
HyperNormalisation (2016) [video] - cliffy
https://thoughtmaybe.com/hypernormalisation/
======
sarreph
The closing arguments of this documentary, where the author brings the
timeframe to _the present_ , that talk about the reinforcement of content
across groups in social networks, are incredibly poignant and relevant to the
'fake news' effect that currently sits at the forefront of the media's
attention.

It's scary how, as social networks' power gains more influence and accuracy,
the lens through which we view content on the web will be narrowed and
focussed. So much so, that coupled with the above 'fake news', is responsible
for members of the public 'only seeing what they would want to see' \- and not
questioning the credibility of the source material.

We, as technologists, must work hard to strive towards an objective web. I
think that fake news is just the beginning of a _veil of blurriness_ that will
flow over internet content.

It therefore strikes me as surprising that Facebook has started a 'flagging'
system for fake content[0] — when it relies on the above positive feedback
loops of users with shared interests.

[0] - [http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38827101/how-
facebook-...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38827101/how-facebook-is-
starting-to-tackle-fake-news-in-your-news-feed)

~~~
milesrout
I don't understand why everyone is going around talking about 'fake news' and
'alternative facts' and these other stupid terms. They're called _lies_ and
_misinformation_ and _propaganda_. Call them what they are.

~~~
sarreph
I agree, and I can't imagine how much Chomsky is cringing about it right
now[0]. But the sad truth is that psychological phenomena only become
identifiable by the general public once they've entered our lexicon under
catchy names, i.e. 'fake news'.

I recently help but couldn't feel confused why 'fake news' is a new concept to
people; why is everyone going on about it when (as you say) we've been subject
to propaganda for as long as we can remember?

I think it largely comes down to social media and how (as other commenters
have pointed out) its utterly widespread use only now warrants the spread of
misinformation as 'propaganda' — because it reaches so many people these days.
The Internet™ was — to a layman — seen as ubiquitous with truth and
objectivity... and now that it suddenly (well, duh) transpires that our social
network feeds are chock-full of misleading content from untrustworthy sources
— everyone's going nuts about it.

[0] - [http://www.salon.com/2017/01/03/noam-chomsky-you-cant-
educat...](http://www.salon.com/2017/01/03/noam-chomsky-you-cant-educate-
yourself-by-looking-things-up-online_partner/)

\--Edit, added Chomsky source, as _proof-of-cringe_

~~~
dragontamer
> I recently help but couldn't feel confused why 'fake news' is a new concept
> to people; why is everyone going on about it when (as you say) we've been
> subject to propaganda for as long as we can remember?

See "Yellow Journalism" for the late 1890s as an example. This country has
literally been dealing with "fake news" since the invention of the printing
press.

------
cyberpunk
This is about the most depressing 2+ hours of docu I've watched in the last
few years, but simply because this is all stuff we kinda knew already but in a
disjointed way presented in one hit..

It contains many thoughts/things that I (and I suspect 'we') have had about
where we are, and how we got here, but seeing them altogether in one condensed
form was quite hard to take in. It's rather hard to hear our story in this
form.. I'll give it another watch soon.

For all the feelings of helplessness it inspires, I highly rate it and would
suggest it to anyone. It's on iPlayer (for the brits here) for the next 200
days or something...

I really hope we are not running out of people like Adam Curtis, I'm not
really sure of anyone else producing content like this which is so accessible
-- would love to hear any suggestions on more content like this besides
chomsky and dan carlin's podcast which are my other two favourite opinion
content i put beside this in my virtual bookshelf :}

tl;dr -- watch it, but be forewarned you can't 'unwatch' it and, at least for
me, it can be a bit much to deal with in one go.

~~~
heurist
I found it one part hopelessness and one part empowerment. The dream of the
internet isn't gone yet and we're still the early pioneers and settlers. We
have a lot of work to do but the field of power is wide open to us, if we
choose to take it.

Fantastic documentary. Curtis is a genius.

------
gadtfly
Great interview with Adam Curtis (HyperNormalisation's creator) on _Chapo Trap
House_ (a leftist comedy podcast which has been my primary source of sanity
since November 8th):

[https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-
future...](https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future-feat-
adam-curtis-121216)

~~~
taliesinb
I wonder how many gray wolves there are on HN.

