ATTN: FSM SCUMBAGS

[ybom]

Cain, that was well thought out.

However, one would need to figure out the "hot spots" of the campaign and push those buttons more. How about something involving the violation of a Paul supporter's rights and posting it on youtube?

Another idea is to go the opposite route, to set up a "legit" online poll (or 50) and showing Paul as the winner, claiming it to be a scientific poll and so on.

And funnier yet would get a Ron Paul lookalike to do certain things, hilarious things, anarchist things, and really scare people away (or draw them closer). I was expecting something like this to happen a few months ago, but it's sad nothing has happened yet.

[Cain]

Thanks.  Good ideas too, keep them rolling.


On the theoretical side of things....


Alright, time to get down and dirty.  Its time to fight our war, the war against our chosen targets.  Get some Golden Apples rolling and smack more than a few Greyfaces about the place.  Warfare is the art of conflict, and conflict is just a modern way of saying strife...which is directly within our chosen area of interest.

I'm going to teach you some highly useful models for understanding the tactical, strategical and organizational methods of modern warfare.  These models have great potential, can be intuitively grasped (well, I find it to be so.  Your perception may vary) and transfer perfectly to less outright modes of conflict and with the internet.  Internalizing these will give you one hell of an edge when it comes to running your own private insurgency – regardless of who its against or how it's waged.

But to understand these models, you gotta have a grip on what came before.  These models are not 100% accurate.  They overlap, they contradict and they are conceptually uncertain.  However, they make a fantastic roadmap in this nearly unknown territory so I suggest you learn them and start thinking about their application.  Once you can see and understand the dividing lines, you'll have a reference guide for the models everyone else is using – plus a little edge or two with models that are outside even the sophisticated person's experience.

The general guide however for modern war is "nothing is forbidden, everything is permitted."  It's less bloody than previous wars, for various reasons (relating to perception of one's actions, mostly), but no less brutal.  Keep in mind you may have cause to apply the above maxim if you want success.

1st Generation Warfare

Warfare by attrition.   You lose less people and resources than the other side, and if your side is the one left standing when the dust clears, you win.  Historically, a bad way of fighting unless you can ensure you have the biggest battalions on the battlefield.


2nd Generation Warfare

Manoeuvre based warfare.  Here the idea is you utilize better and faster weaponry to act as an equalizer to the sheer numbers held by the enemy.  If you can shoot, move and communicate more effectively as a whole, then you will win.  Think Napoleon or the German Blitzkrieg.


3rd Generation Warfare

Here a distinction between hard and soft power in conflict starts to be made.  In addition to the above two methods, psychological operations, intelligence and knowledge based technology act as force multipliers, which paralyse instead of merely crush enemy operations.

4th Generation Warfare

Primary characteristic of this is asymmetry.  This mode of conflict is used by the weak against the strong, and its defining methods involve the use of organization, plans and acts different from ones opponents, taking advantage of their weaknesses, attaining the initiative and maximizing ones own strengths.  Naturally, it has both physical and psychological dimensions, and is often disliked and little understood by the status quo, because of the perceived "dirty nature" of the methods used.


5th Generation Warfare

This method emphasizes the use of information and high technology, again aimed at civilian and military targets.  On one level, we can compare it to Maoist and CIA-backed "armed propaganda units" who operated in central and south America.  These are organized around psychological, political and military objectives – in that exact order.  This can also include financial/economic warfare, media based warfare, cyber-warfare, many aspects of netwar and "to fight the fight that fits ones weapons, and to make [asymmetric] weapons to fit the fight."  All means, lethal and non-lethal, military or not, come into play in order to make the enemy accept your interests.

6th Generation Warfare

Often colloquially known as the "new terror" method of warfare this method elaborates on all previous models, but emphasizes biological and informational methods to achieve ones goals.  These methods can vary – infecting bank computers with a certain virus to initiate a stock market crash, spreading rumours that lead to the fall of the government, but also include the use of specific bio-weapons, such as the poisoning of a major metropolitan water source, the use of an airborne virus spread on the subway, or the introduction of foreign illnesses, such as Mad Cow Disease.  All lines between military and civilian targets break down, as well as ethical restraints on the use of weapons.  The battlefield extends from the biological composition of the individual, to their psyche, to the sociology and physical area of the entire state.


