Topics

From Deepest Darkest Peru #10 Slings and fortresses

I woke up with the bits of my face and hands that I could feel in incredible pain.  Fortunately, those bits weren't many.  This was bad, it was really hurting.  I hoped I hadn't got frostbite or something.  I'd hate to be in a Peruvian hospital with that nastiness.

Then all my cold related worries faded away as the Kalashnikov rifle was pointed directly at my face, from about 3 feet away. That woke me up very fast indeed.  We were so fucked.  Bandits were going to rob us of everything we had, in the middle of nowhere too.  There was no chance of finding a bank to withdraw the emergency fund way out here.  We would simply be left to freeze to death...

Then the gunman moved into view.  He was wearing blue...in fact, it was the uniform of the Peruvian Tourist Police.  That was even worse.  They'd probably roll us for cash then arrest us for sleeping out here.  Wouldn't they?  My numbed mind was hazy, but the police were as corrupt as any South American country could be expected to be and probably even had some public vagrancy laws.

Moving my head so I could see to the left of me, I could see several more, some also armed with AK-47's.  I could also see Phil, smoking and alternately drinking a steaming cup of coffee, the bastard.  He noticed and came over to me, to gloat no doubt.  
,ÄúMorning Marc,Äù he said amiably before taking another gulp of the steaming liquid.
,ÄúWhere the hell did you get that from?  And are the police waiting for us to all wake up before they arrest us or what?,Äù
,ÄúThere's a lady at the edge of the plaza, showed up about 10 minutes ago.  Only a sol too, pretty decent stuff.  As for the police, they showed up at about 4am, an hour after you fell asleep.  None of them speak English, but I get the impression they are protecting us.  This is the Inca Trail after all, many people are willing to shaft a few gringos for some easy cash.,Äù

Oh.  Well, that seemed good.  Except the bit that meant I'd only got between two or three hours sleep.  I told Phil to grab me a coffee and I'd pay him as soon as I'd thawed out.  It really did help, just holding it and smelling the aroma was enough to warm me up and dull the pain in my head.  After I'd warmed up enough, I shed the sleeping bag I was in and found the nearest policeman and thanked them profusely for looking out for us.

The others took their sweet time, but were all up in about an hour.  Baz took an expedition to find a hostel while the rest of us either had another coffee or went on a shopping expedition.  Matt came back with the best poncho I had ever seen, a ankle length hand-knitted, alpaca wool garment that had cost him less then anything in Cuzco had been.  Deciding this opportunity could not be missed, I demanded he show me the way to the seller.  10 minute later I had a quality garment for $13 that would have cost ten times as much back in the UK.  Not to mention it was very warm, quite stylish and completed the whole gringo look.

Getting back, Baz had finally found us a place.  It was more expensive then I had expected, but this was the Inca Trail, after all.  I dumped the bags and decided to catch a few hours that I had missed from the last night.  Coffee could only do so much...

I awoke when a slingshot whizzed over my head into the wall.  ,ÄúBloody hell!,Äù I shouted before throwing myself at the nearest person, then trying to garrote the Other James with his wool slingshot.  It seems they had been shopping while I had slept.  I didn't approve of the slingshot as a weapon.  In my hands it was fine, just everyone else's that worried me.  To say they had not mastered the art of aiming such weapons would be an understatement.

After the meager lunch our funds afforded us, I decided to scale the massive fortress that overshadowed the town.  It was hard to miss really, as it took up most of the valley.  As we got closer, the true scale hit me.  What looked like ordinary steps from a distance actually would have come up to my waist when I was next to them.  And there were a lot of steps.

As I climbed up through the well preserved ruins, I came to realize how the Conquistadors lost here.  What had happened was Francesco Pizzaro,Äôs bother and elite his Conquistador cavalry were thoroughly routed at this town, the largest Inca victory in their conquest.  When you were in the fortress, it wasn't hard to see why.  It was an attackers worst nightmare.  

First of all, they would have had to come over the flats of the Sacred Valley, where their approach would have been seen for miles, giving plenty of time to prepare the defenses.  Then, where the valley was at its least widest, the fort was placed.  The massive stones had been used carefully to create death alleys and plentiful corners, turns and twists that would not only force the cavalry to dismount, but make every 10 metres a possible ambush.  It would have been a nightmare, turning every corner and waiting for the hail of stones and arrows that would be unleashed.  Not to mention the built in alcoves etc that just made the attacker's life that much more difficult.

The top of the valley was reached, then I made my descent back to the town again. Apparently, I was now in charge of our transport and had to organize for us to get out of here once we we're finished at Manchu Picchu.  I guess all those other times I had organized transport, translated for the idiot who was apparently in charge and paid for it didn't count or something.  Grabbing Becky, who seemed to be the only other person nearby who hadn't gone for a game of poker, I went off in search of a decent bus firm.  It was found very quickly, I might add.  For the grand sum of $15 we got an air conditioned private bus all the way back to Cuzco.  That was roughly what we had paid to get here from Quillibamba, which hadn't even been private.  Must have been my good looks, or poncho or something.

Dinner was at one of the two restaurants the town boasted.  Well, I say boasted, its more truthful to say they were hidden like some deformed family stepchild.  If it hadn't been for the Lonely Planet guide we would have never even found the places. Being in a foreign country and succumbing to the surrounding British vibes of my group, I immediately went for the meal with chips, an omelette of some type.  Tim mentioned there would be another poker game at the hostel tonight, should I be interested.  I was, but then Becky started on her second bottle of wine.  It was terrible, I wanted to pull myself away, but all she wanted to do was tell me and Neil (who was equally bemused and worried) about her ex.  After half an hour of this, when everyone had left, we managed to persuade her to sleep it off and I finally managed to make it to my damn poker game.

I was dealt in and started off well.  Since Dan was playing, I was guaranteed a few sols at least.  He could barely control his temper, let alone his facial expressions.  Tim was a monster at the game, as I had expected though.  After losing a few hands to him, I decided to make good with what I had left of my winnings and get to bed.  After all, I'd need my sleep for Manchu Picchu tomorrow.

my City story.  I'm pretty sure my style has improved alot since I last wrote anything about it, plus I'd like to do some work more on the history, geography and groups within the City.  I'll see if I'm still awake enough once I finish writing this essay.

A new book of poetry by the former Bosnian Serb leader and fugitive war crimes suspect, Radovan Karadzic, has been launched in Serbia.

Mr Karadzic's publisher told AP news agency the poems had been completed in the past few months, but refused to say how they came into his possession.



I have come to a conclusion: anyone who is a poet should be barred from public office.  Without a doubt, nearly every poet who gets control of a country has turned out to be some looney fascist jerk we want to hang only years later.

We interrupt this rant to bring you a special announcement from our beloved leaders!

You are irrelevant.  You are not even worthy of our attention as voters, the only reason you are tolerated at all is because of the steady amounts of cash you put out for us and our friends.  Notice we only refer to you as tax payers today?  Thats because that's all you're good for.

We must stave off your doubts, make you march to the drums of consensous, be as outraged as you are.  The objective is everything, the players insignificant digits, necessary yet worthless in our calculations.

We will use you, drain you, kill you if we must and you will get the jobs one because we say so.  We understand things you can never hope to.  Do not question us, you have no access to our knowledge.

Now go back to your idiot boxes.  There is nothing to worry about tax payers, your Government is in control.  Here, drink this depressant, watch this mind-numbing and informationally challenged crap.  There is nothing to worry about, and everything to worry about.  But we are here to protect you.  Except when we dont want to, or it doesnt suit us.

In this thread, we put examples of the wierdest poetry we can find.

I'll start the ball rolling with a lovely piece of lyric poetry from Alcman which reads:

"You made a cheese, large and firm, for the Slayer of Argos".  That was the only retrived bit, pobably for the best.

Volume 3a Neo-liberalism

Fiat Justitia et Pereat Mundus (let justice be done, though the world perishes)
-Ferdinand I (1503,Äì1564)

,ÄúWe need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.,Äù
- Project For the New American Century

,ÄúFrancis Fukuyama is a fucking idiot who defines ,Äúretarded,Äú,Äù
-Cain, shortly before being ,Äútaken outside and had a quiet word at,Äù at a Neo-Conservative group meeting last year.

Neo-liberalism is the name of the game in the 21st, allegedly post-American century.  The historical debate is over, this is the wave of the future, and everyone who disagrees is retrograde and backward in the extreme.  Or so people would have you believe.  Apparently, the end of the USSR means American style democracy has triumphed over every other sort of ideology, and humanity has reached political perfection.  That,Äôs part of the myth of neo-liberalism, the telling of its ,Äúmanifest destiny,Äù, its sovereign right of leadership over the world. And we all know what happened the last times those 2 phrases were in common use, don,Äôt we?

Surprisingly, people don,Äôt like to talk about it much, outside academic journals.  If it is at all, it is referred to ,ÄúGlobalisation,Äù or the ,Äúfree market,Äù (for economic features), or neo-Conservativism for its social features.  People don,Äôt like them being linked though,  because then coherent arguments can be made against it.  And people also don,Äôt like it to be told that Neo-cons are just the logical conclusion of the whole theory.