~~~
tnone
This thing of turning fan bases into named tribes weirds me out. Yet another
sign most people just want a club to belong to, and actual principles don't
matter.

~~~
jewbacca
For what it's worth, Chapo's use of "Gray Wolves" is dripping with irony, and
was coined with conscious and deliberate awareness of exactly what you're
accusing it of.

The "real" Gray Wolves are the paramilitary youth wing of a Turkish ethnic-
nationalist party.

------
jonathankoren
Hypernormalization isn't really Adam Curtis's best work. It felt really rushed
and not as well argued.

On the other hand "Century of Self", "The Trap", and "All Watched Over By The
Machines Of Loving Grace" are much better and should be required watching in
the data and socio-economics communities.

All three cover the the same idea about how simplification of complex societal
behavior for modeling purposes has been confused for an actual explaination of
behavior, and how this confusion has forced people to behave as if the
simplification is reality. He specifically deals with at times the idea of a
rational market with perfect information which runs counter to behavior
economics studies.

To make my own comical example, recall the story of the farmer that writes to
the physics department and gets back a study that presumes a spherical cow.
Instead of dismissing it, the farmer then goes about building stalls for
spherical cows, because that's what the study says. Then cattle breeders start
breeding cows to maximize their spherical properties.

------
seltzered_
Adam Curtis has a history of making these films. Worth also checking out his
2002 film 'the century of the self'.

Wikipedia on Adam Curtis:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis)

The century of the self on youtube:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s)

Other films of his are also on archive.org

~~~
nosuchthing
More films available from OP's website: [https://thoughtmaybe.com/by/adam-
curtis/](https://thoughtmaybe.com/by/adam-curtis/)

~~~
cyberpunk
I had no idea these were freely available. Thanks and then doublethanks to
whoever is behind thoughtmaybe.com...

~~~
guitarbill
You can see the videos on thoughtmaybe are BBC watermarked. AFAIK, the BBC
never released them outside the UK, although this is mainly due to copyright
and the special provisions the BBC has inside the UK that enables them to
produce such high quality material. So while they may be "freely" available, I
doubt it's legal. I'm not sure how much the BBC cares about enforcement.

~~~
astronautjones
adam curtis has implied (in the chapo interview linked in this discussion, i
think) that he encourages the bbc to/has an agreement with them to avoid
taking down uploads of his films

------
elcapitan
Am I the only one who finds these Adam Curtis "documentaries" pretty
manipulative? They seem to reassure and reinforce everybody in their view on
the world. I recently watched Steve Bannons "documentary" "Generation Zero"
which works pretty similarly. The difference seems to be that it's meant to
reassure the other side of the political spectrum.

When you disagree with such movies it's probably easier not to get sucked in
too much into the narrative style, so you can separate manipulation and stated
facts easier.

~~~
pixelmonkey
Do you find opinionated essays by persuasive writers to be "manipulative"? I
view Adam Curtis documentaries as "intellectual essays in film/narrative
form".

There is another kind of documentary, e.g. the Ken Burns style, that seems to
take no position, similar to a piece of journalism. This is simply a different
style of documentary.

You should check out Werner Herzog's "Lo and Behold", which may be at the
center point of these two styles. In that film, Herzog is clearly stating a
point of view, but the visual structure -- its scenes, setup, cinematography,
and structure -- borrows from the journalistic style. If you put these three
styles on a spectrum, perhaps then you will find the style itself isn't worth
debating, just as George Orwell vs Jorge Luis Borges may have been writers of
very different styles, but very (nonetheless) interesting content.

~~~
elcapitan
> Do you find opinionated essays by persuasive writers to be "manipulative"

To be honest: Yes. I kind of avoid columns for that reason. I get very little
out of that kind of stuff. The same goes for those lengthy "long read" opinion
pieces that have come into fashion. They're basically just very long columns.

~~~
pixelmonkey
Well, that is certainly a valid personal taste!

But, I think the term "manipulative" suggests Curtis is somehow being
"dishonest" in his filmmaking. I find that instead he's trying to craft an
intellectual argument which may lead you to rethink things. In this film, the
suggestion is that eroding at the nature of truth can lead to many in society
feeling numb to current events, because they cannot trust what is "real" and
what is "theater". The result might be fatalism/apathy. This is an interesting
thought and, in my view, very relevant to our world.

------
pizza
I really enjoyed this documentary when I saw it, and also ended up watching
Bitter Lake and (half of) Century of the Self. The concepts were quite bold
and the seemed nearly-self-evident. But then I asked myself, "so why am I just
only now hearing about all this?" as a heuristic of the measure of the
sufficient strength of supporting evidence.

It dawned upon me that some of the techniques of desire-
manufacturing/advertising that used psychological techniques, as mentioned in
_Century of the Self_ , were also used to compel the viewer about the curated
historical web of causality. And I really think that Hanlon's razor supplants
to much of the powers that be mentioned movie.