Now, naturally only 3, 4 and 5 really interest us, along with the informational elements of 6.  The trick is to understand the different models show higher levels of understanding, but alone they are useless.  When combined in a "Chinese cocktail", they can become devastatingly effective however.  A sneak financial attack could be made to unsettle a nation, using sabotage and capital to disorder to the markets.  Meanwhile, paid propagandists, both in the media and among the general level of the population spread rumours about government inefficiency.  An isolated terrorist attack, combined with a virus initiated attack on financial institutions buries the government in question, and the new one that comes to power is one much more close to the interests of the unseen attacker.

Along with this, I'm going to upload my own "cocktail", some military manuals dealing mostly with the first 3 methods of conflict.  I want you to read them, study them, think about the advice given and try and sort it into these models.  These books are well read, so it will also give you an insight into what others are thinking.

But when I finish the second essay, I'll give you netwar – the edge most people don't even know about.  Then, you'll have not only an advantage, but a flexible and highly useful organizational model as well.

[Cain]

Oh, and here's your reading

http://www.mediafire.com/?c9wwwimxyk1

[Cramulus]

Good post Cain. I hadn't seen the generations of warfare explained so succinctly.

but if we're only concerned with generations 3, 4, and 5,
...is it necessary to read all 270 pages dealing with mostly the first three generations?

we revolutionaries have short attention spans apparently 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

lol

[LMNO]

Wow. 

Ok, gonna read this today.

[Cramulus]

lol

AHAHAHAHHAHAHA

THAT IS AWSOM

and it looks like this disinfo campaign has been a two man team - this kid and his roommate. STRAIGHT UP

[Cain]

Good post Cain. I hadn't seen the generations of warfare explained so succinctly.

but if we're only concerned with generations 3, 4, and 5,
...is it necessary to read all 270 pages dealing with mostly the first three generations?

we revolutionaries have short attention spans apparently 

Its worth skimming them, at least.  No deep thoughts or anything, just have a general idea of what they are.

I'll be getting onto organizational concepts that tie in with these models in a couple of days.  Until then, I suggest other people develop similar avenues concerning structure, so we can see what we come up with.

[LMNO]

Oh, and here's your reading

http://www.mediafire.com/?c9wwwimxyk1

Hold on-- which one should we be reading first?

[Cain]

Doesn't really matter.  I would assume you would read my post first, since its shorter.

Speaking of things which are not short, I just finished a 10 page work on what I think our organizational structure should be.

Enjoy


Netwar: fighting in networks

These concepts are not new, but they have had difficulty catching on in a world caught up in hierarchy addiction instead of effectiveness.  However, it is precisely for these reasons I believe we should adopt them in their entirety. 

Netwar is a shorthand for network war, or more accurately, war waged by networks instead of top-down, hierarchical institutions, such as the traditional military.  The difference in how information is shared, group adaptability, tactical innovation and defensive measures make this far more resilient and yet able to capitalize on new innovations and changes in environment more than top-down processes can, giving it a decided edge.

Netwar has found wide acceptance among the theorists of insurgency and modern guerilla warfare in describing the actions of diverse actors such as Al-Qaeda and Los Zetas, yet little has been found on how to counter it, except by the creation of counter-networks, which are disliked by the same sort of people who shy away from 4th generation warfare, for similar reasons.  Even so, there is no reason to expect a network to fight as well against a rival network, except for the failure of previous models to do so.

So in short, right now this organizational model is at the top of its game.  With no plausible alternative and the failure of previous models, as well as a history of working well under pressure and diverse situations, it is all we could ask for.


Overview: networks and hierarchies.

Netwar is an organizational phenomenon, which utilizes 4 different phases, as we currently understand it.  The first type of network is a set of scattered, barely connected clusters, with limited communication between them.  This is pretty much the current state of much of Discordianism.  The second stage is that of a hub and spoke design, where one cluster becomes the main hub, to which all others are connected, but the clusters do not connect with each other.  This eventually evolves into a multi-hub structure which then becomes a complex core-periphery network with major communication taking place between most channels and most clusters being connected.