What,Äôs more, it,Äôs probably the most haphazard stringing together of economic, political and social theories in modern history, not seen since National Socialism.  The arguments are generally flying in the face of facts, obnoxious, and strangely compelling if you don,Äôt factor reality and common sense into the equation.  Even worse, it uses language and good intentions that make attacking it look like you are a tyrant/Communist/Islamic suicide bomber who is against democracy and freedom for all.

These people are the new Crusaders of the 21st century.  The quote from Ferdinand the First is the whole nature of this new beast.  They will talk of spreading democracy to promote peace, going back to giants of history such as Kant and Wilson to justify bringing it about by the sword.   These crusading moralists know what,Äôs best for everyone.  You,Äôre not against democracy are you?

I wont even go into the economic arguments, because they,Äôre so boring and well known there is no need to say them again, ,Äúfree market blah,Äù and all that.

What I will say is this:  they will carve a sea of blood through every land they can in order to bring about the democratic peace theory (that democracies don,Äôt fight each other).  Am I the only one who sees a problem with this idea, spreading freedom by killing anyone who disagrees with your interpretation?  Because that,Äôs why the Neo-Cons target Chavez, and others,Ķ

The other part of their mythology, their ,Äúcreation story,Äù is kept much quieter, now the facts are out.  When Chile was turned into a giant torture chamber and experiment is free markets, the ,ÄúChilean economic miracle,Äù was hailed, and the story of its ,Äúsuccess,Äù was used as the justification for bringing the revolution abroad.  I mean, don,Äôt you think thousands of dead and tortured bodies were a success?  They were against ,Äúfreedom,Äù after all.  And their economic theories were all taught personally by the acknowledged founding father of neo-liberalism, Milton Friedman.  There,Äôs a happy thought.

It wont stop, either.  Not until the rest of the world accepts that this is the way forward.  The entire theory is unpragmatic in the extreme and aggressively expansionist.  There are times we need to support dictatorships,  to carry out necessary, if unpleasant, acts for the defence of the state.  But this isn,Äôt it, and never will be.  We will all drown in their righteous, patronising moralizing if we don,Äôt choke on the blood first!  Their acts will cause eruptions of revenge and bloodletting against us that will make Africa in the 70s look like a minor dispute.  And it,Äôll be us in the crosshairs, as always.  Squeezed between those looking for revenge and our heavily protected leaders, who have a worldview as rigid and unhinged as those they oppose.  There wont be any ,Äúpeace,Äù if they get their way, no matter if their intentions are good or ill.  Do the Iraqis look peaceful to you?  And how many bodies will it take before someone says ,Äúlet us take the fight to the infidels/imperialists/warmongering pigs!,Äù

These people are the worst sort of idealists.  You know about Marxist ,Äúhistoric inevitability?,Äù  Well, these guys have that too, so they think.  They are the tide of progress, the people who will usher in a new dawn for humanity.  Needless to say, these people are not very good historians in general, and fail to note the patterns of hubris and nemesis, condemned to it as we are by our own nature.  And those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.  Nazism started off as a world embracing synthesis of left and right values too, as they were interpreted in the 1930s.

These people are the enemies of every sane being on this planet, make no mistake.  Their zeal matches, if not surpasses that of any religious fundamentalist.  And what more, they have power, money and millions prepared to follow them.  And as that,Äôs the case, they,Äôll be following down a bloody trail which may have no easily foreseeable end.

This was going to be a post on the hypocrisy of Neo-Liberalism (the ideological basis of Bush and Blair, among others), but then I got pissed off thinking about it.  And then I got even more pissed when I read the meta-rant and realised how little it would mean.  

So I've decided to go smash shit instead.  Not only is this a better use of my time, there is either the small chance I will will exhaust myself and feel much better by morning, or the police will hold me, get me a psychaitric report and put me on something which stops me thinking above the level of a cow.

Holla, losers!

Notes From A Small Island, Vol. 2 : Ideology is just a stick for beating people with.

There is something about watching Parliamentary debates and media commentary that makes my skin crawl.  Not just the rampant idiocy of most of the ,Äúdebates,Äù (though that plays a part too), its that each side can get through hours of ranting without actually adding anything at all.  You just get the usual garbage of ,Äúso and so is a do gooder,  wishy washy  PC dupe,Äù, or ,Äúsaid person is a reactionary fascist who would prefer we lived in the Dark Ages and hates people without white skin,Äù.

Politics has become polarised, but its more than that.  When you get past all the arguments, with all the historical evidence, picking a political philosophy has less to do with a belief and more to do with justifying your own attacks on someone.  For instance, the old use of ,Äúliberal,Äù as an insult, no so much that they are opposed to liberal philosophy, but because it upsets their status quo and they need their own ,Äústick,Äù to beat that threat with.

Equally, liberalism is no better.  Supported by people who are mostly poor and young and who express anger at the world being run by rich, old people, they too need their own stick.

In the end the politicians don,Äôt care one way or another.  The dichotomy between left/right politics just means they can pick a side and be guaranteed power if they are in the right area.  Only the few who ,Äútruly believe,Äù are sent out the swing areas, the political no-mans land where they soon become cynical or are weeded out.

Of course, this doesn,Äôt just apply to politics.  Religion is a prime example, be it Islam, Judaism or Discordianism.  Christianity is used to bash on the Jews, a product of a power play within Israelite priestly politics.  Islam united Arabia to smash the Christian Romans.  It comes down to either crushing an elite or maintaining one.  It always has done, history is nothing but competing power structures, justifying their reasons through the cloak of ideology.  Belief in said system went out thousands of years ago, if indeed anyone ever did believe in the first place.  And nowadays they,Äôve become too ,Äúsophisticated,Äù, or cynical, to bother in keeping up the charade.

And we,Äôre no different.  For whatever reason we have our own issues, we hate the ordinary and despise the rule bound and expected.  Discordianism is our own ,Äústick,Äù for bashing people like that, for making us feel better about ourselves, ,Äúyeah I may be a weirdo but at least I ain,Äôt a cabbage/greyface!,Äù  We play along and mouth the slogans in order to achieve our own ends, just like all the others.  You get the idea.  Of course, I could be totally wrong about Discordians and just talking again about my compulsive need to break shit needing justification.

Rants are silly, because the vast majority of the audience are Discordians anyway.  The people who should be seeing them are the semi-Cabbages, the slightly pink (picked up from being surrounded by others of a darker pink hue), the people who have a vague feeling that something isnt quite right, but they cant put their finger on it.

We can protest and argue and sermonise to our hearts content to each other, but we've already recognized the problems and want to solve them.  Its the others out there, that need convincing.

I, the Apostate Cain, say unto you go forth!  Preach to the masses!  While many of these rants give a different and highly interesting view of Discordianism etc...they dont do much good just taking up bandwidth on a website so far off the beaten track it should have stumbled onto another by now.  They need to be out there, in the world, in places where people can be convinced, swayed, have discussions over them.  Otherwise we might as well be yelling into the wind.  Its kinda sad, but I dont want Discordianism to end up as something discussed among a small, obscure elite, like certain political doctrines.  But thats the way it seems to be going.

That,Äôs one of the scary things about these modern times, its so unsure and unsettling that we can never be quite sure of who we surround ourselves on a daily basis.  We so desperately wish to believe what the people we know tell us, because to question otherwise would feed our paranoia and exhaust us on a daily basis.

Well, we all know what I think about paranoia.  Its impossible, as virtually everyone, from crazy Islamic fundamentalists to crazed Baptists to unthinking secret police.  But that,Äôs the exciting sort of evil that makes the news nowadays, and not the sort that,Äôs the real problem.

The real one is the otherwise quite nice and well adjusted people who would condemn you for the smallest of infractions of custom  The people who mentally condemn you to hell every day for reasons that are as ludicrous as they are petty.  But its worse than even that.

It,Äôs the guy you go drinking with, who voted for Bush in the last election, despite being an otherwise intelligent individual who disagreed with invading Iraq and his own health policy.  It,Äôs the school assistant who straps a bomb to his back and goes out to cause in London that which he disagrees with so vehemently in other parts of the world.  Otherwise ordinary people who just,Ķsnap.  Or worse, truly  believe what they are doing is right.

We all know about Nazis.  No-one takes a man like that seriously anymore, except a few deluded nuts.  There is no question of evil cloaking itself in the face of the righteous anymore, it is that same face.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say.  We have plenty enough of those nowadays ,Äúto protect the people,Äù, to disarm dangerous states of weapons,Äù, ,Äúto prevent another 7/7,Äù.

I know people (through other people) who work high up in Government.  They aren,Äôt evil Machiavellian schemers, mad with power and plotting over the brandy.  They don,Äôt have the intelligence or time for it, for starters.  Instead, they are mostly otherwise good and decent people, who want the best for their constituents and country.  A few are tarnished, admittedly, but that can go with the territory sometimes.