I almost feel like this movie really displays the _enouement_ of
neoliberalism: nothing ever changes in this world any more (thus we're near
"the end of history"), we're stuck in a massive deadlocked monetary system
that has only "unrealistic" alternatives, "humanitarian interventions" in
conflicts are necessary crusades and we cede that they _may_ have the same
power dynamics of imperial invasions but since they are done in the name of
freedom and democracy they are to be absolved for their ambitions, and so on.
I think that in that regard, the documentary falls short of exploring things
that are subversive to hegemony.

I was unsatisfied with the idea of watching a powerful documentary about
hypernormalisation without searching for a critical explanation of the
hypernormalisation of the documentary maker, too. Here's one such: That said,
I did genuinely enjoy the movie and appreciate that it inspired me to reflect
on modern history.

To counterbalance Curtis' fairly conservative view of modernity, this talk by
the late Mark Fisher is really good: the slow cancellation of the future [1]

[0] [http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/adam-
curtiss-e...](http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/adam-curtiss-
essential-counterhistories)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCgkLICTskQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCgkLICTskQ)

~~~
liberte82
I agree. Curtis gets the facts right for the most part, and the movie is very
interesting for historical learning, but the connections he draws and the
cause-and-effect relationships he posits are very tenuous. It's one of those
"take what you like and leave the rest" type of documentaries.

------
extr
If anyone wants to hear more from the creator, he was on an episode of Chapo
Trap House and they interviewed him about this film:

[https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-
future...](https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future-feat-
adam-curtis-121216)

~~~
taliesinb
He stumbles onto something quite interesting at the end of the interview:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s)

------
ideamonk
From history - KGB propagandist Yuri Bezmenov talks about normalisation in
context of subversion -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g)
(1983, LA)

~~~
jondwillis
There are so many parallels to what Yuri is talking about here, to plausible
explanations behind the actions of and sentiment that elected Trump's
administration, and some of the views of some of Trump's seemingly strange
bedfellows such as Milo Yiannopoulos. If Trump was eloquent, this might be
what he sounds like.

Yuri, in 1983, says that it takes 15-20 years to subvert a society. An
undertone to his whole argument implied that the West was already at least
partially subverted, and in motion even then.

~~~
anonmoose123
It's interesting how people immediately assume only the
Republicans/right/whatever are the deluded ones.

Note that these aren't tremendous sources, I'm only providing some historical
facts because the narrative has been completely lost.

Bill Clinton built a wall, and kept out immigrants.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0)

Bill Clinton fought against welfare and the nanny state:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/the-
wor...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/the-worst-thing-
bill-clinton-has-done/376797/)

Bill Clinton bombed countries on a hair trigger and created enemies overseas:
[http://www.ornery.org/essays/2001-01-26-1.html](http://www.ornery.org/essays/2001-01-26-1.html)

The fatal flaw in Curtis' documentary, and in most people who view it, is they
think only Republicans suffer from hypernormalization. BOTH parties are
guilty, and yes it's going to keep getting worse even if we have a D beside
the president's name. Go back and watch The West Wing and see how long it
takes until they're justifying the murder of innocent people in the middle
east.

~~~
astronautjones
I don't really think that Hypernormalisation is as partisan as you suggest -
in fact, listen to the Chapo Trap House interview people are linking to here.
He is extremely critical of the Democrats/centrists that trade as "the left"
and goes to lengths to explain how culpable they are for the current dumpster
fire we're experiencing

------
cJ0th
From my experience as a programmer and a musician I find it odd that Curtis
advocates the need for a big vision to bring about real change. In other
words, he urges people to do top down planning.

My impression is that working bottom-up is more suited for solving complex
problems with many unknowns. Sure, many undertakings, like the Arab Spring,
failed. And this is hardly surprising because a lot of success depends on
happy accidents which you can't expect to happen. But bottom up "miracles"
like modern computer technology or new musical genres do happen. Otoh, from
the top of my head, I don't remember a single complex problem with many
unknowns that was (successfully) solved with top-down planning.

Ironically, LSD (which apparently inspired Curtis a lot) is another classic
example for this. It failed miserably at what it was intended to do but turned
out to be a happy accident for other purposes.

~~~
digi_owl
Not sure how much it is top down planning, and how much it is someone that can
stake out some point on the proverbial horizon and hold the rest of the group
on course towards it, all while they are doing their individual tasks etc.

Think of it like the Kennedy speech about going to the moon with in a certain
date. That sets the point on the horizon to steer towards by declaring a
vision. Then it is up to the larger group to figure out just how to get there
while faced with various obstacles etc en-route.

