Opensource discussion on O:MF and what comes after.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Tosk said:
So, the trickster... in myth, is often associated with openings and opportunities. That is, they create an opportunity, wait for someone to take advantage of the opportunity and then close the door when they walk in.

So, it seems to me that this is an area that we could improve upon. PosterGASM, takes advantage of an opportuntiy (all the eyeballs walking by) but it doesn't make an opportunity for the victim. Colbertgasm was just a jake (an awesome and highly successful jake... but I digress), no serious trickery there.

Thus far, we've been the Merry Trickster, the crazy people that invade forums and inundate them with cream pies. Perhaps, we can raise our challenges to the Trapping Trickster level

I am reminded of Joey Skaggs and his pranks on the Media. Although I think he has become somewhat stagnant in his philosophy and a bit of a pretentious asshole (with way more focus on CAUSES than I would like...), he has pulled some fantastic pranks by creating an opening, letting someone in and then springing the trap. The geoduck prank, for example, was a great instance of what I'm talking about. It required relatively little preparation, a few photos, an 'article' and then getting the story into the right ears...

It seems that it might be easy to put too much into the prank, to invest to heavily or too obviously. I think the trick is in the mechanism, not the bait, or the victim...

Let's open some doors

Net said:
I like the trap format you've got there. That's the kind of pragmatic strategy that can be applied to some of the more general ideas floating around here.

I don't like the suggestion that it's bad to get too invested in the prank. I think it's entirely too rare for people to take their pranks too far and par for the course to settle for an underdeveloped scheme.

Tosk said:
I think I meant that its easy to be focused on pranking the Big Prank... pranking the National Media, rather than pranking Pajamas Media, or Local Media. Skaggs with the geoduck prank, hit local media which propagated it outward. I recently saw a video on YouTube that was trying to create a meme viral video like rickroll... except that it was WAY to obvious.. for example it was called *the guys name*roll and said on the side "Post this everywhere and trick people into clicking it!!!"

Too obvious, too invested. Rather than setting the trap and then waiting to see if it worked, he sort of took the trap and threw it at people.

I don't think that wannabe rickroll guy was invested enough. I see what you're saying about being too invested. You're referring to people's egos being too invested in the prank, I'm suggesting that the conceptual basis for the prank itself is not invested in. Both of which apply to the shitty appropriation of the rickroll.

Net said:
What do you mean about the mechanism being more important than the bait or the victim? Are you saying that the slamming of the door of the trap is the mechanism? I think Skaggs goes off on the revealing of the prank being of critical importance, is that what you're referring to?

Tosk said:
Revealing the prank is very important, but that's just showing everyone that the trap worked (and spotlighting the mechanism). The mechanism of the trap, the thing that makes the mark take the bait, appealing to the greed, or hubris, or automated responses, or herd mentality or whatever thats the key I think. For example the geoduck prank took advantage of the media hyping anti-Japanese stories. He knew the bait would be taken, because he saw the flaw in the victim. Much of our Mindfuckery relies on a random person reading something, it seems to me like variations on the Jake. Those are great pranks, but they're all sort of the same kind of category "surprise=information" (they are moree like pit traps or mine... ready to take any poor sod that happens by) whereas a lot of the 'prankster' pranks seem more like traps based on weaknesses in the specific victim,, traps designed to exploit and oftem spotlight the weakness...

Perhaps the art of the trickster lies in understanding the nature of his target. We have a lot of people around here that seem to be really good at grokking the nature of individuals and groups. It's why we can troll, no? If we can develop pranks based on that understanding, and designed to exploit/expose flaws in the nature of the victim (perhaps just to the victim themselves, or to the world at large) I think that would be an interesting O:MF of the future

For example, if instead of ColbertGASM, we had done BillOGASM,  Bill O'Reily could have been convinced that a private presidential task force was being assembled to deal with 'left wing media bias'. Of course, we would accidentally give him the address to a Klan rally and make sure that plenty of the evil Left Wing Media were on hand with cameras. (Obvious hyperbole is obvious; Exaggeration for effect and examination... and the LOL that my imagination gave me at the thought)



These are just ideas and I don't consider anything I'm typing here as true or more correct... just ideas about 'the next level'... and obviously I nay have no idea how many awesome traplike pranks are being pulled off around here

If I were to model this classic prank format as a process I think it would look like this:

1. Identify weakness to exploit
2. Plan bait/trap to fit weakness and method of exposing to the public
3. Gather resources and/or insertion of operatives
4. Implement the fuck out of that bitch
5. Review the efforts for improvement or memoirs

Does anyone have issues with this strategy? What would you change?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Net, I will reply to this later on.

I am coming round to your point of view, somewhat.

Swote.

[Payne]

Note: I will leave Net to trim the fat off of these quote trees, he seems to be better at it than me. I tried, and it horribly distorted the conversation.

Payne in italics.

Most of my questions still apply, especially surrounding this theory of mini-egos (which is compelling though I think it's inaccurate).

If our methods are ambiguous, our goals, our "reasons" are more so. Such is the nature of discord, I suppose.

Mine aren't. Mostly.

This is fair enough, perhaps I was painting with too broad a brush when I made that statement. I suppose I also have to be more aware that many of our personal gigs and gags are subject to KYFMS

However, I would probably say it is no bad thing to have diverse and "ambiguous" reasons and/or goals. It may not give us strength in depth, but it creates a wide pool of expertise and resource to call on.

I would argue that it is a bad thing to have ambiguous goals. There is evidence that specificity in attitude predicts the associated behavior while generalities in attitude are not linked with the associated behavior, source on request. But also, imagine playing basketball where the players and the crowd aren't exactly sure where the hoop is. The game would be too hard to play and to watch for that matter. It also can be too specific, for example, designing hoops and backboards which are so bright and vivid that they're distracting.

In putting of a plan into action, yes, ambiguous goals would hinder us. I believe I was originally referring to the milieu of personalities within this community. We all want subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different things. We bring different skills and viewpoints and strengths and weaknesses to the table.

In planning a mindfuck, we would be looking to corral the most interesting and useful (for the specific circumstance) of these together, and hope the "chemistry" creates something truly great.

However, I am reassessing this assumption. I don't think it's possible to really "corral" these things together, and get anything good from it. We'd get a hell of a debate, but nothing productive beyond a lot of words.

It's good that we have someone like Cramulus who can manage a project, push it through,get people motivated to take part. Cram is a good guy, and has all the qualities of a good leader, but we need more people to take up the reigns, to push through these projects, to create more of their own.