So where is this problem?  Damned if I know.  The world is seriously fucked up, and at times like this I wonder if there really is some giant conspiracy, or just reach for the scotch to stop those thoughts at all,ĶThe system is broken.  The machine isn,Äôt coming for you, bits of it have broken and are flying off, catching random passer-by,Äôs and the occasional mechanic who tries to fix the problem.  Don,Äôt get me wrong, I have little faith in our leaders.  I,Äôm not that na?Øve, they,Äôre still scum and as much my enemies as any people still alive.  Of course, there are a few who thrive on breaking the bits of the same machine and then extending their contracts to fix it, but they are surprisingly uncommon.

Perhaps the ideas are the problem?  Rigid adherence to the ,Äúideals of the cause,Äù be it neo-conservativism,  Salafi Islam or the mythical Third Way.  These ideas all start with helping people, yet end up in disaster for many involved.  Something to think about, maybe?

Dont ask where I got this, it mysertiously appeared in my wardrobe one day, after a drinking session and reading some Spike Milligan.  Its a bitch to transcript too.

----------------------

The Apocrypha to the Vengeful Testament of Eris

I.  An Account Of the Creation (compiled from eyewitness reports and press releases)

I.      In the beginning was the Word.
II.     And the word was ,ÄúDamn!,Äù
III.   Verily, several other words followed, and they were ,ÄúI,Äôm sure that wasn,Äôt meant to happen.,Äù
IV.  And thus the Universe was created.
V.   And Eris said, ,ÄúLet There Be Light,Äù but woe there were brownouts in California.
VI.  And Eris saw the light and it was good.  Eris also saw the monthly bill quadruple after deregulation, and that was not good.
VII. And the Lady did say, ,ÄúLet There Be Firmament,Äù, and lo she did think, this colour does not go with my eyes well.
VIII. And Eris did bring forth dry land and did command the water to be gathered unto one place.  And in London the land went at $6000 a square metre, and lo the water rarely stayed in on one place for long.
IX. And Eris did say ,ÄúLet There Be Grass,Äù and her followers smoke it unto this day in thanks.
X. And the Lady did say ,ÄúLet There Be Light In Heaven to Give Light To Earth,Äù and there were many reports of UFOs, except over England where autumnal weather meant it was overcast.
XI. And the Lady did say ,ÄúLet The Sea Bring Forth Life,Äù and it did, but EU fishing quotas did not stop over fishing there.
XII. And Eris blessed them, saying ,ÄúBe Fruitful, Multiply and Fill the Sea, And Let Fowl Multiply On The Earth,Äù, but lo, many of the fowl did catch bird flu and died.
XIII.  And Eris did say, ,ÄúLet The Earth Bring Forth Cattle and Creeping Things,Äù and there came cows, and Republican Presidential candidates.
XIV. And Eris did say, ,ÄúLet Us Make Man in Our Own Image,Äù, but woe, creative differences caused the design team to pursue individual projects.
XV.  And she said ,ÄúLet Humanity Have Dominion Over Fish, Cattle, Fowl and Anything Else Stupid Enough To Follow them Around,Äù.
XVI. And Eris said, ,ÄúBehold, I Have Given Thee The First Of Free Yielding Seed,Äù but Monsanto did copyright it and sell it for extortionate amounts.

II.  On The Creation Of Man And Woman

I.  And on the 6th day, Eris did rest from her labours, with full backing from the Fireman,Äôs Union and a strike by the London Underground train drivers.
II. And every plant and herb was in the earth, for Eris had not caused it to rain, and Bob Geldolf had not yet pestered the G8 for their lack of action.
III. And the Lady did form man and woman out of dust of the ground and did breathe life into them, and they were thankful for the Lady attending that first aid course.
IV. The Lady planted a Garden in Eden and placed man and woman there, and to this day the residual memory rests with TV producers.
V.  And out of the ground grew every tree that was pleasing to the Lady, but woe She had not counted on logging rights being granted in the region.
VI. And Eris did put man and woman in the Garden to dress and take care of it, but said on Her tax that they were part time labour and so did not come under a health plan.
VII.  The Lady did say of any tree in the garden though may eat freely, but She was apprehended for inciting theft at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park.
VIII. But of the tree of Certainty and thou shall most surely die, for it was sprayed with DDT.
IX. And both man and woman were naked, and they were not ashamed.  However, it did get somewhat nippy at night, and there were arrested for indecency at Euston Station.

That is all.

*Note:  I actually started a draft on this on Wednesday evening (BST) but I see Roger has beaten me to some of the points of this already in PD discussion.  Well, fuck it, I've spent time on this and I'm going to write it.  Sorry for the repetitive overlap.  And get out of my head Roger.  Its crowded enough as it is.

So, everyone is a Real Discordian?  I'm a Discordian, that man over there is a Discordian, that jerk behind me chewing like a cow on grass in the library is a Discordian and so is george W bush, your most loved/hated idols, pop stars and thinkers?

Hell no.

What would be the point in designating anything as "Discordian" if everything is?  Why would there be such a label it it encompassed eveything?  We've got other words for that, like "humanity", or "universal" and other terms.

Lets put it another way.  Would you say Adolf Hitler was Discordian, because of the discord, chaos and etc caused/initiated by him?  Because if so, then his actions are the actions of a Discordian.  And if this man (and I use that word looslely) was acting as a Discordian, then how can we, also identifying ourselves as part of that group, justify our own condemnation of ideals people like him hold?  "If eveything is permitted, then nothing is disallowed" should be changed to "if everyone is permitted, then nothing is allowed".

Lets set something straight: alot of people are not Discordian.  They may be agents of Chaos, Discord and change, but chances are they have never even heard of Eris, and in some cases probably couldnt spell it.  Just because you cause discord, it doesnt entitle you to be Discordian.

Of course, this raises the question of what is Discordian.  Difficult question.  Many people pride it on being so open to interpretation and personal belief, so they dont want to question it.  Its much easier to use the cop-out of "oh, but everyone..."

So I'm going to do it, since no-one else wants to open themselves to allegations of being a fascist who tells people what they can and cant be.  Without definition, there is no group.  Just some amorphous belief structure, more imagined to be shared than actually existing.  Which opens up the real problem, of belief being hijacked and used to other, less altruistic ends.

A Discordian generally (and I'm talking about generalities here.  If I leave out or misinterpret your personal ideas, too bad.  I'm not here to to please you.  Maybe if you had stepped up first, it wouldnt have been a problem) beliefs that the forces of the Universe are that of Discord and Order, which together are called Chaos.  It is believed that these forces are value neutral, though tendencies towards one or another are unnatural and represent an inbalance in the way of how things are.  This is especially seen in the obsession with order prevalent among political leaders, and that order is a "good" thing.

Also, it is believed that inclination towards seriousness in all things is another unnatural thing (I'm avoiding morality and value laden terms), linked to the obsession of order being good.  Humour is often based on the unpredictable, the unusual and unexpected, and so is seen as a counter to the imbalance of order within the world.

Thats as far as I can be bothered to go, but that, to me, is what a real Discordian is.  They subscribe to the philosophy, not just act like jerks and blame it all on some vague, not understood notion.  of course, there may be errors with it.  But this is why we have a forum.  We can discuss, debate, adapt our ideas.  That is, if anyone bothers to raise them at all.

"Where Zen ends, asskicking begins."
,Äî Richard Marcinko

"Don,Äôt go looking for a fight ,Äî but if you,Äôre hit, deck the bastard."
,Äî Roger Ailes

"What can I do? The man isn,Äôt being reasonable."
,Äî "Don Corleone" from The Godfather


Yes, this is another rant where some asshole has a go at you for being worthless tools who would rather write haikus than go out there and do something to help yourselves.  Only, the asshole this time is me, and when I start off it,Äôs often not without reason.

You can play the three word game, write poems and fuck around all day long and I would have no problem with it, in theory. However, when put into context of the current situation, its about the second dumbest thing you could do, the dumbest being saying ,Äúmy leaders mean me well,Äù and go back to whatever mind numbing piece of shit is on the idiot box.  And that,Äôs not you, as we know, you are smart people (mostly, though I have my doubts).  You know what,Äôs going on, you know your fellow countrymen are basically bending over and going ,Äúyes sir, thank you sir,Äù to your current Administration.

What you are basically doing is equivalent to what Nero did a long time ago, but since only one person here is really up on their Roman history, I,Äôll spell it out: you are fiddling while Rome burns, Rome here being your rights to not be treated like the worthless fucks the leadership half suspects you are.  Now, more than in a long time, people willing to do something about it are needed.  But that would involve turning off the PC, going outside and dealing with people without the safe interface of the screen to protect you.

Usually around now someone pops up, normally some lame-ass punk ,Äúguest,Äù who was too chicken-shit to even log in using their recognized name, saying ,Äúyou don,Äôt know me, don,Äôt you dare judge me!,Äù  Well, I sure as hell know some of you, and all I need to look for is the post count.  And yes, I will judge you.  Judging is human.  Nothing gives me the right to, but since you show so little concern for your other ,Äúrights,Äù,  I have no qualms about it.