A good captain declares the course, but trust his crew to get them there
without him micromanaging every detail.

~~~
cJ0th
That's a reasonable objection. I still think that whether or not positive
change happens is regardless of whether or not there is a vision highly
dependent on happy accidents (including change in external circumstances).

------
YeGoblynQueenne
Speaking of fake news, the video repeats the claim from the time of the Iran-
Iraq war that Iran sent 95,000 schoolchildren to walk over minefields and
detonate mines with their bodies.

Given that Iranians are human beings and therefore, evil Islamists or not,
must have similar emotions towards their offspring as other human beings, I
find that claim about as believable as the stories of German soldiers eating
babies in WWI [1] which is to say, not at all.

Unfortunately after hearing that I find it very hard to believe anything else
in that video.

_______________

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda#World_War_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda#World_War_I)

------
Fr0styMatt88
It's timely this should come up as I've been on a bit of an Adam Curtis binge
lately, having recently watched half of HyperNormalisation and then the
entirety of the 'The Power Of Nightmares' series. I'm looking forward to
watching the rest of his work.

One question I have for those that have seen his stuff - a recurring criticism
I see of Curtis' work is that he states his opinions as if they are historical
facts and heavily editorialises, leaving out important chunks of history
because they don't support the view he's trying to push.

Are these accurate criticisms? I don't want to feel like I'm learning about
history when in actuality I'm being fed something that's inaccurate (thanks
'King of Kong' for ruining my trust in documentaries, but I digress!). For
example after watching 'The Power Of Nightmares' I feel like I know much more
about what was going on in the world of geopolitics in the 80s and 90s, but
I'd hate to think that I've just picked up a series of falsehoods (doubt this
is the case though).

~~~
MrScruff
I treat Adam Curtis (or any other documentary maker) as a source of ideas for
further research, but with a heavy pinch of salt.

His work is designed to ping the same sense of delight in being party to a
secret that motivates conspiracy theorists.

~~~
astronautjones
His films often make me feel as if i'm listening to the Feeding of the 5000
[1] for the first time again

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKAHU5-pS_A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKAHU5-pS_A)

------
YeGoblynQueenne
Well, I got to the point where Blackrock builds a giant supercomputer called
Aladdin that can predict the future and, well, now I understand exactly what
kind of video I've been watching.

So that's an hour and twenty minutes of my time on this lonely Earth wasted
watching the modern equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the
Illuminati trilogy but, like, for serious. I should have watched BSG reruns
instead.

------
greens231
till last year i was thinking of getting a visa and trying my luck in the
valley. now it seems (having learned more about america) that a significant
part of the population thinks science is a liberal hoax, thinks the government
and media is constantly lying, carries assault rifles and believes shit like
pizzagate is not only plausible but true.

~~~
loftyal
America is much more diverse than other countries - the valley, New York, etc
are very different than the deep south.

~~~
RileyKyeden
Even regions that seem homogeneous from the outside are highly varied, like
the deep south. Travel the interstates and highways in Georgia, and you'll
mostly find the same kinds of things and people who, at worst, silently judge
you. Get off the interstate/highway, and every little town has its own unique
structure, culture, lore, and tolerances for outsiders.

------
rtets
"History may not repeat itself but it does rhyme..." Some guy, last century

Are there really no parallels for popular opinion straying significantly from
established facts and resulting in irrational behaviour before natural
correction...? Are the South Sea Bubble and the Cold War not two such such
examples of this?

~~~
rtets
In considering our time more pivotal than any before, are we not guilty of the
same sensationalism and irrational behaviour that this film observes?

------
fny
The Wikipedia page provides a pretty decent summary:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation)

------
arprocter
Also downloadable from here:
[https://archive.org/details/HyperNormalisation](https://archive.org/details/HyperNormalisation)

------
eddie_catflap
I enjoyed watching this but it felt a bit disjointed in comparison to his
other productions.. almost as though he had ton of clips left over from his
other documentaries that he didn't want to go to waste. The style remains
eminently watchable though and the parts on social media were real head in the
hands, 'what have we built?' moments for me.

Great soundtrack again too.

------
littletimmy
Watching this documentary was a really unsettling experience. The subversion
of information has become so institutionalized, and common people are so
accepting of it, that it is hard to even think about how we can escape it. My
only logical conclusion is that things will continue to get worse as people
get more and more distant from the truth. Perhaps a new dark ages.

------
singularity2001
"No one has any vision for a better future" ( first minute of the film)

thanks for making the wrong premise explicit and not have us waste our time.