What do you attribute to his success?

Cram is charismatic, driven and well liked. People listen to his ideas because they work, and, building on past successes, he is able to galvanise a core of people into action on a specific short or long term goal.

Mostly he is successful because he actually puts himself into a position to be so.

Do you believe we can model these qualities and adapt them to our own personalities? I do, and I think a small number of posters stepping up to the plate in such a manner would be necessary for a large payoff in activity and results.

This is largely the point I've been trying to make all along. Maybe I'm just using the wrong wording or imagery.

We need more varied ideas and people who are willing to step up to the plate and have their ideas heard and implemented.

How can YOU help make this happen? And how badly do you really want it to happen?

I'm going to practice what I preach, and try and throw out some ideas. How badly do I want it to happen? Not sure, where this is a call to action, I believe it now hinges on my first experiment on changing my self-perceived role in PD from my usual WOMPing, fluff specialising caricature of myself into one (which I've always wanted to try, but never actually done for a sustained period of time) that writes interesting thought provoking articles and the like.

If it works, great. If it doesn't work, then I need to revise my hypothesis again.

I'm looking forward to your experiment. What exactly is your hypothesis?

By casting aside WOMP, and as much of the fluffy and trite posting, then taking up a role (seldom played) as a more serious poster, in this case more interested in posting ideas and thoughts in debate threads, and rising above petty drama, I hoped to prove a few different things:

1- That I can (and by extension, we all can) develop different parts and different kinds of productivity, making me more of an all rounder when it comes to projects.

2- That I COULD stop WOMPing for a week, as per your challenge.

3- That my general productivity would increase, affecting a change on the quality of my posting.

I also thought that if it was spectacularly successful, a "different" Payne would become noticeable, giving me something to work with for my chained mini-egos idea.

It's still ongoing, but so far, it hasn't been a great success. I think I have only partially achieved 1 and 3. I haven't WOMPed at all, at least.

Roger recently called for us to start fucking with the media. I agreed then, and I still do, but I'm begining to think that what we have discussed so far for this "plan" is too small time, is not pushing our limits. We DO need to jack the media, but I think we need to do it directly, or at least more directly than I have been thinking about.

We need people on the inside. OK, so we're not going to get a news anchor, or even the guy that does his teleprompter, but we need to start speaking with people who ARE involved with the mass media, with students who shortly will be. We need to raise our sights a little and focus our attention on places and people who, if we can affect change there, will have a larger and broader effect. We almost had this with the Adam Weishaupt Society (another of Crams projects), we need to revisit that idea and REALLY put some effort into it.

I'm interested in how I can help to collectively fuck with the media. I know there are a lot of other people who have a similar inclination, however the devil is in the details... I've come to expect that when I press discordians for the details of their plans that they probably won't have them and may even actively avoid fleshing things out with some half-baked rationalization about disorder. It's a flying by the seat of your pants gamble that usually doesn't even occur because people lose interest as soon as they realize how much effort is required to make it happen.

You're talking in glittering generalities. What kind of larger effects? What people and places? What will speaking with insiders and students do for you? I'm a student of the mass media, albeit a subsection, but that is the environment where I'm being taught to succeed at. It's quite possible that I'll be much further inside the belly of the beast in the next few years, but then what? I hope you don't think that I'd risk my entire design career for a prank. Well, maybe I would, but it would need a much better mission statement than, "Let's fuck with the media, LOL."

What got me about Roger's call to action was the potential for the "social fiction" meme. That's hella juicy.

My problem with pushing my ideas forward with regard to jacking or fucking with the media is I'm so far removed from the actual scene and, I admit, unfamiliar with how much of the system works. General ideas, I'm good for in this case, actually pushing for specific details and assigning people to different tasks, I would need to collaborate with someone who DOES know the system. And that's what we need, to assign people tasks and hope that they do them.

I'm not suggesting that people risk their careers on a prank, I'm suggesting that having a sympathetic ear and voice in areas where we are trying to affect change is not a bad thing. If our target is the media, then it's not a bad idea to have someone on the inside who can tell us when something is not going to work (for example). Yes this is another generality, but this is just an idea I've thrown up to see if it has any merit, it's not a detailed call for action. Maybe we DON'T need people on the ground, maybe we can do everything from our computers.

And yes, Rogers social fiction idea is awesome. Just hitting message boards with it isn't going to have a great impact though.

I will try to think through a couple of ideas for it, and post them in the relevant thread today.

What criteria does someone need to fulfill to consult with them about "the system." What parts of "the system" have the most importance or relevance? This plays into developing a specific plan, so we can focus our energy more effectively on what is important and relevant to the objectives.

It's my understanding that few people have a meaningful idea of how national and multinational media systems work because it's an emergent phenomena that arises out of a wide array of specialized personnel working together. Having a resource like that would be nice, but I don't think it's necessary for us to either get close or achieve our plans.

How do we know if we need people on the ground until we have crystallized the desired objective?

I don't know about this anymore. We can probably dump this part of the debate until I actually CAN debate it. As you've said, I'm being far too general about it.

My only thought was we should develop resources, regardless of whether we actually need them or not, in the areas we seem to be focusing on. For the media, this suggested to me that having people on "our side" in the media for intel (if nothing else, considering job security) would be a good thing. Maybe it's a waste of time. I don't know enough about it.

For the media, we can read all sorts of other things. Popular Culture, large institutions, maybe (a real long shot here) the underbelly of Government.

This is what we should be doing if we are focusing on effecting change with O:MF outside our own minds.

This is why nothing gets done. It sounds good on the surface, but really you're not saying anything in real world terms. Once you embellish these ideas with concrete, testable elements they'll grow legs.

Working on it.

To further clarify, I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss heavily abstract ideas, but in the interest of pragmatism to continually move these ideas toward the concrete.