Then the next objection: but Roger and Turd always say KYFMS.  Yes, about particulars.  No point in boasting from inside jail, after all.  That doesn,Äôt mean you cant present things in a hypothetical fashion.  KYFMS generally implies you actually did something to KYFMS about, which I very much doubt is the case around here.  You,Äôd have to turn the PC off for starters,Ķfor people who pride yourself on not being grey faced, your lack of imagination and willingness to follow rules like this so ultimately is very disappointing.

So what do I want you to do? Perhaps act according to some of the principles you allegedly have.  Throw a monkey wrench in The Machine, stall it, smash the dials, fuck with the production,Ķdon,Äôt look to me for particulars.  I,Äôm nobody,Äôs leader.  But equally, don,Äôt think pranks making reference to the number 23, large amounts of flax and the Bavarian Illuminati will do that either,Ķ

Why should you do this, because some mystery poster on the internet told you to?  Hell no.  I can think of over half a million reasons, and that,Äôs just from one decision.  Not much fun about people being tortured for having wrong colour skin.  Nothing funny about permanent semi-martial law.  Or people starting to ,Äúvanish,Äù, because arrest warrants and charges are ,Äúobsolete,Äù. Of course, if we followed from the actions of most of this forum, we,Äôd make jokes about pies and obscure ,Äúin,Äù references in poems until one day we find out we have to work until we,Äôre 80 to fund the latest ,Äútax cut,Äù for the rich, or practically sell oneself into loan slavery at the bank to ensure the kids get a semi-decent education.  And assuming some of us actually had the courage of our convictions, some people might not wake up at all, unless the agent pouring Drano down your throat gets sloppy.  

A prize for a prize, thats the rules of today.  They want your rights removed, so take something precious from them.  Like taking for granted that they can live in an ordered society.  You are followers of a Goddess of many things, among them Chaos and Discord.  And while Chaos can be viewed in terms of an overall balance, doesnt that equate to society as whole?  Your leaders want overall order...so bring to them overall disorder. It'll balance out, sooner or later.

Argh, what the fuck am I wasting my time writing this for?  Turd and The Good Reverend have already spelled it out for you innumerable times,Ķif you haven,Äôt got it by now, chances are you never will.  If nothing else, fight for your right to have fun, because soon enough, you wont even have that anymore.  Fuck this shit, I could have done something constructive with my time,Ķ.

INTO A BUNCH OF WHINEY EMOS.

I dont think anything will give me so much fun/targets/people to piss off for months to come.  

flounce.  Cant be bothered with it.  Flouncing, that is.  Too much effort.

While many of those in Europe have been having a chuckle over the misfortune or stupidity of our American allies and cousins in their current leadership, we have become lax enough to not notice our own role in world affairs.  Many times we have played second fiddle to corporate interests in other parts of the world, not of concern to any European citizen.  We have struck deals with American companies to carve up the economic world through the IMF and World Bank, regardless of the consequences abroad.  We have allowed aristocratic and economic cabals dominate our lives to such degrees we don,Äôt even notice them anymore, the unelected EU Commission, the medieval lunacies of the Catholic Church and our peculiar obsession with monarchy, among others.  

And then there are our internal affairs.  Italy becoming a gangster,Äôs paradise where one man owns the majority of the media, and leads the country also?  Not to mention the sway of the Vatican in meddling in its own internal affairs. To Germany, where despite the rhetoric of the Socialist Government, the true power within industry lies with Russian and ex-Stasi gangsters.  The French, who are hardly innocent, in stealing American weapons designs and selling them to the highest bidders around the world, no matter who the buyer is.  And good old Britain, where socialism has become a perverted joke, while Labour Government sells it souls to disreputable big business and criminal regimes all to sustain the economy.

They sold the Americans a lie, and now they,Äôll want here too.  Oh, don,Äôt look around for shadowy conspirators, because likely there are none.  Its just the natural progression of things, or because, as a far better man than I ever will be said, ,Äúthe free market demands it.,Äù  Yes, we may laugh or cry or be frustrated at what is happening in the USA, but that is taking our eyes off the ball here.  Our media and culture have become so dominated by the Americans, their ideas and values have become dominant over here too.  And while that is no bad thing all the time, as evidenced by the revolutions against tyranny and despotism, it has also bought the darker side.  Deregulation, ,Äúfree,Äù market dominance, a desire for our way to be the only way.

The dominant paradigm over there is coming over here.  Already, we have evangelical groups copying extremist tactics employed in America on our own shores.  Our media are owned by the same moguls, who push the same message over there: All Government is bad, put faith in the market, the media is your friend, the Right knows how to manage the economy.  How long until we get a European Bush?  After all, Reagan emulated Thatcher, so in a sense we are owed some payback.  And there is another thing,Ķevery hundred years or so, some nutcase tries to untie Europe under a dictatorship.  It,Äôs like some reoccurring disease we cannot shake.  Domination and the desire for it are as old as people themselves, and like all historical things, we cannot let go of them.

Our ideas still dominate today.  Ideas have always been a trademark of Europe.  Yet, conversely it is our weakness.  We take an idea, then run with it until it cannot keep up with reality, until the flaws cause it to come crashing down around us.  We have become old, and instead of trying to ride the seas of chaos, we have become like King Canute, trying to push back what already surrounds us all.

And the more you try to deny Chaos by mistakenly increasing order, the bigger the fall you set up for yourselves.  This is your wakeup call, Europe.  The age of Chaos, the Aftermath is upon us.  Your tepid resistance to some of the cultural norms of today will not save you.  There is no saviour anywhere.  This is your warning to those who will try to deny us:  Your time is near.  In trying to deny you are sowing the seeds of your own destruction.

Finding life on the outside a little too tough?  Hate all the the "thinking" you indulge in, the feeling that so much of the world has missed out on the joke that the punchline isnt even funny anymore?

Then give up.

Go on.  Go crawling back, take your rightful place in proper society again.  Start watching more TV, and I don't mean documentaries or anything you may you learn from, but mind-numbing soaps and "talk" shows, where you can laugh at the freaks who come on.  Get your opinions from a big national paper, go back to caring more about which celebs are shagging who than how much your CEO swindles from your pension fund.  Vote for the puppets on the left or right, whichever one takes your fancy, as it makes so little difference.

Oh, but you didnt mean that? Well, whats your solution Mr HotShot?  Because from where I'm standing, you dont have one.  Oh, but this, but that...but you may get knocked down by a bus tomorrow, or suddenly shit gold bricks.  Your excuses are as weak as your are, and so are no longer needed.  Maybe you could find another way, but not by regressing.  And the start of the path need not be the same place as the end.

But no, I see your mind is made up.  Go on then, you would have been a liability anyway.

[not]

I'd like to say from the start this is not my work.  This was written by Col. John R. Boyd, who you may or may not know as one of the finest strategists and thinkers the US military produced in the last 80 years.  This is taken from his paper, Destruction and Creation. Note, it is long, so if you have something you need to do soon, I suggest doing that first.

DESTRUCTION AND CREATION

John R. Boyd

September 3, 1976


To comprehend and cope with our environment we develop mental patterns or concepts of meaning. The purpose of this paper is to sketch out how we destroy and create these patterns to permit us to both shape and be shaped by a changing environment. In this sense, the discussion also literally shows why we cannot avoid this kind of activity if we intend to survive on our own terms. The activity is dialectic in nature generating both disorder and order that emerges as a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality.

Goal

Studies of human behavior reveal that the actions we undertake as individuals are closely related to survival, more importantly, survival on our own terms. Naturally, such a notion implies that we should be able to act relatively free or independent of any debilitating external influences,Äîotherwise that very survival might be in jeopardy. In viewing the instinct for survival in this manner we imply that a basic aim or goal, as individuals, is to improve our capacity for independent action. The degree to which we cooperate, or compete, with others is driven by the need to satisfy this basic goal. If we believe that it is not possible to satisfy it alone, without help from others, history shows us that we will agree to constraints upon our independent action,Äîin order to collectively pool skills and talents in the form of nations, corporations, labor unions, mafias, etc.,Äîso that obstacles standing in the way of the basic goal can either be removed or overcome. On the other hand, if the group cannot or does not attempt to overcome obstacles deemed important to many (or possibly any) of its individual members, the group must risk losing these alienated members. Under these circumstances, the alienated members may dissolve their relationship and remain independent, form a group of their own, or join another collective body in order to improve their capacity for independent action.

Environment

In a real world of limited resources and skills, individuals and groups form, dissolve and reform their cooperative or competitive postures in a continuous struggle to remove or overcome physical and social environmental obstacles.  In a cooperative sense, where skills and talents are pooled, the removal or overcoming of obstacles represents an improved capacity for independent action for all concerned. In a competitive sense, where individuals and groups compete for scarce resources and skills, an improved capacity for independent action achieved by some individuals or groups constrains that capacity for other individuals or groups. Naturally, such a combination of real world scarcity and goal striving to overcome this scarcity intensifies the struggle of individuals and groups to cope with both their physical and social environments (11,13).

