Case Study: TikTok Trends

What are people's thoughts here about this hoax? Panama Alien TikTok Hoax Is an Environmental Awareness Message
Panama Meteorite Viral Video Explained: Venom Symbiote, Fungus, Or Hoax?

Others simply take it as entertainment, like everything else — from politics to the economy — a symptom of a society governed by forces over which ordinary people can hardly hope to exert influence or make decisions, choosing instead to enjoy life as best they can.

раскрыть

1. Pop Culture Connection: By resembling Marvel’s Venom, the video instantly resonated with fans of superhero movies.
2. Alien Fascination: Humans have always been captivated by the idea of extraterrestrial life. The video played into that fascination.
3. Mystery and Suspense: The creator drip-fed new videos, building suspense like a serialized story.
4. Distrust of Institutions: By claiming universities ignored his calls, the creator fueled conspiracy theories about cover-ups.

I think there's much we can learn from analyzing the hoax's explosive success and people's reactions to it. It seems young people seek distractions/escape from reality, knowledge of reality is not in high favour, they want to hear about craziness, romance, adventure, etc. Daniil Andreev pointed out that this unsettling boredom that dawns upon people would be one of the factors in the Antichrist's rise to power: «After reading books full of adventures, ruffle, crimes, and passions, such ready-for-any-escapade souls will grow wistful, exasperated, and jealous.» Apollonius of Tyana likewise warns that «the affectation and pretense of reality leads passionate and jealous people and miserlike and ambitious persons to imitate the stories.»

What Kin did is no different from what countless novelists and journalists do daily, preying on people's love of fiction. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/16/hp-lovecraft-harry-houdini-manuscript-cancer-superstition-memorabilia
The important thing is he has somewhat admitted to his deception, unlike other hoaxers. There was a similar trend that took off several months ago, called savese7en, where a lady claimed to have contacted a higher being, by means of an ouija board. I got myself publicly involved with the trend in the hopes of transforming it into a movement but I became disillusioned when it turned out to be a passing fad. I saved a comment before they closed the subreddit/made it private:

I think a part of me was hoping for something bigger as well. Definitely not death by fire, not destruction. But change. A sigh of relief. Peace. Something that would sweep through and make things right. Something that would lift the good people. Heal the fear. Quiet the noise. I know that sounds idealistic or silly, but maybe that’s what a lot of us were holding onto underneath all of this. Not an ending but a turning point.

раскрыть

So the question is, how can we popularize ideas of reality and deliver them in a way that can reach the masses on the same level, no matter where in the world they may be? In times past, the Soviets used plays. I've read in one biography of Stalin: «Poems, novels and short stories remained important but they weren't going to be discussed by millions of people.» Perhaps it's time to reinstate the mystery plays from ancient times, which gave some hints to the public about life beyond the grave in dramatic fashion?

Note:
I ended up suspended from Reddit for saying things people didn't like, after using an account with more than 4 years of good standing. On YouTube, I could upload some of my videos of my unique encounters with wildlife, but I don't think people would notice. At the park, I have been accused by some people of trying to go viral but I'm recording for myself and to show my footage to a few close friends. As for Tiktok, I was ghostbanned before I could even do anything.

Jeremiah Park написал(а)

how can we popularize ideas of reality and deliver them in a way that can reach the masses

раскрыть

Универсального способа нет, это зависит от культурного уровня. В СССР самым массовым искусством было кино, не театр.

Сейчас тоже видео-формат популярен для масс. Нужно учиться делать качественные видео, но наполнять их не выдумками, а достоверным содержанием.

Хотя при оформлении видео можно использовать творческую фантазию.

Максим написал(а)

Универсального способа нет, это зависит от культурного уровня.

раскрыть

Rightly said. Everyone has different needs, it's not easy to meet their needs on the same level.

In the gospels, Jesus is made to address only one audience, yet his teachings aren't suited for all. There are at least three stages of development to factor in: barbaric, civilized, and cultural. It's easy for civilizational people (those who remain content with their fictions and don't want to raise their level) to fall to the lower level, and they sense their kinship with the demonic. Barbaric people are characterized by their lack of respect for parents and Nature, they only learn by suffering. Only decently behaving individuals — who led active lives — willingly apply teachings without being compelled. The 10 commandments were best suited for the first group, the golden rule is found in nearly every civilization, and we aren't informed about what corresponding lesson Jesus taught his students (who belong to the last group).

Максим написал(а)

В СССР самым массовым искусством было кино, не театр.

раскрыть

Do you know whether the quality of the films further degraded after Stalin's death? Were the protagonists in the 1960-80s relateable? How about films produced during the 1990s?
Apparently, Stalin's favorite film was «Tractor Drivers», he liked how the star goes down to the masses and lives among them.

Btw do you know how much of Andreev's perception of Stalin (and alleged vision of him as the main Antichrist candidate) was influenced by his imprisonment? I believe Andreev may have exaggerated Stalin's portrayal to make him seem worse than he was. Stalin did criticize Ivan the Terrible for his indecisiveness, but I don't know if he called him «weak», instead I read that he said Ivan was hindered by his Christianity.

Certainly, Stalin really did show signs of the same kind of involtation (Khokhha) as Hitler: staring into empty space with his eyes, piercing look, and feeling rejuvenated. Andreev's discovery of a portrait that captures Stalin's gaze into the infinite unknown was very uncanny/unnerving.