I understand that, it's just that I was (and now am) "working on it".

~~~Payne: Trying his best to keep up.

Within our own minds, O:MF as a self-mindfuck, we should perhaps be considering adjusting our roles more often. Within this community many of us seem to have a well defined niche, a certain service, viewpoint, shtick that we are noted for having or providing.

This is all well and good, it's nice to know that there is a certain constancy, a familiarity in our interactions on this board. It lends a small amount of stabiliy to an otherwise fractious group of individuals, but it tends to stifle a great deal of creativity, (of which there is still plenty, but we can always do with more).

Lead by example. A lot of people like you and respect you, myself included. If you started doing something like that you'd be assured to influence people.

Could you really go a week without WOMP though? Do you remember when Roger got all nice? People were terrified.

How would you know that enough people are playing more roles? What can one do to encourage it?  When would it be contraindicated?

Working on it.

What role would you like to see me play, for example? Or Cain? Or some noob that just rolled in?

Whichever you felt like. Preferably one that you see others do, and think to yourself "Man, I wish I could do that half as well".

I am never going to be Roger, Cain, Netaungrot or any of the distinct personalities and experts on these boards. But I would like to develop some of the skills and personality traits anyway. So instead of thinking "I wish Roger was here to lay down some intelligently applied hate", I can do a fairly good job of it myself with my own spin on it.

I'm not going to tell people they should try to change and develop, but I would like people who want to, to do so.

When we step up to the plate and announce our ideas, I believe we need to be more willing to adopt a different role in seeing them implemented (we could possibly find ourselves auto-mindfucked into taking a leadership role, so that Cram can get on with the projects he enjoys taking forward more). We need to see more people willing and able to take on any role, be it leader, artist, writer, ranter, thinker, debator and a myriad of others.

And again, how to do this?

I've been considering writing a rant recently but there is little of my writing that doesn't implode from the force of my own analysis.

The leadership idea is good too. I'd like to see that happen as well, but I could see hostile competition between would-be leaders fucking everything up.

Perhaps what we need more of is taking initiative and collaboration not necessarily someone explicitly playing "leader."

About your writing, fair enough. God knows I've started plenty of pieces of writing which I've scrubbed and never posted. By the same measure though, the WOMP perspective that I've been honing the last year or so, that "it doesn't matter if it LOOKS rough, someone will find merit in it, even if it's only you" is something I've applied more and more to other things.

It isn't really about the quality of writing, for me, it's about having my ideas heard. And the good thing I've found about this board in particular is that while most of the attention is paid to the ideas who show up in Mercs wearing suits, the ones who come in looking like a diseased tramp will ALSO have some attention shown to them.

I haven't yet been completely torn down for anything that I've written, but I have to of course admit that that could be because I have a certain reputation on here, and people don't want to hurt my feelings or some shit.

The leadership idea isn't to give everyone a sense of authority entitlement. If they've been doing their homework, they should already have that, and I don't see an outright war on the boards over it. I see it more as helping people here to develop skills that they already have, but never exercise. If it leads to some friction, so be it. (look to my quick analysis of why Cram is so successful for what I'm trying to promote in others, myself included. We are all capable of it, but few of us are actually trying to achieve it.)

How do you know someone has heard your idea? Could you give an example of when you've been heard and an example of not being heard?

How do we know people have an interest and motivation to develop leadership skills?

If everyone tried very hard to be the leader in projects, nothing would get done. The point I'm trying to make is that a collaborative mindset may be more important than a strong leader. It may be that Cram isn't so much a leader, but very good at getting people to work together. I think we may be missing the forest for a particularly attractive tree.
[/quote]

Being heard, and not being heard. Well, I will use this discussion for that. You missed one of my points (one that I thought was important) regarding my hypothesis for my experiment, even though it was fairly central to what I was saying. I've already addressed that above, and I think it comes down to a lack of clarity on my part. Something I need to personally work on. Which is really my whole point. Being heard? Well, the rest of this discussion... 

People who want to develop leadership skills, ideally would identify themselves. Hence trying to publicise what I'm doing to the rest of the boards.

I'm not arguing for a chairman of the board style of leadership. I'm arguing for someone to get people collaborating (my idea of what a leader should be, especially here, and one that Cram does indeed embody)

It is in this way that I feel the mini-egos and One Self idea I began with in this thread can be resolved. It is by truly pushing ourselves and over reaching that we will discover more about hidden aspects of our personality, about what we can use to achieve more with less effort, and what we can then turn our attention to "fixing" or "improving".

While this all is helpful, I'm not sure I agree with the theory of mini-egos versus the One Self. In lieu of an operationalized idea of "mini-egos..." I'm not sure the model is very useful either.

I think you're absolutely correct about pushing ourselves and overreaching though. RAH!

Maybe the model isn't useful, my experiment should help test it. My One Self, I see it as the WOMPing fluff artist. My "Mini-Ego" in this case, the one that never gets it's chance in the spotlight, is the more intellectual and serious side of me. I'm trying it on for size, to see if it changes my perspective, or improves my skills in any way.

Also, thanks for the second part. 

I don't see the separation between egos as desirable. I think using language that assumes divisions can help create divisions in your personality.

Could you compare and contrast the idea with Carl Jung's shadow and collective unconscious? They seem similar. I believe most of Jung's ideas are still untestable so if the mini-ego/main-ego theory is also untestable why should I prefer it over Jung's?

The idea for the mini-ego and one self thing came directly from reading The Dice Man. It was supposed to be shorthand (as far as I'm concerned) for developing latent skills and desires that are normally oppressed. You are maybe right about divisions in your personality. I've been seriously depressed the last few days, for no really discernible reason. It's entirely possible my experiment is causing this.

[Triple Zero]

If I were to model this classic prank format as a process I think it would look like this:

1. Identify weakness to exploit
2. Plan bait/trap to fit weakness and method of exposing to the public
3. Gather resources and/or insertion of operatives
4. Implement the fuck out of that bitch
5. Review the efforts for improvement or memoirs

Does anyone have issues with this strategy? What would you change?

No, that's pretty much it. Quite good, straightforward. I personally like having a plan like this, a lot.

Step 1 is sometimes called the "hacker mindset" or "security mindset", Rat probably knows what I'm talking about here, and I suppose
a lot of discordians (especially the prankster and hacker subtypes) have it as well.

It is when you walk around and see some kind of security mechanism (in the widest sense of the word) in action, it is being trusted
upon to do its job, and pretty much involuntarily (i'm not going to say subconscious, but it is involuntary for me) you mentally poke
at it and see if it can be circumvented or subverted in some manner.