The above model takes into account group clusters, which we could view both as cells and as websites where Discordians are found.  So for example, PD.com is a hub between HIMEOBS, EB&G and POEE.  On the individual level, we consider individuals as "nodes" instead of clusters.  Nodes which have more links and carry more information are more important.  Thus myself, having a presence on all 4 sites and a moderator position on three of them, am considered a more high value node than a new member.  High value nodes connect or disconnect a network, depending on their status.  With the core-periphery or multi-hub model, while nodes act as the "glue" which hold clusters together, they are not as vital as they are to hierarchical systems.  Collapsing a node is done to prevent the information they have passing through them to the rest of the network.  In a netwar model other nodes can carry the information overload with little problem because there are enough of them, whereas in a hierarchical system, it can collapse the organization because an information cascade works down through the system, paralysing it.

Against hierarchical systems, attacks on high value nodes, those most interconnected socially and those who have access to the most information, is of high priority.  We normally call this "assassination", though it can take may other forms.  But networks high resilience makes them immune to the loss of even their best known leaders.

How networks are measured.

The creators of netwar came up with 5 methods of measurement for their creation.  This is organizational ability itself (as addressed above), along with narrative, social, doctrinal (tactical) and technological level.  Keep those in mind as we go through this, that though we are concentrating on organizational aspects, the others should be considered once we decide how to organize.


Concentric circles.

This is the current Al-Qaeda model that has proved so successful in waging a revolutionary international war (something previously only states did).

The Inner Circle

This is the Command Centre of Al-Qaeda, as it were, a core of several hundred or so leaders especially close to Bin Laden, both socially and in ideology.  They may not be in physical contact with Bin Laden, but they are via communication systems, or else via close knowledge of his goals, and thus can direct attacks without having to directly approve them all with him.

The Second Ring

These are the Holy Warriors of Al-Qaeda, those experienced Mujahideen who fought in Afghanistan, either aiding the Taliban or against American forces.  Many of these dispersed to their home countries or other battlefields once their training was complete, to recruit and raise their own forces

The New Wave Ring

These are the 'second generation' AQ members, either taught directly by an AQ member from the Second Ring or via their publications and institutional knowledge (such as the Encyclopaedia of the Afghan Jihad, an 8000 page training manual that has preserved much of Al-Qaeda's hard gained knowledge, free for those interested to learn from).  Often recruited locally, they are ideologically driven by agreement with Bin Laden's world-view, learnt via the internet and similar ways,

The Fourth Ring

These are the outsiders, the otherwise normal Muslims who are otherwise sympathetic to Bin Laden and willing to aid in non-violent methods – such as raising funds, engaging in minor theft, giving safe haven, providing food or intelligence etc... It also acts as a pool of recruits for the New Wave ring (who often know local allegiances very well) should they be needed for a local operation.


Networks in depth

Inherently hierarchical organizations can be represented by a pyramid.  The decision-makers are at the top and their commands eventually filter down to the bottom level soldiers.  Information on their effectiveness is passed back up the chain and is then modified. 

Networks are the post-modern response to this.  They are characterized by nodes/cells, information channels, ease of connectivity and flat information integration.  Free floating cells and nodes replace the usual hierarchical structures, and these are linked by mutually beneficial information channels which form a web-like pattern between cells and nodes of the entity as a whole.  These channels benefit from ease of connection, which allows them to be created, maintained or terminated as required, with little or no effort.  Because all cells and nodes can link to each other, middle layers are done away with, resulting in flat information integration.  This effectively destroys the gap between observation and change that is found to be so cumbersome in pyramid based models.

Networks are not self-contained systems, by their nature.  Operational features are spread out throughout the entire network, across the system of nodes and cells.  As a result, the network gains multiple capabilities, often without the expense of focus on specialist capabilities that limits operational ability.

In addition to speed and special offensive and defensive options available, they also gain operational ("Combat") based advantages because of collective vision/leaderless resistance and emergence, which will be discussed more below.  However, this combat advantage is gained later on due to outside linkage and maturity, and will not be present in a new network.

Note: no network is entirely flat.  However, the flatter, the better.

Speed

Networked structures gain increased information flows due to the vast number of information channels (cross-linkages) that exist in various nodes/cells.  This results in more information being shared and discussed, which results in an information multiplier effect.  Also, because of an operational organizational bias, those best able to act on new information will receive it sooner and be able to capitalize on it.

Discordian example: information gleaned from other forums, chatrooms, websites, personal acquaintances and those purchased by "other means" can all be transmitted back into the network far faster, by getting it to PD.com and allowing it to be copied to the relevant blogs, forums, chatrooms and Myspace/Facebook bulletins and notices.