Need for Decisions

Against such a background, actions and decisions become critically important. Actions must be taken over and over again and in many different ways. Decisions must be rendered to monitor and determine the precise nature of the actions needed that will be compatible with the goal. To make these timely decisions implies that we must be able to form mental concepts of observed reality, as we perceive it, and be able to change these concepts as reality itself appears to change. The concepts can then be used as decision-models for improving our capacity for independent action. Such a demand for decisions that literally impact our survival causes one to wonder: How do we generate or create the mental concepts to support this decision-making activity?

Creating Concepts

There are two ways in which we can develop and manipulate mental concepts to represent observed reality: We can start from a comprehensive whole and break it down to its particulars or we can start with the particulars and build towards a comprehensive whole. (28/24) Saying it another way, but in a related sense, we can go from the general-to-specific or from the specific-to- general. A little reflection here reveals that deduction is related to proceeding from the general-to-specific while induction is related to proceeding from the specific-to-general. In following this line of thought can we think of other activities that are related to these two opposing ideas? Is not analysis related to proceeding from the general-to-specific? Is not synthesis, the opposite of analysis related to proceeding from the specific-to-general? Putting all this together: Can we not say that general-to-specific is related to both deduction and analysis, while specific-to-general is related to induction and synthesis? Now, can we think of some examples to fit with these two opposing ideas? We need not look far. The differential calculus proceeds from the general-to-specific,Äîfrom a function to its derivative. Hence is not the use or application of the differential Calculus related to deduction and analysis? The integral calculus, on the other hand, proceeds in the opposite direction,Äîfrom a derivative to a general function. Hence, is not the use or application of the integral calculus related to induction and synthesis? Summing up, we can see that: general- to-specific is related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation, while, specific-to-general is related to induction, synthesis, and integration.

Now keeping these two opposing idea chains in mind let us move on a somewhat different tack. Imagine, if you will, a domain (a comprehensive whole) and its constituent elements or parts. Now, imagine another domain and its constituent parts. Once again, imagine even another domain and its constituent parts. Repeating this idea over and over again we can imagine any number of domains and the parts corresponding to each. Naturally, as we go through life we develop concepts of meaning (with included constituents) to represent observed reality. Can we not liken these concepts and their related constituents to the domains and constituents that we have formed in our imagination? Naturally, we can. Keeping this relationship in mind, suppose we shatter the correspondence of each domain or concept with its constituent elements. In other words, we imagine the existence of the parts but pretend that the domains or concepts they were previously associated with do not exist. Result: We have many constituents, or particulars, swimming around in a sea of anarchy. We have uncertainty and disorder in place of meaning and order. Further, we can see that such an unstructuring or destruction of many domains,Äîto break the correspondence of each with its respective constituents,Äîis related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation. We call this kind of unstructuring a destructive deduction.

Faced with such disorder or chaos, how can we reconstruct order and meaning? Going back to the idea chain of specific-to-general, induction, synthesis, and integration the thought occurs that a new domain or concept can be formed if we can find some common qualities, attributes, or operations among some or many of these constituents swimming in this sea of anarchy. Through such connecting threads (that produce meaning) we synthesize constituents from, hence across, the domains we have just shattered.(24) Linking particulars together in this manner we can form a new domain or concept,Äîproviding, of course, we do not inadvertently use only those "bits and pieces" in the same arrangement that we associated with one of the domains purged from our imagination. Clearly, such a synthesis would indicate we have generated something new and different from what previously existed. Going back to our idea chain, it follows that creativity is related to induction, synthesis, and integration since we proceeded from unstructured bits and pieces to a new general pattern or concept. We call such action a creative or constructive induction. It is important to note that the crucial or key step that permits this creative induction is the separation of the particulars from their previous domains by the destructive deduction. Without this unstructuring the creation of a new structure cannot proceed,Äîsince the bits and pieces are still tied together as meaning within unchallenged domains or concepts.

Recalling that we use concepts or mental patterns to represent reality, it follows that the unstructuring and restructuring just shown reveals a way of changing our perception of reality.(28) Naturally, such a notion implies that the emerging pattern of ideas and interactions must be internally consistent and match-up with reality.(14, 25) To check or verify internal consistency we try to see if we can trace our way back to the original constituents that were used in the creative or constructive induction. If we cannot reverse directions, the ideas and interactions do not go together in this way without contradiction. Hence, they are not internally consistent. However, this does not necessarily mean we reject and throw away the entire structure. Instead, we should attempt to identify those ideas (particulars) and interactions that seem to hold together in a coherent pattern of activity as distinguished from those ideas that do not seem to fit in. In performing this task we check for reversibility as well as check to see which ideas and interactions match-up with our observations of reality. (27,14,15) Using those ideas and interactions that pass this test together with any new ideas (from new destructive deductions) or other promising ideas that popped out of the original destructive deduction we again attempt to find some common qualities, attributes or operations to re-create the concept,Äîor create a new concept. Also, once again, we perform the check for reversibility and match-up with reality. Over and over again this cycle of Destruction and Creation is repeated until we demonstrate internal consistency and match-up with reality. (19,14,15)

Suspicion

When this orderly (and pleasant) state is reached the concept becomes a coherent pattern of ideas and interactions that can be used to describe some aspect of observed reality. As a consequence, there is little, or no, further appeal to alternative ideas and interactions in an effort to either expand, complete, or modify the concept.(19) Instead, the effort is turned inward towards fine tuning the ideas and interactions in order to improve generality and produce a more precise match of the conceptual pattern with reality. (19) Toward this end, the concept,Äîand its internal workings,Äîis tested and compared against observed phenomena over and over again in many different and subtle ways.(19) Such a repeated and inward-oriented effort to explain increasingly more subtle aspects of reality suggests the disturbing idea that perhaps, at some point, ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies may emerge to stifle a more general and precise match-up of concept with observed reality.(19) Why do we suspect this?

On one hand, we realize that facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, etc. separated from previous observations and thought patterns have been linked together to create a new conceptual pattern. On the other hand, we suspect that refined observations now underway will eventually exhibit either more or a different kind of precision and subtlety than the previous observations and thought patterns. Clearly, any anticipated difference, or differences, suggests we should expect a mismatch between the new observations and the anticipated concept description of these observations. To assume otherwise would be tantamount to admitting that previous constituents and interactions would produce the same synthesis as any newer constituents and interactions that exhibit either more or a different kind of precision and subtlety. This would be like admitting one equals two. To avoid such a discomforting position implies that we should anticipate a mismatch between phenomena observation and concept description of that observation. Such a notion is not new and is indicated by the discoveries of Kurt G??del and Werner Heisenberg.

Incompleteness and Consistency

In 1931 Kurt G??del created a stir in the World of Mathematics and Logic when he revealed that it was impossible to embrace mathematics within a single system of logic. (12,23) He accomplished this by proving, first, that any consistent system that includes the arithmetic of whole numbers is incomplete. In other words, there are true statements or concepts within the system that cannot be deduced from the postulates that make-up the system. Next, he proved even though such a system is consistent, its consistency cannot be demonstrated within the system.

Such a result does not imply that it is impossible to prove the consistency of a system. It only means that such a proof cannot be accomplished inside the system. As a matter of fact since G??del, Gerhard Gentzen and others have shown that a consistency proof of arithmetic can be found by appealing to systems outside that arithmetic. Thus, G??del's Proof indirectly shows that in order to determine the consistency of any new system we must construct or uncover another system beyond it (29,27). Over and over this cycle must be repeated to determine the consistency of more and more elaborate systems.(29,27)

Keeping this process in mind, let us see how G??del's results impact the effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality. To do this we will consider two kinds of consistency: The consistency of the concept and the consistency of the match-up between observed reality and concept description of reality. In this sense, if we assume,Äîas a result of previous destructive deduction and creative induction efforts,Äîthat we have a consistent concept and consistent match-up, we should see no differences between observation and concept description. Yet, as we have seen, on one hand, we use observations to shape or formulate a concept; while on the other hand, we use a concept to shape the nature of future inquiries or observations of reality. Back and forth, over and over again, we use observations to sharpen a concept and a concept to sharpen observations. Under these circumstances, a concept must be incomplete since we depend upon an ever-changing array of observations to shape or formulate it. Likewise, our observations of reality must be incomplete since we depend upon a changing concept to shape or formulate the nature of new inquiries and observations. Therefore, when we probe back and forth with more precision and subtlety, we must admit that we can have differences between observation and concept description; hence, we cannot determine the consistency of the system,Äîin terms of its concept, and match-up with observed reality,Äîwithin itself.

Furthermore, the consistency cannot be determined even when the precision and subtlety of observed phenomena approaches the precision and subtlety of the observer,Äîwho is employing the ideas and interactions that play together in the conceptual pattern. This aspect of consistency is accounted for not only by G??del 's Proof but also by the Heisenberg Uncertainty or Indeterminacy Principle.