i do this all the time, examples, my guest-parking card that has a 16h/week quota that i must sign on and off on a website
(begging to be hacked, no?) or whenever i call some helpdesk phoneline service number and they give me a lot of my personal info
with hardly any proper identification (read Kevin Mitnick - The Art of Deception for great examples of exploiting the latter holes).

for me, step 1 and 2 kind of merge together, but they are steps that i am pretty good at. it's the actual putting things into motion,
transmuting theory into practice (steps 3 and 4) that often get me stuck in some way.

fortunately we have a wide array of different personalities in our group, so there should be others, given a brilliant plan, being
able to pick it up from there, right?




on a different note, Ratatosk, could you perhaps expand on the need to expose a prank once it's completed?

because i can see two scenarios, that differ on the "point" of the prank.

- if the "point" is the exploitation of a weakness that you/we think the target should not have, it is important to reveal the
prank, so it becomes obvious that the target has this weakness. examples of these weaknesses range from general egoism, closed-
mindedness or herd-behaviour to real practical examples such as responsible disclosure of security vulnerabilities.

- but if the "point" of the prank is to complete a certain kind of goal that is related to the exploitation of the weakness, but in
a different way, say, shifting the outcome of some poll one way or another, or trolling/fueling a board-war between two un-allied
boards, it may be extremely counterproductive (or sometimes even dangerous) to reveal/expose/disclose the prank, trap, mechanism and
whatnot. it could prevent the same technique from working again in the future (which is the point of the responsible disclosure in
the previous scenario) or at its worst it could negate the outcome of a prank (the poll-results being discarded as non-representative,
for example). also related to our KYFMS-rule.

thoughts?

[Cramulus]

Skaggs said he liked revealing his pranks because it was the only time you get to talk to the media really honestly about your cause. It's the whole point of the prank. According to Skaggs, everything is just a set-up from stage 1 to get your face on the camera and have the anchor say "why'd you do it, Joey?"


but you know my take on causes and other baggage:

A Cause is just an Excuse you don't have to appologize for.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Oh I love where this thread seems to be going

I don't think that wannabe rickroll guy was invested enough. I see what you're saying about being too invested. You're referring to people's egos being too invested in the prank, I'm suggesting that the conceptual basis for the prank itself is not invested in. Both of which apply to the shitty appropriation of the rickroll.

Ah yes, precisely what I was aiming for (and missed!) the EGO INVESTMENT! Planning, plotting, laying out the trap are all important... but often, the entire prank seems situated on the ego of the prankster, rather than the weakness of the victim... does that make any sense?

If I were to model this classic prank format as a process I think it would look like this:

1. Identify weakness to exploit
2. Plan bait/trap to fit weakness and method of exposing to the public
3. Gather resources and/or insertion of operatives
4. Implement the fuck out of that bitch
5. Review the efforts for improvement or memoirs

Does anyone have issues with this strategy? What would you change?

I agree with 000, this is nice and follows the basis of what I do when dealing with security assessments.

on a different note, Ratatosk, could you perhaps expand on the need to expose a prank once it's completed?

because i can see two scenarios, that differ on the "point" of the prank.

- if the "point" is the exploitation of a weakness that you/we think the target should not have, it is important to reveal the
prank, so it becomes obvious that the target has this weakness. examples of these weaknesses range from general egoism, closed-
mindedness or herd-behaviour to real practical examples such as responsible disclosure of security vulnerabilities.

- but if the "point" of the prank is to complete a certain kind of goal that is related to the exploitation of the weakness, but in
a different way, say, shifting the outcome of some poll one way or another, or trolling/fueling a board-war between two un-allied
boards, it may be extremely counterproductive (or sometimes even dangerous) to reveal/expose/disclose the prank, trap, mechanism and
whatnot. it could prevent the same technique from working again in the future (which is the point of the responsible disclosure in
the previous scenario) or at its worst it could negate the outcome of a prank (the poll-results being discarded as non-representative,
for example). also related to our KYFMS-rule.

THIS!!!

Revealing the prank is an important step if you're dealing with the sort of prank intended to expose. Cram's comment on Joey seems in line with his goal, which, in all honesty is about Joey promoting Joey's opinions, ideas and philosophy (see 'too invested')

However, what seems more traditionally trickster and less traditionally part of the 'prankster community' (or whatever its called), is tricking to teach the victim, or tricking to exploit the victim for personal gain of some sort.

Pranktivism requires the revelation of the prank, because it promotes the view of the prankster. The Yes Men, Joey Skaggs, etc all seem to fall into this group. They prank for the ideals that they believe in, particularly to promote those ideals. Thus, the revelation is very important.

The trickster/prankster, particularly in story, however, was not focused on the revelation of the prank (the revelation of the prank was almost always by the storyteller, by telling the story). Rather the prankster/trickster played his pranks and tricks for personal gain or to teach someone something... though usually, I must say it appears for personal gain. Crow teaches man to fish, then learns how to trick the fisherman and steal the bait for dinner. Coyote loses his eyes, so he tricks other creatures into giving up theirs for him. Hermes steals Apollos cows, kills them and sacrifices them, so HE can attain godhood. Eris slings the apple for revenge.

In most of those cases, the TRAP, the mechanism is based on failings in the victim. Man trusts Crow and doesn't grok that Crow is nipping off with the bait (Crow exploited trust), Coyote tricks animals into giving him eyes through flattery (appeal to vanity) or cunning, Hermes tricks Apollo through exploiting Apollo's personality. Eris knew the goddesses vanity and how to exploit it (remember, 'The prettiest one' at a wedding is always the bride...)

The humans, animals and Sun God may have learned something about themselves and the trickster. If so, however, it was incidental to the tricksters main goal, feeding his belly, seeings, gaining power, getting revenge.

In those examples, the mechanism of the trap, the vulnerability and the way in which it is exploited, become the primary focus. The victim gets all the attention, while the trickster perhaps puts on a mask, hides his intent, changes his nature... in order to catch the victim. Modern day pranksters seem intent on their nature and their intent and thus, if there is a mask, its a temporary one, only there long enough to CATCH the victim, then torn away to reveal the Purpose.

Trickster in archetype though, often takes on a disguise, changes his nature or somehow obfuscates his involvement in a prank. Even after the trick is done, trickster often seems to simply fade away, slip into the crowd or otherwise sneak off without revealing himself to the masses (See Loki and Balder).

So for us, I suppose it will depend on the type of trick, if we hope to show someone a weakness, or to exploit a weakness to show the world... then exposing the prank will be very important. However, if the goal is to gain an advantage, to screw with a norm or to otherwise play trickster... then the mechanism seems far more impoarant, and perhaps revelation is less important, or not at all important...

IN SOME SENSE.

[Cain]

If you reveal the exploit, you cannot continue to use the exact same one.

In other words, if you intend to blow it, do it with either a high impact one, or a one-hit wonder exploit that you won't be able to use again.

[Professor Mu-Chao]