Reduction of Information Fiefdoms

An "information fiefdom" describes how an organization hangs onto sensitive and important data, in order to improve its own standing and ability within bureaucratic in-fights.  Many, especially modern intelligence services and corporate departments, have become information "black holes" where information enters, but never exits from.  However, networks treat information sharing as a sum-sum games ("I win, you win") instead.  This overcomes artificial political boundaries.

Discordian example:  I upload tons of media that I gained at no cost but have learnt from or enjoyed, so that others may do the same.  Lysergic has done similar things for myself and Triple Zero, sharing his large amounts of information on NLP.  I am currently working through my library to separate the most useful e-books I have for Discordians, which upon completion I will upload to various sites, and I will update when possible.  Institutional knowledge gained from the creation and operations of this network should be treated in the same way, creating a body of knowledge we can all use.


Filtering/Fusion capability.

This involves, once true information has been gained (by the elimination of Information Fiefdoms), this results in multiple pieces and sources of information being brought together to gain new insights about the operational environment and actions of other groups.  Networks essentially filter out white noise while making use of the information available, due to their size and ability to share information loads.  This process allows Essential Information Identification to take place.

Discordian example:  Through making personal contacts with many of the TCC rebels, I was able to gain much information and psychological insights on various members of the forum still loyal to the old regime.  This was then shared with the rest of HIMEOBS, allowing them to process it and use the information contained within to choose selective targets, as well as set a tempo of attacks which wore the administration team down, demoralizing the site.


Parallel processing/multi-tasking

Instead of an apex decision-maker working top down on a problem, a network can divide a problem among several cells and work on parts of it that way, then create a coherent model once all sections of the problem are solved.

Discordian example:  allow nodes to be responsible for choosing their targets.  Once the network is alerted that a certain node/cell has found a worthy target, they can consider various plans and methods of attack, before giving this advice to the node, to see how they act.  Also, by alerting other nodes to their plans, specialized personnel who may be needed, as well as resources/information can be transferred to that cell more easily, giving a higher level of operational flexibility.



Offensive

These are broadly divided into two, which are destructive/seizure in nature (thing-targeted), or disruptive (non-thing targeted.  Networks excel at disruption, whereas hierarchies tend to be better at the former.


Swarming

Swarming is a scheme of manoeuvre based on a convergent attack of several semi-autonomous units on a specific target within a certain fixed location.  It allows a force to be hit from several directions, greatly improving its vulnerability, and afterwards the units involved scatter, making them hard to trace.  This requires a robust flow of information, that MUST be protected from the target in question, while at the same time freely shared among the members of the network who could possibly take part.

Discordian example: I was one of the few people who helped set up a local Flashmob group, via mutual friends on Facebook.  Back in those days, Facebook was only available to students still, protecting the information flow.  We requested people give us their mobile numbers, and we would send a warning text the day before, preparing people, then send out the actual target roughly an hour before it was to be hit.  To vary things, we would sometimes insist on a fairly easy theme (play "tag", everyone make out, giant street football match etc) which required minimal preparation, as well as a pre-arranged signal indicating it was time to scatter.


Distributed sensor-to-shooter links.

Basically, this means the people relaying information back to you don't need to be part of your operational teams.  This allows more operational resources to be placed on weaknesses the target has, creating greater efficiency.  It also means resources do not need to be expended defending the information sources.

Discordian example: by relying on non-trolls to feed us information back on reactions to our attacks on TCC, we didn't need to waste valuable proxies and accounts gathering information on this.  Instead, these resources were put towards later strikes, which had improved targeting based on our own, in-site resources.


Bond-Relationship Targeting

This is a form of attack that relies on tailored disruption of a target and its environment, by altering, destroying, warping or otherwise changing the relationships which define its existence.  Instead of the thing itself being attacked, the bonds which give it strength and coherence are, undermining its overall power in an attempt to indirectly collapse the target.

Discordian example:  the HIMEOBS strategy against TCC was very explicit in cutting off TCC's external references to their behaviour and policy, so they could no longer react with nuance and subtlety, or with the tact and proportion the situation called for.  By severing a new base of members, opening divisions within their ranks by misinformation and applied propaganda and reinforcing a generally negative viewpoint of the state of the forum, we forced the terms of debate among members of the site themselves, leading to egocentric social monomania, where the forum became the main topic of conversation and all drama was directed into that context.  Other examples would be attacking MW by spreading negative propaganda on other Pagan sites about it, as well as carrying out attacks on its administration via Myspace (which they advertised themselves on at their site).


