Topics

http://www.squidoo.com/truthaboutmemetics

Wes Unruh (co-writer of The Art of Memetics ) has a simple primer at the link above, from a marketing perspective.

A link to the best articles, interviews, music and art shown on Alternet over the past year.

http://www.alterati.com/blog/?p=2065

[director of education at the Royal Society]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education

Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, says excluding discussion of creationism and intelligent design from science lessons could put some children off science completely.

The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.

He said that around one in 10 children comes from a family with creationist beliefs. "My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science," he said.

"I think a better way forward is to say to them 'look, I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved'."

If you are all going to insist on using Quantum Theory to back up your ill-concieved and fact-lite ideas about reality, lets actually make sure we all know what we are talking about first.

And I can think of worse ways to do that then with this guide http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2007/11/learn_quantum_theory_in_ten_mi.php

(Warning: this is long.  5000 odd words).


Been a bit busy lately, with this and that, so I'm still catching up with what all the kewl blogger kidz are talking about.  So that is why it took me until yesterday to read the Institute of Race Relations report, How are thinktanks shaping the political agenda on Muslims in Britain?

Its a good read, I suggest giving it a quick one over.  It also adds some more information on Policy Exchange, and its influence over David Cameron on matters of race, immigration and Muslims in the UK.

In the past, liberals tended to support multicultural policies while conservatives saw multiculturalism as a threat to national cohesion and social order. Since 7/7, many liberals have joined with conservatives in thinking that multicultural tolerance has gone too far and that the failure to defend western values has fostered 'Islamic extremism' leading, ultimately, to the creation of British suicide bombers.

I'm always interested to know exactly which "Western values" commentators are referring to when they make statements such as above.  It seems such a...well, content free phrase.  There are many interpretations of Western values, and not all are in agreement with each other.  For example, I would say that both Communism and Fascism were Western value systems, in that they were developed in Europe, according to the challenges of industrial and postindustrial society, and were underpinned by Western philosophical conceptions such as the Enlightenment, Romantic reactions to the former and a bevy of other social, political and historical factors.  Clearly, I'm not enamoured with them, but if we are going to start talking about Western values, I would like a definition of those values before proceeding.

I suspect we are, of course, meant to believe we are talking about a rather narrow interpretation of liberal demcocracy, but given some of the views expressed by those who harp on most about our Western values, I really do wonder if that is the case.  Furthermore, is there a reason for the emphasis on the Western aspect of those values?  I personally like things like political pluralism, the freedom of speech and association, haebus corpus etc not because they are Western, but simply because they safeguard my freedom and self.  Shit, I couldn't give a fuck if Ghenghis Khan came up with the theories after ripping apart a small baby and eating its tender flesh.  Their origins are of little interest except analysing how they rose to prominence instead of the other previously named theories and other ideas, such as Absolute Monarchy or Feudalism.

Anyway, the report goes on to talk about the criticism of the government's close links with the MCB, which to be honest, are not entirely without merit.  I don't like the MCB, to tell the truth.  It has done some good things, like promoting ties between Muslim communities and trade unions, or condemning terrorism.  On the other hand...well, its a religious group.  Its views on, say, women, or gays, are notably backward.  All in all, though, I suspect the level of hysteria directed at it is unwarranted.  The MCB is to big and cohesive a group to simply ignore, but equally, more tolerant factions of the British Muslim community deserve to have their voices heard, and we should not simply assume the MCB speaks with their approval, as I am sure it does not.

In January 2007, PX released a far more wide-ranging report on Muslims and multiculturalism, entitled Living Apart Together. Billed as an attempt to find 'the reasons why there has been a significant rise in Islamic fundamentalism amongst the younger generation', its answer was that multiculturalism and Britain's failure to assert the superiority of its national values had encouraged young Muslims to feel victimised and adopt anti-western views.

OK.  For a moment, let us assume these are true.  We have the claims here: Britain has failed to assert the superiority of its national values, and secondly, the failure of this assertion has caused victimisation, and thirdly this leads to the adoption of "anti-Western views".

Obviously the question then becomes this: why has no-one else adopted dangerous anti-Western views?  I'm older than some of the terrorists our government has arrested, and have lived here nearly all my life.  As have most of the people I know.  If the government is not asserting these values, then presumably someone else must have done, to stop us from all turning into subversive Muslim terrorists .  Its funny though, I don't remember me or any of my friends getting lectured at length about the superiority of British values, and yet mysteriously we have all failed to join the jihad or kill anyone.  (Of course, some wit will probably point out that since I am a self-declared Discordian my parents and teachers probably did not do a very good job at stopping me from becoming a subversive element)

Also, there are curious leaps of logic within the presentation.  Failure to assert the superiority of our national values leads to victimisation?  How, exactly?  Surely victimisation would be made worse by spurious in-group/out-group distinctions, especially if such a program was aimed at Muslims in particular?  Wouldn't that just create the impression that Muslims are an inherently dangerous subsection of our society, who need to be civilized into our viewpoint or they will become dangerous?

I'm sure my point is clear though.  If we take the above statements to be true, it doesn't explain why there hasn't been a corresponding rise in "anti-Western" sentiment, ideology and terrorism among non-Muslim sections of the population.  If multiculturalism is a failure for Muslims, then why not for Hindus, or the Chinese population, or other "non-Western" ethnicities and religions (amusingly, the boundaries for such groups seem to be continually shifting.  Samuel Huntingdon tried to draw up a map of culturally Western nations which originally failed to include Eastern Europe or Spain and Portugal.  But now, for some reason, they are considered Western).