... but often, the entire prank seems situated on the ego of the prankster, rather than the weakness of the victim... does that make any sense?

Yes, and it's more than pranks - I've seen lots of ego in online Discordia too. Look at the Wikipedia kerfuffle... everyone trying to get their names on there and getting seriously pissed off about it. Ego is something that it is hard to transcend. I got a bit of a thrill when some of my horrible writings showed up in the Apocrypha or wherever... but I got to a point where I just didn't care anymore... especially when I got involved with the Babylon Project, where no one's name was on anything... unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have panned out.

[Cramulus]

off-topic, but -- what was the Babylon project?

[Cain]

Project Babylon was a project allegedly commissioned by the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq War to build a series of superguns. The design was based on research from the 60s Project HARP led by the Canadian artillery expert Gerald Bull. Although the details are sketchy, it appears that there were four different devices in total included in the program.

[Cain]

Or its this

http://www.babylonproject.org/index.html

[Cain]

Haven't got time for a long ass reply.

Here are some ideas from other people you may want to incorporate into the discussion however.

Skilluminati:

We live on a planet with 6 billion humans, and most of them are uninformed and ignorant. Here in the United States, despite high standards of living and abundant material wealth, the situation is no different.

[...]

Don't mistake this for crowing about how dumb people are. This is a serious and intractable problem. The vast majority of voters in the United States are dangerously ignorant and easily manipulated.

Here's the moral quandary: is it ethical to use deception in order to control these people? If you don't do it, guess who will? Karl Rove. Rick "not about the issues" Davis. The same paid operatives who have been running the real power structure of the United States since John Rockefeller and Edward Bernays were alive.

Here's the logistical problem: how can you and I compete against multi-million dollar budgets? The business of spectacles, like any other, is a business that runs on money. Those who have money shape the spectacle, and the rest of us are consigned to...well, meaningless critiques on obscure websites.

[...]

As I said at the outset of this project, "my interest in 5GW (5th Generation Warfare) is rooted in it's potential for positive social and cultural change." I am investigating warfare for the same reasons I investigated psychology and marketing -- beacuse the tools of social control will be less damaging when they're widely distributed. Executives who have power over millions of other humans are inherently dangerous -- millions of humans with executive control over themselves is where we're headed this century.

The dinosaurs of governments and corporations and media conglomerates and think tanks and universities -- the old legitimate White Control System -- will not let go quietly and politely. So I think every future mutunt has a common-sense obligation to learn how to disable and disarm them as effectively as possible.


Matt Mason, The Pirate's Dilemma:

Disruptive new D.I.Y. tech­nologies are causing unprecedented creative destruction. The history of punk offers us valuable insights into how this new world works. Punk was an angry outburst, a reaction to mass culture, but it offered new ideas about how mass culture could be replaced with a more person­alized, less centralized worldview.

Punk has survived in many incarnations musically—it became new wave, influenced hip-hop, and conceived grunge and the notion of indie bands. But more important, its independent spirit also spurred a do-it-yourself revolution. D.I.Y. encourages us to reject authority and hierarchy, advocating that we can and should produce as much as we consume.

[...]

Punk had high ideals—it looked aggressive and scary, but through its angry critique of society and subversion of it, it sought to change the world for the better. Punk capitalists are using the same techniques, subverting a world full of empty cor­porate gestures, manufacturing businesses and products with meanings that attempt to inject substance back into style. Punk injected altruism into entrepreneurship, a motivator of people long overlooked by neoclassical economics. Not only that, punk made the idea of putting purpose before profit seem cool to an entire generation. It manufactured new meaning in an area where it was really needed.

[...]

Hip-hop has forged such a strong connection with so many, it can create change like no music scene before it. "I don't think there is any place it doesn't exist," says Daymond John of the move­ment he grew up with. "Hip-hop artists are addressing the U.N. It could actually overthrow governments. This is the communication of the poor. Music is one of the most powerful ways people communicate with each other. There is no limit to this." Hip-hop has proved to be a great way to generate money, but it's now in a position to generate some serious social change, too.

Chang also cites studies such as the UCLA freshman survey that points out that "the hip-hop generation's rate of participation in voluntarism, in political protest and in activism on a wide range of issues is much higher than that of the baby boomer generation during their youth.. . . The myth of an apa­thetic generation—one even upheld by some of our youngest public intellectuals—is one of the most baseless and insidious lies of our era."

[...]

Today's flash mobs are the digital Situationists, increasing the peace, subverting the norm, and making us laugh. Each one is different and unique; the only thing they have in common is their transience. But flash mobs are just one new phenomenon; many things are becoming just as temporary. Nanocultures rise and fall in months. Goods are ever more disposable. Owning something is becoming less important than the right to access it. Gibson was right: things that used to be meaning­ful no longer carry the same weight. Youth cultures and fads have become marketing tools, but deeper underground, something else is happening.

Instead of the subversive words of youth cultures such as punk and hip-hop, the actions of a new breed of nanomovements and subversive systems are sweating the smaller stuff, tearing old models to shreds, and finding new ways to construct meaning and movements. The nanos still add up to something. It seems depth is a thing of the past, but again, this is just how it looks on the surface.
Welcome to youth culture's great disappearing act.


The Art of Memetics:

In contemporary society examining survival pressures means looking at the socioeconomic system within which people are embedded. Memes that make their host unemployable have smaller potential populations, and contravening the social mores and norms endangers the host's survivability and reduces the meme's communicational effectiveness. It is detrimental to memetic survival to promote behavior that destroys the host's ability to maneuver in a social space.

However, there is no reason to assume memetics requires language to operate. All identity construction, in addition to being a kind of bricolage, is also existent only within a social context. You do not have an identity without some kind of community formation against which to project that identity. This community space is also a theater in which performance and stress builds connections....The propaganda of the deed is most commonly pictured as terrorism, but can mean any dramatic or awe-inspiring action designed as communication. In the past the actions only affected those who were physically present. If those not present were effected it was via a retelling or textualizing. Today's media environment in which events and actions are filmed, associated with various emotional markers through juxtaposition and shown directly to many people repeatedly has widened the impact of these types of communication. It is against this backdrop of our current communication structure that terrorism has gained its modern power and prevalence, as it is one thing to be told that hundreds of people have died in an event, but it is quite another thing entirely to be shown the event in all its drama, movement, and color.