Indeterminacy and Uncertainty

The Indeterminacy Principle uncovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927 showed that one could not simultaneously fix or determine precisely the velocity and position of a particle or body.(14,9) Specifically he showed, due to the presence and influence of an observer, that the product of the velocity and position uncertainties is equal to or greater than a small number (Planck's Constant) divided by the mass of the particle or body being investigated. In other words, where

is velocity uncertainty

is position uncertainty and

is Planck's constant (h) divided by observed mass (m).

Examination of Heisenberg's Principle reveals that as mass becomes exceedingly small the uncertainty or indeterminacy, becomes exceedingly large. Now,Äîin accordance with this relation,Äîwhen the precision, or mass, of phenomena being observed is little, or no different than the precision, or mass, of the observing phenomena the uncertainty values become as large as, or larger than, the velocity and size frame-of-reference associated with the bodies being observed.(9) In other words, when the intended distinction between observer and observed begins to disappear (3), the uncertainty values hide or mask phenomena behavior; or put another way, the observer perceives uncertain or erratic behavior that bounces all over in accordance with the indeterminacy relation. Under these circumstances, the uncertainty values represent the inability to determine the character or nature (consistency) of a system within itself. On the other hand, if the precision and subtlety of the observed phenomena is much less than the precision and subtlety of the observing phenomena, the uncertainty values become much smaller than the velocity and size values of the bodies being observed.(9) Under these circumstances, the character or nature of a system can be determined,Äîalthough not exactly,Äîsince the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior nor indicate significant erratic behavior.

Keeping in mind that the Heisenberg Principle implicitly depends upon the indeterminate presence and influence of an observer,(14) we can now see,Äîas revealed by the two examples just cited,Äîthat the magnitude of the uncertainty values represent the degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed. When intrusion is total (that is, when the intended distinction between observer and observed essentially disappears,(3) the uncertainty values indicate erratic behavior. When intrusion is low the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior, nor indicate significant erratic behavior. In other words, the uncertainty values not only represent the degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed but also the degree of confusion and disorder perceived by that observer.

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Confusion and disorder are also related to the notion of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (11,20) Entropy is a concept that represents the potential for doing work, the capacity for taking action, or the degree of confusion and disorder associated with any physical or information activity. High entropy implies a low potential for doing work, a low capacity for taking action or a high degree of confusion an disorder. Low entropy implies just the opposite. Viewed in this context, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all observed natural processes generate entropy.(20) From this law it follows that entropy must increase in any closed system,Äîor, for that matter, in any system that cannot communicate in an ordered fashion with other systems or environments external to itself.(20) Accordingly, whenever we attempt to do work or take action inside such a system,Äîa concept and its match-up with reality,Äîwe should anticipate an increase in entropy hence an increase in confusion and disorder. Naturally, this means we cannot determine the character or nature (consistency) of such a system within itself, since the system is moving irreversibly toward a higher, yet unknown, state of confusion and disorder.

Destruction and Creation

What an interesting outcome! According to G??del we cannot,Äî in general,Äîdetermine the consistency, hence the character or nature, of an abstract system within itself. According to Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics any attempt to do so in the real world will expose uncertainty and generate disorder. Taken together, these three notions support the idea that any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch. Naturally, in this environment, uncertainty and disorder will increase as previously indicated by the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, respectively. Put another way, we can expect unexplained and disturbing ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies to emerge more and more often. Furthermore, unless some kind of relief is available, we can expect confusion to increase until disorder approaches chaos,Äî death
Fortunately, there is a way out. Remember, as previously shown, we can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction and creative induction mental operations. Also, remember, in order to perform these dialectic mental operations we must first shatter the rigid conceptual pattern, or patterns, firmly established in our mind. (This should not be too difficult since the rising confusion and disorder is already helping us to undermine any patterns). Next, we must find some common qualities, attributes, or operations to link isolated facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, observations, etc. together as possible concepts to represent the real world. Finally, we must repeat this unstructuring and restructuring until we develop a concept that begins to match-up with reality. By doing this,Äîin accordance with G??del, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,Äîwe find that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system talking to itself can be offset by going outside and creating a new system. Simply stated, uncertainty and related disorder can be diminished by the direct artifice of creating a higher and broader more general concept to represent reality.
However, once again, when we begin to turn inward and use the new concept,Äîwithin its own pattern of ideas and interactions,Äîto produce a finer grain match with observed reality we note that the new concept and its match-up with observed reality begins to self-destruct just as before. Accordingly, the dialectic cycle of destruction and creation begins to repeat itself once again. In other words, as suggested by G??del's Proof of

Incompleteness, we imply that the process of Structure, Unstructure, Restructure, Unstructure, Restructure is repeated endlessly in moving to higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this unfolding drama, the alternating cycle of entropy increase toward more and more disorder and the entropy decrease toward more and more order appears to be one part of a control mechanism that literally seems to drive and regulate this alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. Now, in relating this deductive/inductive activity to the basic goal discussed in the beginning, I believe we have uncovered a Dialectic Engine that permits the construction of decision models needed by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions in an effort to improve their capacity for independent action.
Furthermore, since this engine is directed toward satisfying this basic aim or goal, it follows that the goal seeking effort itself appears to be the other side of a control mechanism that seems also to drive and regulate the alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this context, when acting within a rigid or essentially a closed system, the goal seeking effort of individuals and societies to improve their capacity for independent action tends to produce disorder towards randomness and death. On the other hand, as already shown, the increasing disorder generated by the increasing mismatch of the system concept with observed reality opens or unstructures the system. As the unstructuring or, as we'll call it, the destructive deduction unfolds it shifts toward a creative induction to stop the trend toward disorder and chaos to satisfy a goal-oriented need for increased order.
Paradoxically, then, an entropy increase permits both the destruction or unstructuring of a closed system and the creation of a new system to nullify the march toward randomness and death. Taken together, the entropy notion associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the basic goal of individuals and societies seem to work in dialectic harmony driving and regulating the destructive/creative, or deductive/inductive, action,Äîthat we have described herein as a dialectic engine. The result is a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality.(28,27) As indicated earlier, these mental concepts are employed as decision models by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions needed to cope with their environment,Äîor to improve their capacity for independent action.

We have killed the spirit of 1789
- Josef Goebbels, after the 1933 Nazi election victory

The great liberal John Stuart Mill was correct when he said not all stupid people are conservatives, but most conservatives are stupid people. I would add that many who call themselves conservatives are reactionary and ruled by their hate and fears.
- Mike Hersh

So, I was in London with my friend who had got back from Hong Kong, Baz.  We decided to get some drinks and talk about what we's been up to in recent months.

Just as I was about to leave, I heard on the radio that the Leader of the Oppostion would be willing to remove the Humans Rights Act, in order to stop gypsies building on land that wasn't theirs.  So, he wanted to go as far as to strip us of all legal rights, to stop some gypsies? I thought nothing more of the lunatic and continued out.

The next day, I woke up.  Part of my face was stuck to the floor, with what I don't know. Something horrible and bloated was in my mouth, and it wasn't a relief to find out it was my tongue.  I wasn't exactly seeing purple and green spots, it was rather I could see patches of reality and that was the rest.

Sorting myself out, I turned on the TV, hoping to find something mildly entertaining.  Flicking through, I came across a popular topical chat show.  They mentioned the new policy of the Oppostion.  Thing was, there was no-one really objecting to the measure being proposed.  Nope, it was the best for all to sacrafice human rights in order to deal with a minor problem.  Screw the millions of dead who fought to protect those rights.

The Enlightenment Project had failed, was the general realization that was dawning on me.  Kant, Hume, the American Founding Fathers, Locke, Paine, it was all for nothing.  Nope.  Just look around.  We had in the last 15 years several attempted genocides, a reversion to infantile outbursts that was publicly approved (Diana death hysteria etc), general bullshittery such as the false economics of the free market and many more I can't be bothered to list.

The rational, thinking person, had become a rareity. Instead, this was a world where emotions rule, and they are childish ones at that.  And childish as in the temper tantrum/sycophantism cycle. Humans aren't rational.  Maybe they were once, before Reality TV obliterated their ability to think.   But not any longer.  And that probably meant things based on ideas like that, such as democracy, were out of time.

And I really didn't care.  Even after the hangover had gone, I couldn't summon up the ability to care.  If they wanted to laugh, or cry, or act in faux-moral outrage over a piece of fiction on the idiot box while the world around them burned, that wasn't my concern.  I just had to make sure I wasn't dragged into it with them.

I left London that night, feeling depressed, and headed Southampton.  Maybe the sea breeze would raise my spirits, though I doubted it.  We had killed the Enlightenment, just as surely as Nietzsche's mob had killed God.  But who would be around to preach it, when no-one would listen, or care even if they did?