Attack masking/virtual network

Because networks can easily drop connections between nodes and recreate them, it becomes hard to tell who actually ordered the attack.  Instead it becomes a game of plausible deniability versus an ability to connect the dots.  This danger is magnified in cyberspace, where neutral or even enemy networks can be compromised and turned against a third party (think Lulzkillers vs 4chan vs g00ns).  The greatest asset of this is the virtual cell, one which is created from above by a command and control cell, with people who have never met before, to carry out a single operation, after which they disperse.

Discordian examples:  Discordians have often allied with local forces on various forums when their enemies have been unreasonable admins, but this has be under utilized, as far as I know.  I have tried to incorporate it into PFLD operations, but only with limited success so far, though this may be "small world syndrome" bought on by a small town and University life.  DDoS attacks using slave computers would fall under this category, however.

[Cain]

Defensive

Defence goes beyond usual mechanistic notions of protection that come from a 4 dimensional understanding of the battlefield.  Instead, defence can be defined as the network's ability to evade attack, withstand physical punishment, heal injuries, limit damage to its information channels and to keep the information it does possess safe.


Stealth-masking its members

Networks seek to shield their cells by keeping the true nature of their relationship to each other secret, and/or by masking their nature as a combatant from enemies.  One way to do this is to compartmentalize members on the periphery and the less secure segments of the structure away from the trusted core membership.  Another method is disguising operatives as non-operatives (no wacky costumes, obvious Discordian paraphernalia etc)

Discordian example: when doing mindfucks, we always carry out basic reconnaissance and dress suitably for the occasion in question.  We seek to blend in entirely until the moment we act, and in all our dealings with the people around us.  If that means mouthing Marxist propaganda one night and Libertarian free trade mantras the next, so be it.  Same for wearing suits, or gothing it up.  Equally, HIMEOBS often observes possible members over a reasonably long period of time, both to assess their ability to the group, and as to not bring people of questionable loyalty into the heart of operations planning. 


Impervious to decapitation strikes

Because of the decentralized nature, with no key decision making body, no key leadership targets can be defined for a decapitation strike.  There is no 'head of the beast' you can cut off and expect to halt operations with.  Immunity to this basic form of disruption is a huge advantage.

Discordian example: in the event of the absence of myself or ECH, vexati0n, Professor Cramulus etc are more than capable of planning and carrying out an operation.  Equally, should PD.com or any of our individual computers be targeted by hackers, being able to switch to HIMEOBS, EB&G, Facebook, various blogs etc means the cell in question can regroup and respond to the attack while taking minimal damage.


Offers protection against precision fire

An example pretty similar to above.  Because the network is spread out over multiple locations, time and effort must be expended in finding and breaking them all apart, well out of proportion to their actual numbers.  This makes identification and destruction of the highest value nodes very hard to achieve, because of this signal/noise ratio of protection.

Discordian example:  as described above.  Stealth-masking capabilities in mindfucking attempts and dispersal of lines of communication over several sites give us this protection to a large degree, though conscious awareness of it will make us use it more (for example, we have to consider that POEE and HIMEOBS are on the same server, as are EB&G and AWS).


Provides Redundant Information Channels

This makes networks more resilient when faced with node/cell focussed information channel attacks.  This robustness means that far more of the structure of the network has to be destroyed before it can effect information flow, because there are so many channels open to it.

Discordian example:  when PD.com went down unexpectedly in February of last year, I was able to use EB&G, POEE and HIOF to alert everyone as to what had happened, as well as what I was planning to do in order to stop it (cry until someone else fixed it).  This got the message to the vast number of members of the site.  With improved numbers of people visiting my blog, the existence of AWS, the Facebook PD.com group etc there are even more channels open now, meaning this is one of our strengths.


Self-Healing

Networks are notoriously resilient to conventional forms of attack that would damage them.  Networks can also create new nodes to replace lost ones, as well as re-route information channels around damaged or missing nodes.

Discordian example:  we have the emails of thousands of people who were interested enough in Discordianism to sign up to PD.com.  Perhaps we should utilize them?  Since few Discordians have "died" or "got lost" in our previous conflicts, this is not an issue we have had to explore much.  However, it does tie into recruitment, which I will touch on again at the end of this article.