You don't convince someone by pushing what you believe against what they believe. It is when their belief system is questioning itself that you can lean in and offer what you want them to do or believe as the answer to the instability. Point out contradictions inherent in their belief system and they themselves may throw it out of balance. Get them to question one end of their beliefs using another end and then offer your meme as the solution to the feelings of doubt.


Adorno and Horkheimer, The Culture Industry

Those who are so absorbed by the world of the movie—by its images, gestures, and words—that they are unable to supply what really makes it a world, do not have to dwell on particular points of its mechanics during a screening. All the other films and products of the entertainment industry which they have seen have taught them what to expect; they react automatically. The might of industrial society is lodged in men's minds. The entertainment manufacturers know that their products will be consumed with alertness even when the customer is distraught, for each of them is a model of the huge economic machinery which has always sustained the masses, whether at work or at leisure—which is akin to work. From every sound film and every broadcast program the social effect can be inferred which is exclusive to none but is shared by all alike. The culture industry as a whole has molded men as a type unfailingly reproduced in every product. All the agents of this process, from the producer to the women's clubs, take good care that the simple reproduction of this
mental state is not nuanced or extended in any way.



Jay Abraham, Techniques of Stealth Marketing

Education is a powerful marketing technique.  Educate your prospective buyers about everything (including a few of the bad or less positive aspects of your product or service) and you'll sell to almost twice as much people as you do now.



The Psychology of Entertainment, Wyer and Adaval

The images created by the entertainment media, whether encountered in a darkened movie theatre or in sitcoms, soaps, news reports, and advertising, do appear to blur the lines between reality and what we perceive it to be. These images can have a persisting influence on people's attitudes, beliefs, and behavior in ways that we have only recently begun to uncover. O'Guinn and Shrum (1997) paint
a compelling picture of the consequences of excessive television viewing. They find that heavy viewers of television are more likely than infrequent viewers to overestimate the frequency with which individuals drive luxury cars, have swimming pools in their backyards, or manifest other characteristics of an affluent lifestyle (see Shrum, Burroughs, & Rindfleish, this volume).

These effects occur in part because people are typically unmotivated or unable to identify the sources of information they have acquired (Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppin, 1977; Jacoby, Kelley, Brown, & Jasechko, 1989; Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). Thus, they fail to distinguish between their memories for actual events they have read about or personally experienced and their memories of fictional events they have seen on television. Consequently, they often retrieve and use these latter events to estimate the likelihood that the events occur in daily life. In many instances, people are unaware of the biasing influence of the media on their estimates. But even when they are conscious of bias, they do not know how much they should adjust to compensate for it (Petty &Wegener, 1993). Consequently, they can often fail to adjust enough or, at other times, can adjust too much.


Bob Altermeyer, The Authoritarians

I have discovered in my investigations that, by and large, high Right Wing Authoritarian students had simply missed many of the experiences that might have lowered their authoritarianism. Take that first item on page 59 about fathers being the head of the family. Authoritarian followers often said they didn't know any other kind of families.  And they hadn't known any unpatriotic people, nor had they broken many rules. They simply had not met many different kinds of people or done their share of wild and crazy things. Instead they had grown up in an enclosed, rather homogeneous environment--with their friends, their schools, their readings, their amusements all
controlled to keep them out of harm's way and Satan's evil clutches. They had contentedly traveled around on short leashes in relatively small, tight, safe circles all their lives.

Interestingly enough, authoritarian followers show a remarkable capacity for change IF they have some of the important experiences. For example, they are far less likely to have known a homosexual (or realized an acquaintance was homosexual) than most people. But if you look at the high RWAs who do know someone gay or lesbian, they are much less hostile toward homosexuals in general than most
authoritarians are. Getting to know a homosexual usually makes one more accepting of homosexuals as a group. Personal experiences can make a lot of difference, which is a truly hopeful discovery. The problem is, most right-wing authoritarians won't willingly exit their small world and try to meet a gay. They're too afraid. And "coming out" to a high RWA acquaintance might have long-term beneficial effects
on him, but it would likely carry some risks for the outgoing person.



A New Spin on Groups: The Science of Chaos

Butz explains that, during stable periods in their lives, individuals are able to achieve a fixed, yet transitory, sense of self. However, these periods remain stable only until the psyche encounters novel material, which it is unable to integrate within its current mental configuration. When the mental apparatus is disrupted, chaos ensues, followed by a period where the organism reorganizes at a higher level of complexity. This process seems compatible with that inferred in Freeman's brain research mentioned earlier. As the organism develops higher and higher levels of complexity and adaptation, it alternates between periods of stability and chaos. However, as Butz notes, the chaotic periods are far less frequent than are the stable ones.

[...]

According to Butz, psychic chaos and subsequent self-organization signal a creative gestation period wherein the psyche reorganizes itself to accommodate or integrate novel material. Both Butz and Jung discuss the link between chaos and creativity, recognizing what so many others have—that psychic turbulence is a necessary condition prior to new insight or creation of a new psychic structure. As an artist might struggle with containing chaos to create, so too must an individual in the throes of psychic upheaval manage chaos while undergoing a transformation.

During chaotic periods, the unconscious issues forth symbolic images or mandalas. These mandalas, containing symbols of the self, are expressed in a mathematical structure. They appear to be compensatory. Mandalas both express and create order in opposition to ongoing psyche chaos. Butz concludes that "these symbolic representations of the transitory self may also act as a container to focus chaotic experience toward an organized state. As a consequence, the mandala (Fig. 4.2) or the symbol seems to function as an attractor that brings about order.  "What is fascinating about these mandalas are the incredible similarities they have to the fractal images so prevalent in the geometry of chaos.


Culture Jamming

Meanwhile, the question remains: How to box with shadows? In other words, what shape does an engaged politics assume in an empire of signs?

The answer lies, perhaps, in the "semiological guerrilla warfare" imagined by Umberto Eco. "[T]he receiver of the message seems to have a residual freedom: the freedom to read it in a different way...I am proposing an action to urge the audience to control the message and its multiple possibilities of interpretation," he writes. "One medium can be employed to communicate a series of opinions on another medium...The universe of Technological Communication would then be patrolled by groups of communications guerrillas, who would restore a critical dimension to passive reception."


The Power of Persuasion, Robert Levine

Psychological disarmament is what often sets the stage for persuasion.  One of life's crueler ironies is that we're most vulnerable at those
very moments when we feel in least danger. Unfortunately, the illusion of invulnerability pretty well defines our resting state. Even when there is no manipulative outsider pulling our strings, most of us have a tendency to view our futures with unrealistic optimism. Studies have