The local bookstopre put Sun-Tzu in the business section.  They're lucky he isnt alive today or he's probably kick their arses about the place.  I've decided I'm going to hit every business student I see tomorrow, just for that.

[Release early and often.]

Why do we fear organization?  Is it a residual part of our mistaking chaos for disorder?  Is it based on the fact (maybe) that we are free, and so that implies a natural equality that is not inherent  in an organized system?  Or is it just an excuse, rather like a belief in the end of the world, to excuse us from doing anything?

Why must Discordians stick apart?  I,Äôm pretty sure that is written down somewhere (cant remember) but why for the life of you are listening to a piece of paper? Are you following rules? Great way to squander your freedom.

If you want to bring about more disorder, some organization helps.  It is an intrinsic part of overall Chaos, after all.  It,Äôs typified by the order/disorder grid on the newly drawn up table that was done recently.  Having worked a lot as a one man cabal, I can tell you, options for jakes are far more limited.  I am severely restricted in my activities because of it.  Greater order to lead to greater disorder. OK, so maybe the greater disorder will fall back on us.  But that would just make it even funnier!

There are ways of organizing without having a hierarchy.  I propose something which I think is evolving, but not all the way there yet: Open Source Chaos.

The decentralized, and seemingly chaotic guerrilla war in Iraq demonstrates a pattern that will likely serve as a model for next generation terrorists. This pattern shows a level of learning, activity, and success similar to what we see in the open source software community.   I say we apply it to the guerrilla warfare of the mind and paradigms.  

Release early and often. Try new forms of attacks against different types of targets early and often. Don,Äôt wait for a perfect plan.

Given a large enough pool of co-developers, any difficult problem will be seen as obvious by someone, and solved. Eventually some participant of the bazaar will find a way to disrupt a particularly difficult target. All you need to do is copy the process they used.

Your co-developers (beta-testers) are your most valuable resource. The other guerrilla networks in the bazaar are your most valuable allies. They will innovate on your plans, swarm on weaknesses you identify, and protect you by creating system noise.

Recognize good ideas from your co-developers. Simple attacks that have immediate and far-reaching impact should be adopted.

Perfection is achieved when there is nothing left to take away (simplicity). The easier the attack is, the more easily it will be adopted. Complexity prevents swarming that both amplifies and protects.

Tools are often used in unexpected ways. An attack method can often find reuse in unexpected ways.

Swarms vs. single group activity. The bazaar offers the potential of many smaller attacks that can in aggregate have an impact equal to several large attacks. Many hands make light work. Combined with system leverage, this could reduce a nation to economic chaos in short order.

Rapid innovation. The bazaar's demonstrated ability to provide rapid innovatation makes defense much extremely difficult. Rather than a single 9/11 style attack, we may see small attacks (less planning and training, fewer people, less support) against a plethora of targets. With a sufficient number of guerrilla networks unearthing vulnerabilities (particularly ones with system's leverage), other forces will likey be outmatched.

These are the tools of the next wave of military and programming thinking. We can adapt, take these tools and put them to use.  But it will require the Open Source Chaos bazaar to work.  There will need to be more sticking together than apart.

We can work together as small co-operating groups, without turning into some organized official mess.  Swapping ideas, running tests, making up mndfucks on the fly and applying them to different situations.  Acting in concert and cooperation in order to do what we want more effectively.  That is the aim.  Or otherwise why do mindfucks at all, other than for your own amusement?  You might as well go back to your TV sets and tabloid magazines.

It can be done, we need to get over this hangup about ,Äúorder,Äù though.  Like most things, its fine in moderation, you just have to be careful not to overdose on it.

So I was on the move again.  I had a few days of travelling to do, a friend had just got back from Hong Kong as was going to be in London for a few days before jetting off again. Jammy git.

As there was nothing else to do while on the train, I turned on the radio and decided to listen to a talk show.  On this particular program they had 2 opposing politicians in, debating the then upcoming election.

I listened for a while, wishing I could get a decent music station, or had bought some CDs with me.  The debate was getting boring, and was essentially becoming a right/left conflict:  Give up your social freedom for more economic freedom, or give up your economic freedom for your social ones.

Damn, that was stupid!  I found myself thinking.  So basically, I have to give up some sort of freedom, in order to gain another? Looking closely, there wasn,Äôt even that much of a choice.  To take benefit of the ,Äúeconomic free market,Äù of the Right means you have to have the money in the first place.  And on the left, without economic freedom, social freedom was nothing, as money is a large pat of the social structure.

So was there really a choice? To be sure, there are some differences.  Certainly among the personalities involved.  But the basic philosophy was the same.  Almost all our current politicians come from the ,ÄúOxbridge elite,Äù, those lucky few without enough connections or cash to get into those 2 universities.  This is pretty much the same for the leadership of both parties, whether right or left wing.  And either way, it basically benefits them, as they are riche than their constituents who they supposedly represent.  

It,Äôs a two man con.  Or rather, a 2 ideology con.  If you haven,Äôt  read American Gods I,Äôll explain.  They say (this ,Äúthey,Äù presumably being the same ,Äúthey,Äù who are the everyone in ,Äúeveryone knows,Äù.  And quite possibly make up ,Äúthe community,Äù, whoever the hell they are) that you can,Äôt con an honest man, often to make themselves feel superior to some poor schmuck who just lost a lot on what seemed a fair gamble.

However, you can con an honest man, if you do it with 2 men.  Make them look like opposing teams, like a ,Äúthief,Äù getting caught at a jewellers and a ,Äúcopper,Äù taking the stolen goods as evidence.  But in reality, they are both working ultimately for their own benefit.  That,Äôs the way politicians keep conning the public. We get the same old guard year after year, being moved by their party from safeseat to safeseat.  That,Äôs modern politics. Keep voting yourself pay rises and make sure there arent equal taxes applied to the rich. And people wonder why fringe parties and apathy are on the rise,Ķ.

Roses are black,
Violets are dark and doom-ridden,
Sugar is a conformist thing,
And so are you.

I just had a horrible thought.  The world isnt going to end.  There are going to be no times of righteous destruction wreaked by an angry god/goddess/elder things with more eyes than tentacles upon the landscape.  Everything is just going to go into a gradual grey decline where things get noticeably more boring, more stale, more rigid....and thats it.  Forever and ever and ever.  Monday morning for eternity.  That sinking feeling when you see a big pile of forms, all day long.

Lets face it, a catalclymic end to things would be rather fun, or at least interesting and yield some oppurtunities that may prove a nice distraction.  But instead it will be the proxy death by the long slow fight.  By the time the world has ended, we wont even notice it.

Of course, that will be the perfect world for Eris.  A planet full of people so unused to anything out of the ordinary, well it would be a blast.  Look at what she did to those twits in the State Department who talked about the "end of history" just after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Barely a year later resurgant Islam militancy caught up with them. Suckers!

But I just had a horrible vision of that...hell I suppose, and felt inclined to share.  I bought enough for veryone.

This is actually quite embarassing, but I will tell it anyway.  It was the Monday after I got back and I went to see a friend who lived in the same town as me. Her parents had moved recently so we walked to her new house after our chat. It was on the residential side of town, the bit I didnt like.

After seeing her off, I decided to head home. After 10 minutes, I was absolutely lost. I had lived here for nearly 2 years, although some of that time I was away. Lost, in my home town?

The problem was everything looked the damn same and I can't be bothered to memorise 200+ street names. Every house was made of the same stone, to the same design. I wondered for a moment if I had actually left St Andrews at all, as it had a very similar area.  I shook my head and continued on, in the hope of finding a landmark or higher ground.

And every street seemed to have a person washing a car, which made it worse.  Why did a quarter of the population decide to do their car on a not very sunny day?

I decide to get a drink out of my bag. Diet coke (sooo healthy, or maybe not). I remember these were a life saver in Peru, where the water was near undrinkable. I was gasping for one while we were trekking in the Colca Canyon.  And then it hit me. Everything was trying to become the damn same!

Thats the thing. We see the same things, the comfort of knowing order is there. As if order = security.  Its a very appealing, intuitive seeming idea, isn't it? Hell, the whole idea of ritual is based around it: "if I do this and this then this will always happen".  But it seems to be getting greater appeal, through such things as globalization and and the monopolization of companies.

Where is the variety, the change, the chaos? Do they really think by making the whole world the same they will manage to shut Eris out? Hah, boy were you fed a line of bullshit if thats so! Just as you think your safe She'll smash down those walls of comfort!

But still, it seems that is where the forces of order are determined to strike next. Just remember that evolution comes about through change and variety. If you try to make everything the same, rigid, it becomes unadaptable and gets left behind.

