by your enemy, and what that might imply
Yes – it’s a spooky discipline and about as scientific as handwriting analysis, but definitely more based than phrenology.
But it’s also not crazy – we should read the “news” with an eye to identifying:
- What we know is true
- What we know is false
- Where the contradictions
- What are the “forbidden” subjects
- Be aware of your own BIAS
A good example of a “forbidden subject” is Arctic permafrost collapse. This is not “global warming” or “climate change” or some other ambiguous and poorly defined bugbear, this is a simple question: what is the permafrost?
And follow up question: is the Arctic permafrost in collapse.
There’s not enough space, time, or relevance to go into this one “forbidden” topic specifically, but it’s not the only one.
The “Epstein Affair” is another good example. You are OKAY looking into the “suicide” and you are OKAY looking into the “murder”, but don’t you DARE look into the idea that his death might have been faked. That’s forbidden.
As a Sovietologist, you need to identify those areas of thought that are BLACKED OUT or redacted. These spaces that are hidden often, but not always, indicate a subject of importance.
Think about the “bunker madness” of the last 15 years. You read an article in WIRED Magazine that says “Zuckerberg has a secret bunker in Hawaii” – you can as a Sovietologist do a few things here. ONE: identify the obvious contradiction “secret bunker read about in WIRED”. TWO: you can ask the question – where is the real bunker?
Antarctica is an ideal location for a long term safe zone: it’s basically a desert from a climate perspective, so in case of nuclear war fallout will be less of a concern. It’s geographically isolated and has massive stores of underground fresh water. According to some reports (Admiral Byrd), the continent is RICH in coal and uranium and other natural resources a technological breakaway civilization would need. It’s a buried place: only ever discussed in terms of “research” and “cruises” and “extreme skiing”, but ordinary people don’t know much about it. During the HEIGHT of the Cold War, both the USA and its ARCH ENEMIES set aside Antarctica as a “nature preserve” – which is weird, because the USSR set off Tsar Bomba (60 megatons) in the Arctic Circle a few years later AND the USA continued its destructive above ground testing, and even used nukes to frack for natural gas under “Project Gas Buggy”.
The key point: Antarctica is a forbidden topic in the context of “bunkers”, which is just weird.
Of all the pitfalls for a Sovietologist, one of the most problematic is BIAS. Sure, this impacts many forms of study, but it’s still important to isolate in the process. You might WANT to infer something that is not supported by the limited evidence you have: don’t infer from pixie dust, for example:
I promised a shorter chapter and I’ll stick to it.
Summary: when evaluating propaganda, don’t assume that there is NOTHING to learn from it. While evaluating propaganda, be very disciplined: a) identify lies, b) identify contradictions, c) identify forbidden subjects, d) ask yourself “why am I seeing this?”.
G.M.F.Y.I.L.Y.