shown that people generally approach the threats of life with the philosophy that bad things are more likely to happen to other people than
to themselves. With uncanny faulty logic, most people will tell you they're less prone to become victims than everyone around them.

[...]

Research shows that if you subject people to weak versions of a persuasive message, they're less vulnerable to stronger versions later on,
in much the same way that being exposed to small doses of a virus immunizes you against full-blown attacks. In a classic study by William McGuire, people were asked to state their opinion on an issue. They were then mildly attacked for their position and given an opportunity to refute the attack. When later confronted by a powerful argument against their initial opinion, these subjects were more resistant than were a control group. In effect, they developed defenses that rendered them immune.

[Professor Mu-Chao]

Or its this

http://www.babylonproject.org/index.html

Both!

Most of what is currently at Castlechaos is output from that project, but Tales of Eric has much more to it than what I have on CC and there is much more output than is on the project site. I think it may have been lost by one of our operatives, however.

[Payne]

Project Babylon was a project allegedly commissioned by the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq War to build a series of superguns. The design was based on research from the 60s Project HARP led by the Canadian artillery expert Gerald Bull. Although the details are sketchy, it appears that there were four different devices in total included in the program.

Gerald Bull. The most awesome Canadian ever, hands down.

Better even than Pierre Trudeau.

[Cain]

I think I had a breakthrough on this last night, ironically while I was reading my notes on 5GW.

Here is Curtis Gale Weeks, explaining how 5GW warriors may organize an attack on society:



In considering unnatural natural disasters, my primary focus, though unstated, was a consideration of the use of physical force: how could a 5GWarrior utilize physics to goad a target down a path, confuse a target, and ultimately create effects beneficial to the SecretWarrior's war on its target.  But each of the methods mentioned or implied has a weakness, since the creation of unnatural natural disasters, the application of terrorist acts, etc., are traceable.  Such acts have effects which are not only obvious — thus, may raise suspicion — but because they rely on the physical world, they allow the target to piece together physical evidence and, thus, they allow the target to build a clearer picture of the cause.  They allow the target to observe what is real even though a target may fail to do so and therefore may fail to properly piece together the physical patterns.

Framing a patsy or proxy may serve to confuse the target for a time; it might be an effective tactic, leading to a false puzzle as pieces of physical evidence are joined; but as already implied, the 5GWarrior may not want to depend so much on a patsy's complicity — and, physical evidence never lies, though a victim might fail to hear the truth.

How does a 5GW force initiate activity; or, put another way, how does a 5GW force influence its targets to take the steps toward self-destruction?  One way may be through some application of physical force, but a direct application risks discovery.  Framing a patsy risks discovery.  What if, however, another organization committed the act?  What if al Qaeda or some domestic terrorist organization could create the disaster the 5GWarrior wants to inflict (as a goad) on the target?  But then, how do you get that organization to do it?

One way might be a cross-framing, which is an old method: simultaneously commit acts against two parties who already hate each other, but make it look to each of them as if the other did it.  Done well, such a framing — or, multiple framings in quick succession — could lead to the escalation of conflict between the two parties, and once the conflict reaches a certain tempo, the original acts are nearly forgotten.  Cross-framing is a risky enterprise, however, because unless conflict escalates at a very quick rate, the target of 5GW may have time to observe the physical evidence of the terrorist acts.  For instance, 9/11 has been observed and studied, over and over, in the current GWoT; if al Qaeda had been framed — a favorite conspiracy theory — chances are good that we would have discovered this fact and tracked the evidence back to the actual perpetrators.  At the very least, we would be looking for those perpetrators.

What things are hardest to track? Answer: memes.

I think that it may only be fitting for 5GW to derive its difference, its evolutionary superiority, from the greater role of meme transference in our modern world; and that, in general, successive generations of war have developed as technologies and societies developed.  The quick media cycle has observable effects on policy and decision-making, and 5GWarriors will make full use of media.

    Dan tdaxp, quoting a song by VNV Nation:

    "Soundless:

    I'm saying nothing for the good of myself
    but I'm still talking and you're not listening"

Why are you not listening?  You are not listening, because you are already deciding, adding your voice to the chatter (if only mentally.)  Listening is a different function than hearing.  The 5GWarrior may still be talking, you may be hearing, but you are not listening.  Why?  Because you already agree or disagree with what is being said — I'm saying nothing for the good of myself.  The 5GWarrior is speaking so that you have an opportunity to agree or disagree; he is giving you the opportunity to take a position and, thus, is making you free.

In Effectors, I contemplated on one nature of the SecretWarrior: The SecretWarrior as Benefactor:

    No society is 100% homogenous, but the most influential members of the society (whether the society is a small group or a nation) are those who can promise the most benefit to the other members of society, whether the benefit is material in nature or psychological or social. To give an example: should a string of natural and not-so-natural disasters occur, those leaders, thinkers, and other members of a society who are able to mitigate or nullify the effects of those disasters are most likely to have the freest reins. They are certainly more likely to avoid suspicion — if, and only if, their efforts actually seem to lead, and ultimately do lead, to benefits.

A couple of successive comments on the Coming Anarchy thread point in a similar direction:

    arherring said:

    I agree that 5GW will be a networked organization, but I think the main weapon it will wield will be the idea of connectivity. I imagine it to be sort of viral, with each person in the organization being a vector to spread the idea be they a soldier, a diplomat, an engineer, or a relief worker.

    John Robb said:

    I'd like to offer an alternative to the above. What if GG's ignore the decision making of the government entirely (their entire OODA loop) and focus directly on the population/economy. This is the equivalent of turning the government's decision making loop into a tire in mud. You can work perfectly, but it can't get any traction.

A 5GWarrior may indeed focus on the population and may suggest methods of connecting, by offering new methods to arouse agreement or disagreement — depending on the effect he wants.  How direct will the offering be?  We certainly cannot discount the possibility of a messianic politician, celebrity, or religious figure for a 5GWarrior — nor, some powerful celebrity scoundrel, who offers the negative to reinforce our positive.  But there may be other ways to do it:  a new book is published, a new movie made, a new pop song is created, which strikes the right chord and influences large numbers of people; then, the SecretWarrior is not seen, because that actor is thought to be some member of the intelligentsia or is an artiste just doing his thing, and the new idea introduced is just "an idea whose time has come."

The 5GWarrior may operate in relative isolation, as well, as some adviser to a politician or business mogul, as a ghost writer, or as a friend or inspiration to an artist, who whispers in the ear of (media) power. This may be the most effective form.  Certainly, this will be the least traceable form.  He might be the friend of the adviser; there could be networks spanning across many fields.