On Videos:
Personally, I find it hard to focus on videos, I learn more rapidly from deliberate reading. While watching I always need to take down notes and try to summarize its contents as I watch to be able to retain it. It's sad to see most people's attention span being ruined by their rapid processing of short video clips. The ability to hold one's attention on something for a prolonged period of time is being lost.

Jeremiah, у меня встречный вопрос: прочитал ли ты «Розу Мира» полностью?

Прежние переводчики на английский не перевели книгу полностью, ошибочно полагая, что главы про метаисторию и культуру России будут не интересны западному читателю. Однако без них не понять, что такое Метаистория и как проявляют себя метаисторические силы (светлые и тёмные) в нашем мире.

Там же подробно описана опасность уицраоров. Там же даны подробные описания судеб русских царей — Ивана Грозного и Петра Первого, которые должны были стать родомыслами (а родомысл — друг демиурга), однако искушения и подмены привели этих людей к историческому краху и падению в глубины шрастров.

Там же описана судьба, не имеющая примеров в мировой истории. Русский император Александр Первый, находясь в зените славы, cэмитировал свою смерть и тайно оставил престол, став монахом и прожив 40 лет в сибирской тайге.

Там же, в этих главах, описана вся подноготная Сталина.

А есть ещё главы о метаистории русской культуры, где показаны взлёты русских гениев и вестников, а также опасные подмены на пути художественного творчества (на примере поэта Александра Блока).

Без хорошего знания «Розы Мира» очень трудно обсуждать сложные вещи.

Максим, To be honest, no, I have not. I'm only familiar with the first few chapters, but even then, the concept of metahistory eludes my comprehension. I had an easier time with grasping transmyth. I have never finished a book from front page to back, I prefer to look for knowledge I can put to use; re-read sections/chapters, not the whole book.

However, I do have some interest in Russia's past and culture. Much of my focus was on Peter the Great, some of what Andreev said about the preparation of higher powers in his upbringing resonated with me. I'm unfamiliar with Andreev's claims about Alexander I. Wow! A king giving up his existence for the life of a recluse is truly unprecedented, I'll have to look into that. I'm hardpressed to find any analogous cases in history.

Regarding Russian geniuses/messengers, I'm aware Andreev had emphasized the roles of Blok and Solovyov, his portrayal of the latter was of great interest to me; he had a prophetic disposition, he described the future Antichrist, and he could have been the next Luther. If I recall correctly, Andreev claims Solovyov had seen Zventa-Sventa on several ocassions.

Edit: I looked up Andreev's reference to Alexander I and Kuzmich, he claims Kuzmich could relate events from 1812 as if he had lived through it. That reminds me of one of the Anastasia Romanov claimants, Anna Anderson. Rasputin's daughter Maria and Lily Dehn claimed Anna had known things that nobody but Romanov insider would've known.

Jeremiah, всё-таки попробуй прочитать всю «Розу Мира», не спеша, главу за главой. Ты получишь интеллектуальное и духовное наслаждение. Целая картина производит часто более сильное впечатление, чем отдельные её части.

Ты спрашивал о кино... Вот посмотри короткое видео как результат работы трёх гениев.
Музыка: Johann Sebastian Bach (в обработке русского композитора Eduard Artemiev).
Живопись: художник Pieter Bruegel the Elder, картина The Hunters in the Snow (1565).
Музыка и картина показаны в фильме Solaris (1972) гениального русского режиссёра Andrei Tarkovsky.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpZbnUHHwvU

Jeremiah Park написал(а)

Do you know whether the quality of the films further degraded after Stalin's death?

раскрыть

После смерти Сталина качество художественных фильмов значительно улучшилось Фильмы стали цветными, широкоформатными и длительными (технически), а также весёлыми, светлыми, радостными (художественно). Почти весь золотой фонд советского кино — 1960-е и 1970-е годы. Рекомендую посмотреть комедии Леонида Гайдая этих лет (но не поздние): «Бриллиантовая рука» (1968), «Иван Васильевич меняет профессию» (1973) и многие другие фильмы тех весёлых лет 1960-е годы у нас называют «оттепелью» после суровых лет при Сталине.

Максим, I can't make any guarantees about reading the whole book, but I'll try to trod through the first six chapters. We should summarize what we read to help retain it in memory, perhaps we can come up with a list of questions to ask people after they finish a chapter. Perhaps by reading for the sake of the others, and not just our own personal pleasure, we can help them grasp it better; younger people need summaries more than details.

Unfortunately, I currently have my hands full working on several projects, such as purification of the Bible and setting Islam in a new light.

Александр,Thanks for the film recommendation, you two! It seems I had the wrong impression about the 60s, for a long time, I believed Khrushchev was bad for Russia's history but it's true that the Cold War atmosphere paralyzed the artists' will to create. I'll have to set aside time for watching these films.

Ideally, films should both reflect the reality of the situation, and have happy endings (for life always ends on a happy note), but the spirit of the times revolts against this (Stalin's criticism for some Soviet productions was that they covered over reality with false gold), instead they give us ambiguous endings (puzzle films) which leaves a sensible viewer perplexed and wondering about what really happened.
A good example would be Nightmare on Elm Street, they ended up with a compromise nobody was happy with. Another example would be the film Heretic (2024), which had me at the edge of my seat up until the climax/ending.
Problems with modern films: prefer style over substance; great ideas, terrible execution, half-measures (directors unable to fully commit to completing, they move from one project to the next); exposition dumps (they forget to «show and not tell»); lack of character development/relateable characters (human stereotypes/caricatures, no one behaves like that in real life); it becomes a character creation mill (introducing too many new characters with no relevance to the plot).