Information security

Networks can protect the information they collect, store and transmit by creating and following infosec protocol.  These protocols dictate how the cells and nodes communicate with each other and the type of form the network takes to achieve that goal.

Discordian example:  I hid the O:MF forum from lurkers, so anyone wishing to view the information in that part of the site also had to give me some information.  Forum URLs for attack either use the anonym prefix, or hxxp, to mask referral records.  The entire HIMEOBS forum is both hidden from general access and being able to view without an account, making it impossible to know what is being discussed.

Further improvements could include an agreed on code system, which would allow for public forums to act as message carriers without direct implication, as well as use of emails and specially created hidden forums to achieve goals.



Combat/Operational Multipliers

These were added because of unique advantages networks gain due to their organizational model.  What should really be noted is the biological descriptions that are used, as well as the general 'aliveness' of the model, as opposed to hierarchical structures, which tend to be mechanical in nature.


Increasing returns as the network grows

As they grow, networks operate in a manner contradictory to hierarchical structures.  Whereas the latter see diminishing returns as they grow too large, networks continue to see increasing returns and value.  More nodes and cells means more information, more personnel able to carry out operations and a generally better operational environment.

Discordian example

By having several different type of Discordian websites, those attracted most to a particular brand of Discordianism can go to that site and feel attachment to their label without questioning their identity too much.  However, this is an area we need to improve on, by more recruiting.


Ease of growth.

No real impediments exist to the growth of networks, as they use simple and chaotic models which self-organize, and the barrier of entry is often low (declaring oneself to be a Discordian and finding a site to network with other Discordians).  All that is really required is the extension of information channels to others who wish to join the network, though deeper levels of connection may be moderated by issues of trust.

Discordian example: to become a member of PD.com only requires one to sign up with a username and valid email address.  Equally, Discordian groups that appear on social networking sites only require membership, nothing more.


Mission tailoring

Instead of using a one-size-fits-all military response force, networks can tailor operational groups to the mission at hand.  A specific group of nodes can be matched to the needs of the mission, then bought together for it.  This allows for precise responses to a number of threats while conserving general forces for defensive/deterrence purposes.  Furthermore, the tailor-made group can enjoy the benefits of a virtual back up system of having the network linked to them.

Discordian example:  the originally small scouting force that went into MW to look around and find possible Pagan recruits.  Its small membership was fairly representative of the major views at the time, and when trouble did arise, it was able to gain backup via posters located at EB&G.


Criminal-warfare orientation.

Hierarchies are far more likely to follow the implicit and explicit rules of conflict.  Drilled into them by a culture of conformity that is partially enforced by the structure itself, rules are generally not broken.  However, in networks an entrepreneurial and experimental mindset dominates, so rules are discarded in favour of effectiveness and novelty.  The operational benefits of breaking cultural norms and the law should be well known.  Also, because networks do not have to rely on legal sanction, their reaction times are often well ahead of law-abiding forces.

Discordian examples:  not many, surprisingly.  Either Discordians have mastered KYFMS a little too well, or are law-abiding up until the point the enemy fails to be.  Either way, I can think of several breaches of internet etiquette that fall under this description.  For example, the trolling of TCC when Daniel was banned.  Though light and done with the knowledge of EB&G members, it was neither condoned nor stopped by them, which shocked several TCC regulars.  However, they could hardly blame all of EB&G for the attacks of a few.  Equally, the response to Roger's banning was mass attacks by HIMEOBS, even though many members had never even been to TCC before and the nature of the attacks were (at the time) purely defensive.


Collective vision.

Network structures benefit from what can be called "leaderless c2 cognition" which is very similar to the term "leaderless resistance".  A collective vision either occurs by consensus or by initial design that defines the raison d'etre of the group.  While cells/nodes fight towards this vision independently, they will keep in contact with each other so that they can update those who share their vision the realtime operational space in which they are functioning.

Discordian example: operation mindfuck, only if we didn't utilize KYFMS so often and actually all told each other what we did all the time.


Adaptive behaviour

As a by-product of this general awareness, cells/nodes can then decide where best to concentrate their efforts in pursuit of their overall goal.  When combined with processing ability, networks can 'get inside' the decision-making loop of hierarchical groups and out think them.  At more abstract levels, networks can adapt to meet a changing strategic environment, often by making alliance and working with others.