Thinking of John Robb's implication in Emergent Intelligence (but also my follow-up conceptualization) that individual members of an emergent system may not even know they are members of that system — they are focused on local effects and activities, but their activities lead to the large-scale emergence — leads me to wonder if whispers in the ear might be tracked back to 5GW operatives by individuals. Those who have heard the whispers may later be able to know and remember who whispered, but because they are not fully aware of the total emergence in advance, they can't put 2 and 2 together until it's much too late to do any good.  But on the other hand...

...the 5GW network will use physical force in a way that is not traceable to the 5GW network, because others will choose to be the actors.  The patsies have chosen to be patsies, but they think they are doing their own work.  What happens when you introduce the idea of "a clash of civilizations," in the right way to the right people?  For instance.  [Not that this is actually what happened.]  So this 5GW theory is not mere politics, diplomacy, business, or punditry.  Actual force, and particularly the reaction to force, are methods utilized by 5GW actors.

The 5GW force, in order to be effective, will look for emergence in advance, and will create the memes that will lead to the desired emergence. "Emergence in advance" is potential, unformed, no-form.   In order to be effective, the 5GW force will highlight inequalities and insufficiencies which are already present although perhaps largely ignored; they will be market creators:

    A more powerful reason that innovation is related to market shaping goes back to the military idea of the initiative. Companies take the initiative in the marketplace by offering a stream of new products and services. Where do new products and services come from? The only answer possible, discounting elves and gamma rays, is through the initiative of the people who work for and with the organization. A market creator uses the almost symbiotic relationship all of its people have with its customers to generate ideas for new features or capabilities or whatever. Stalk and Hout were dead on, when in the middle of describing how agile companies become entwined with their customers, they observed that "Sometimes it's difficult to know who's leading whom." [ed. — emphasis added.]

    [Chet Richards, Riding the Tiger]

The Tao also describes the phenomenon, when describing the best leaders:

    Hesitant, he does not utter words lightly.
    When his task is accomplished and his work done
    The people all say, 'It happened to us naturally.'

    [last lines of #17, cited in Effectors]

Dan tdaxp, quoting himself in an earlier entry:

    Formless:

    In contrast to "hearts and minds," 5GW focuses on the enemy's "fingertips and gut." "Fingertip feeling," what the Germans called fingerspitzengefuhl, is the ability to know without thinking. This is what Americans call "gut feeling." To a certain extent, it means a commander trusting his intuition. It is critical in 5GW because fingertip feelings, or "hunches," will be the only way for the enemy to sense the fighter.

I think, however, that the target will not sense the fighter for a slightly different reason.  The 5GWarrior does not subvert fingertip-feeling or confuse it.  He utilizes it.  The target has a true fingertip-feeling, but he is put in the position of having that particular hunch by the 5GWarrior. Part of the positioning is the introduction of data which then causes a "click" in the psyche of the target.  The data can be a meme, and so influence rather directly; or, the data can be a physical manifestation of power created by the person who has been influenced by a meme.   Such data can play into ignorances, biases, and bigotries, much in the same way that the introduction of a new product on the market can play into insecurities, fetishes, and hungers.  Hunches are sometimes proved wrong — too late.  (So when I say, true fingertip-feeling, I'm relying on this aspect of hunches.)  In order to influence the largest number of people however, the data must be true if partial.  Its partiality may serve to confuse in a larger system, and debate may then paralyze the target; but it is certainly true from some perspective, or the debate would be resolved rather quickly.  Ideology and religion are powerful tools of the 5GWarrior, but the trappings of science may also serve the fighter. Once these things have "taken hold" of a society, tracing them back to the origin is nearly impossible.

So, then, how could a hidden 5GW force defeat a fuzzy 4GW force?  Influence it to fight another force, one it already despises  — and, preferably, one it cannot defeat.  Or, introduce dispute within it, of the sort that would paralyze its activities, create massive amounts of in-fighting.  Or, befriend it; give it real accomplishments (perhaps by surreptitiously influencing other parties who can give them these) which, nonetheless, lead to final outcomes quite different than it originally intended. Because a 4GW force tends to be decentralized, dependent on local actors and local activities, focus on influencing them. Do not try to destroy the 4GW force; focus on changing it.


5GW: No Gods, but Men.  And Women.  And Others.

    Structure is so intimately bound up with strategy that it is difficult to imagine how one could make any lasting change in an organization's behavior without first making equally profound changes in its systems.

    [Chet Richards, Riding the Tiger]

I think that, unlike 4GW networks, 5GW networks will not tend toward emergence but will consciously utilize emergence.  They will not focus on local activity and a repetition of tactics on local scales hoping for an emergence of Victory!, nor will the masterminds simply deliver grand objectives to focus their low-level warriors on those local tasks.  Because the direct application of force will rarely be a tactic used by 5GW operatives and psychological manipulation will be a primary role, each operative will be required to be a mastermind of sorts.  Secrecy will require less communication with the actual mastermind if such a person exists, although networks of communication might be established between operatives which will be the typical communications networks for the positions they have secured.  If low-level operatives are utilized, they will not realize they are being utilized, or at the very least they will not be aware of the 5GW organization.

Similarly, close-knit cells may or may not exist in 5GW networks, since quite possibly each 5GW operative will be assigned one person to influence, and operatives may be spread far apart.  Such cells may form eventually as centers of power are created; but as this occurs, the cells will become dormant for a time or at least the operatives within them will be much less active.  (If they act, they risk the discovery of the entire network.)  Whatever nodes are created, in the form of close-knit cells, may be abandoned after a certain objective is achieved; i.e., these nodes may be receptors of information which will be used by other operatives in other places.  Operatives in these cells will no longer work on manipulation, but will provide the information for those in other places who do manipulate.  However, individual operatives may be assigned to individual targets within a single organization to better gain influence within that organization — they are essentially operating alone, however, on individual targets.  (Each strategy of manipulation is highly dependent on the character, intelligence, and history of the target.)

Unlike 4GW networks and the organizations of other types of military organizations, 5GWarriors will utilize 4GW, 3GW, etc., forces to accomplish their goals, as well as financial organizations, NGO's, artists, journalists and celebrities.  This might not necessarily be an attempt at destruction of any of these other entities, since the 5GW network might actually benefit from the ascension of another force.

The strategy of a 5GW force, in utilizing emergence, is the shaping of new paradigms which will shape the geo-economic-social-political framework. The only theater of operation is global; and the only goal is global domination.  But most people will not realize that they have been dominated.