Took this off another forum, I thought it was very good and so I am posting it here:

Hell yes I "confuse" chaos with freedom and liberty! CHAOS IS FREEDOM. To me, Chaos first and foremost, is warfare against oppressive consensus reality. Because oppressive consensus reality is evil. Its the most evil thing the world has ever known. People talk about the evil of Hitler for instance, how he killed 11 million people, but its their missing the point. Hitler didn't kill those people, CONSENSUS REALITY IN NAZI GERMANY killed those people, through hundreds of thousands of concentration camp employees. In every atrocity, in every cult, in every repressive regime, there exists an established consensus reality that does not permit questioning, and will kill those who do. Take the purges under Stalin. 20 million dead, due to consensus reality. For many of them their only crime was questioning the government. And now like 48% of high school kids in the US think that the government should approve all news stories from a recent survey!
Do you see what I'm saying? I think Hakim Bey is a genius and the ideas are golden, but I can't afford to wear the veneer of a black/criminal mage when the real criminals are standing at podiums anouncing to the masses how "good" they are. It plays right into their hands.

Of course, I dont agree with it totally.  But it is an interesting viewpoint nonetheless.

I mean, for the followers of a goddess of discord and chaos there does seem to be an awful ot of it about.  Just saying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4358045.stm

Read it and weep.  Is it possible to bankrupt the entire word?

So the state is around forever.  You have performed 1001 mindfucks and nothing seems to be happening.  Oh dear, best to go back to the emo-style philosophical mastubation then.

The state is a drug, and unfortunately we are all addicted.  I dont know about you but I want to be clean.  The state is built into our very life from birth, we are taught to depend on it, to get used to letting it clean our nose and wipe our arse.  And that becomes kind of comforting.  Or does it?  I find it stifling myself.

And thats where the doubt sets in about undermining the current way of things.  "But if there was a revolution/uprising etc tomorow then I might have to do stuff for myself!"  Shock horror!

The fact is you dont know what is possible until you try.  Yes, the state is very real.  it has power and that should never be overlooked.  Yet it has been outwitted before.  Maybe only temporarily, but that can be dealt with.

I didnt believe I could walk out of a canyon with no water and having eaten very little while in the desert, but I did.  I didnt know that I could stay up for 72 hours straight and yet still negotiate in a foreign language for accomodation.  But I did. Maybe I am being overly optimistic here.  But perhaps we are looking at it the wrong way.

This is a struggle of attrition, that can never be forgotten.  The trick is to hide in the nooks and crannies that society, that our leaders overlook, and come out when we see a vulnerable target to strike.  Dont expect short term returns.  If I wanted that, well, I have access to a chemical lab anytime I want.  That way is just as pointless, at this stage, as giving up.  Just because you cant see the returns doesnt mean it isnt there.

Of course I could be wrong.  Soon there may be no cracks to hide in from the Grey Monolith.  But I wont know unless I try.

by [name removed to protect the innocent]

I love getting out on the dance floor
And shaking my bum for a laugh
But sometimes I just want a quiet night in
With a jolly good book in the bath.

I suddenly see the appeal of the Senor Limpio/Hotsuma position on this.

to be Fascist it must employ violence, it must use armed force, it must if necessary impose itself through armed seizure of power and armed maintenance of power. This has been proved true elsewhere; it is the pattern for Fascism in America. . . . It is always money and power that control Fascism. The backers of Fascism everywhere are the industrialists, manufacturers, big businessmen, the bankers."
,Äî George Seldes (1938)

"The immensely rich and powerful corporations of this country can buy access to the public mind, can form public taste, and can create public opinion. These corporations can invade our minds and change our likes or dislikes, our ideas, our values, and even our personalities."
,Äî Gerry Spence, in From Freedom to Slavery (p. 147)

"The corporation cannot be ethical. Its only responsibility is to turn a profit."
,Äî economist Milton Friedman

"A business or a big corporation is a fascist structure internally. Power is at the top. Orders go from top to bottom. You either follow the orders or get out."
,Äî Noam Chomsky

"why the current recovery is so sluggish is that the government hasn,Äôt been able to resort to increased military spending with all of its multiplier effects ,Äî the traditional pump-priming mechanism of economic stimulation. . . . "
,Äî Noam Chomsky, from The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (pp. 11-12, 31)


Welcome to the century of the COG.  That,Äôs the Corporate Occupied Government.  Don,Äôt worry about the middleman, he doesn,Äôt exist anymore.  Your, theoretically, public servants are your employers and so you lost any power you had over them.

What do they want?  To look out for you, care in a paternalistic way?  Fuck no! They want a profit, and screw the expenses.  That,Äôs what all corporations want.  And now they have a government to give it to them.  Tax cuts for the rich?  Made Bush an extra $10 million a year, Rumsfeld and Cheny nearly double that.  More money for the weapons producers?  We,Äôll engage in several low intensity wars to create a demand that we can ,Äúsell,Äù to the public.  Notice they try to ,Äúsell,Äù the public ideas now?

And its going to get worse.  The traders on Wall Street want to open more markets across the world.  Notice the Baghdad Stock Exchange opening lately?  Well Iran is the next big market to be tapped.  Convieniently next door to Iraq also, and it leads into Central Asia, where there is an abundance of people and resources.  A prospectors dreamland.

And its not just an American problem.  The French had their intelligence spy on UK and American forces while in Kosovo and Bosnia, and they sold that information directly to the French arms business.  Hell, the UK arms business keeps their relations with Indonesia open and friendly.

Also they don,Äôt care what the Government does so long as you turn up to work on time.  Hell, the Protestant Work Ethic is a positive boon to them.  The only problems are Muslims who don,Äôt believe in profit (unless they are Saudi princes) and those on the left who keep wanting trade unions and minimum wages and such shit. So you can torture or arrest or ,Äúdisappear,Äù or declare war on such people, it wont affect the profit margins.

And these corporations, like I said, couldn,Äôt give a flying fuck about you.  You,Äôre just another resource, another tool.  The COG wants to turn you into a cog, a little bit of the machine that runs on oil, blood and capital profit. Be part of the machine or be blacklisted.  If the cog is faulty, replace it.  There will always be more around, espescially if we discourage contraceptives.  


Welcome to the new century, my little cogs.

[Open Season]

I am here tonight to preach action, action against the Greyfaces without and within.  For the jake has a dual purpose, to befuddle those who would think in grey ways and as a reminder not to do so ourselves and at the same time a prayer of sorts to Eris.

I speak not of the action of the LDD (which does not exist).  I feel that the election may have had a bad effect on all, plunging us into despeir.  Fear not, for we shall launch the Night of 1001 Jakes, aka Operation MindFuck Part Deux, the Mind Fucks Back!

I challenge, yes I dare to challenge you, to jake now!  Jake at every oppurtunity!  Set a limit, and when you find it too easy, up it again!  Cracks are appearing day by day, so force them open!

Goddess damnit, I may be drunk and run out of ice, but the day I run out of jakes is the day I die!  I declare this Open Season!  Fire at will, fellow Ersians, Discodians, rogue SubGenii and any other lunatics/assorted crazieswho want to join in.  Espescially at Will, for I have it on good authority he is one of the worst Greyfaces.  

Let there be be no let up.  Unleash the most creatively destructive forces of the Goddess herself!  No target is out of bounds, no jake taking it too far. Be sneaky, remember, there are no laws to stop the best jakes. To paraphrase Nietzsche, this is beyond Law and Criminal.  

We have the enemy in sight.  What are you gonna do about it?

And I can't shake off the feeling I had read it before.  Really wierd feeling too.  I couldnt pin it down to any particular page or character, it was just the entire thing.  Like I had read it a long time ago and forgot it all.  Anyone else have this?  And no, I had not taken anything "special" before reading it.

Coughing down my scotch
Forgot to put the ice in
Now my throat hurts some.

-----

This is a story from the UK that has been brewing for a few days and has got me rather annoyed.  As you may know, our Home Office Minister David Blunkett has quit over an affair and subsequent abuse of position to get his lover's nanny a fast tracked visa to stay here.  WHY???  Quite frankly, this disgusts me, that he has gone because he has become, and I quote, "an embarassment" to our Government.

Never mind that he passed a criminal set of "laws" (the 2001 Terrorism Act, whereby I can be arrested and imprisoned without trial because I hold an Aussie passport).  Never mind that violent crime has risen by 12% over the last year alone, that the Police force have become glorified traffic wardens with too much paper work, that he passes more maligned directives than the Supreme Soviet (the ASBO is a good one if you wish to search for that) and he waits 2 years after 9/11 to increase the size of the Security Services.  Oh no, he had an affair and caried out a relatively minor abuse of power (chances were the nanny would get her visa anyway, it would just have taken longer) and became "embarassing" and so had to go.

If I met a politician who's only crime was an affair, I'd probably buy him a drink.  Interesting how this is meant to be the publics servant, and yet he goes over a privte indescretion (trust me, more was made of the affair than the visa).  Public politics sucks.  Blair only gets rid of people when they become embarassing, and for a lawyer like himself with nearly no shame to start wit, that takes a long time (normally at least 6 months after everyone else wants the sod gone).  Argh!

Sorry, newbie post yadda yadda but I read the book an I am now confused (in a good way, I think). Is that a good start?  Also is Malaclypse in any way related to the Malaclypse character (conspriacy theorist-priest supremo) on the Discworld Noir PC game?