Discordian example:  alliance with dissident pagans.  Change in emphasis of Operation Mindfuck to keep in line with the BIP metaphor, as well as utilizing more up to date psychological models and techniques.


Emergence

The synthesis of network collective vision and adaptive behaviour capabilities may result in network emergence (the rise of spontaneous intelligence).  This concept is reminiscent of hiveminds that are described in science-fiction literature and may prove a tougher adversary than could be imagined.

Discordian example: unknown.


Endnotes from Cain.

Our first priority should and is the recruitment and creation of cells.  We can divide cells into two types, social (internet based) and geographical (location based).  Working IRL and online, we may be able to combine the two with tools like Myspace and Facebook. 

PD.com should currently be viewed as a central hub in the making.  Eventually, it will likely emerge as a C2 centre (command and control cell that oversees and helps maintain the cohesion of over cells, as well as a place to deal with the press and make proclamations) but this will require the creation of cells elsewhere.  These cells should be told straight-up what we intend and told about the above netwar concepts in as much detail as possible.  PD.com members can then help create information channels between the new cell and other groups.  A CELL IS ONLY A CELL WHEN IT IS AWARE AND WORKING WITH THE NETWORK.  Right now, than means we have nil cells, though we have several areas that are likely to become one soon.

Once enough cells are established, it will be PD.com's job to connect them all to each other as much as possible.  From there on in, we can take stock of the situation.  Some cells may decide to create propaganda to go on recruiting, while others may start planning operations.  PD.com will likely remain an intellectual/media centre, providing justification for the network's actions as well as acting as a focal point for those wanting to find out more.

There is probably more I haven't thought of, but after 10 pages my arms are bloody tired.

[Cain]

Oh, thats right.  If you agree, we bring the discussion to EB&G and POEE and try to engage the natives there.

[LMNO]

Yowza.


il;wr*


















(is long; will read.)

[ybom]

Cain, can I have a ons with you? All of that stuff is very sexy and's turning me on a bit.

I'm going to assimilate all of that later and pray the powers that be don't turn me off for doing so, not that I'm paranoid or anything, just a little angsty and hoping they do.

And for what it's worth, I agree to take it to the natives. *bad visual*

[Cramulus]

Okay. I just spent the last 30 minutes reading all of that. Before I re-read for clarity, I'll venture a synopsis of your suggested "next stage"-- please correct / clarify if I'm missing / misreading anything.

We will "organize" into different cells. These cells will exist in various places on the net as well as IRL. For example at the moment I'm a node in a cell of five or so Discordians in the Yonkers, New York area AND a node in the PD Cell. (and AWS too!)

After these cells are created (I imagine many of them already exist), they must be networked. This is a decentralized network, rather than a hierarchy. This is done by having members join more than one cell at once, and not having any one leader in particular.

The purpose of this structure is to
-maximize each cell's access to resources - the PD cell can't put up flyers, but the Yonkers cabal can. The Yonkers cabal has limited ability to troll websites (because it only has two internet trolls), but the PD cabal can. Because I'm a member of both cells, I can farm work from one group to the other
-defend each cell from strikes - with no "top level", we can't be decapitated.

Recruiting:

We need to form a larger "fourth ring" - Discordians who are hip to the cause but may not have dedicated themselves to it yet. They are our recruiting field for the New Wave ring.

The best way to do this, if I read you correctly, is to create cells which have various appeals to various types of Discordians. We can flagship a silly discordian myspace group, for example, and make sure that we litter it with information about the other cells and the Big Picture.





Vex and I were talking recently about The Machine and how we might utilize its structure for our own machinations. (excuse the pun) His notion was that once you've created a self-propelling structure, it takes very little effort to maintain it. Sort of like how people continue to create The Machine not because they're actively trying to, but because participating in the Machine further reifies its existence.

Vex's PDF (which he posted on the other page) was pointing at a similar idea, though he described a centralized / hierarchical network. (correct me if I'm wrong Vex) He suggested that we create an OMF engine: People pick roles / jobs within this cabal, and if they stop doing it their job, the person above them replaces them or the people below them elect someone else. (now that DOES sound like The Machine^TM, no?)



I'm gonna venture a guess, Cain, that your plan involves infiltrating / usurping other Discordian cells. This is not trolling, but rather giving our nodes higher importance within their networks, and thus bending them to our nefarious and no doubt evil will.



am I more or less on target?