Anyway, moving on:

The report was released to the press to coincide with a speech by David Cameron attacking multiculturalism and Muslim 'extremists' who seek 'special treatment'. A policy document published simultaneously by the Tories suggested that the MCB was dominated by such 'separatism'. Munira Mirza, a co-author of the PX report, is now working as Boris Johnson's director of arts.

I just wanted to highlight this to show the level of cooperation there is between the Tories and Policy Exchange.  Nothing special, I know, but its nice to keep in mind.

Anthony Browne's writings over the last six years exemplify this shift in emphasis from a general concern with 'Third World immigration' to a focus on Muslims in Britain. In August 2002, Browne wrote an article for The Times entitled 'Britain is losing Britain' in which he stated that 'an unprecedented and sustained wave of immigration [is] utterly transforming the society in which we live against the wishes of the majority of the population, damaging quality of life and social cohesion, exacerbating the housing crisis and congestion'. He added that 'in the past five years, while the white population grew by 1 per cent, the Bangladeshi community grew by 30 per cent, the black African population by 37 per cent and the Pakistani community by 13 per cent'; what he called 'little Third World colonies' had appeared in Britain.

I have dealt with Anthony Browne before and his curious links to American racists, which can be read here.  But yes, his viewpoint has changed from his concern-trolling over immigration to, well, peddling in hysteria about a secret Muslim plot to take over Europe.  Its quite worrying, really.

Following 7/7, Anthony Browne turned his attention to what he called Islamic 'fascism'. Political correctness, he argued, had 'allowed the creation of alienated Muslim ghettoes which produce young men who commit mass murder against their fellow citizens'.[7] Groups such as the Muslim Association of Britain, he said, are 'like Hitler' and Islamic 'fascism' has taken root in Britain because of the Left's failure to break down Muslim separatism. The response to 7/7 must be a clamp down on arranged marriages, the deportation of imams who support the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly a French-style ban on the hijab in schools.

Yes, he went there.  Godwin's Law, all the way.   Never mind silly things like definitions of fascism (Muslim terrorist groups actually have more in common with some strands of Anarchist violence, and Autonomism, than many ideologies of the political right, their religious views nonwithstanding), they just are.  They are like Hitler, they are they are they are.

His proposed solution is even worse.  A clamp down on arranged marriages, sure.  In fact, I believe the British police have done some excellent work in that area in recent years and I applaud their efforts, though I'm not sure what it has to do with terrorism.  As for deportation of Imams who support the Muslim Brotherhood...hello, thought-crime territory.

Look, the Muslim Brotherhood are scum.  You wont find me defending them.  But if we are going to start throwing people out on the basis of their religious and political beliefs...well, there is a proposition that not only runs counter to political pluralism and freedom of expression entirely (you know, some of those supposedly "Western" values we are meant to cherish) but it seriously opens a can of worms.  Where does legitimate dissent from mainstream opinion stop being principled and start being dangerous?  Or "ideologically deviant"?  I used to make fun of people who claimed that the Soviet Union was as bad as Western Europe and the USA, but I'm starting to reevaluate my opinion.  If we are only better when it comes to thoughtcrime because we have a wider band of acceptable ideological dissent, then that is not really a ringing endorsement, is it?

As for the hijab in school...don't care.  But are we going to target Sikhs as well, with their turbans?  If not, why not? How about those who wear Christian jewellery? If Muslims were the only ones singled out for such treatment, then surely this would only make alienation worse, and increase the siege mentality some of the Muslim community have already started to take on.

Similarly, Charles Moore, the current chairman of PX and a former editor of the Telegraph and the Spectator, gave a speech in March 2008 outlining a 'possible conservative approach to the question of Islam in Britain'. The government, he argued, should maintain a list of Muslim organisations which, while not actually inciting violence, 'nevertheless advocate such anti-social attitudes that they should not receive public money or official recognition' - in this category would fall any groups with links to the Muslim Brotherhood or the Jamaati-e-Islami, as well as individuals, such as Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss philosopher and fellow of St Antony's College, Oxford.

So like I said...the difference between us and the Soviet Union is our acceptable range of "legitimate" political and religious opinions is somewhat larger.  Naturally, the government has the right to withhold money from groups who do not meet their requirements, but official recognition?  If people have joined a group in sufficiently large numbers to give it political clout, then that is all the recognition they need.  If the government is going to start ignoring the concerns of people simply because of their religion, then it is not really much of a government, is it?

Finally, there is Michael Gove, a founding chairman of PX and one of the young Conservative MPs who make up David Cameron's shadow cabinet. In his 2006 book Celsius 7/7, Gove defines 'Islamism' as an ideology that is similar to fascism and includes Tariq Ramadan as a follower. He states that in the war against 'Islamism', it will be necessary for Britain to carry out assassinations of terrorist suspects, in order to send 'a vital signal of resolution'. More generally, a 'temporary curtailment of liberties' will be needed to prevent Islamism from destroying western civilisation.

Gove is a nutcase, and I have long thought so.  Love the extra-judicial murder and suspension of civil liberties, naturally "for the duration of the emergency", thats a nice touch.  However, the problem is not that Gove is a nutcase, the problem is:

Fellow Tories regard Gove as a leading expert on Muslims in Britain.

In other words, his words hold weight.  Be worried, be very worried.

What Browne's, Moore's and Gove's comments illustrate is the attempt to justify illberal policies in the name of defending 'liberal' western values against an alien 'totalitarian' threat. This is the paradoxical project that is now the major theme of centre-Right thinking on multiculturalism and the 'war on terror'. Indeed, the debate on multiculturalism has become a part of what many regard as a new 'cultural' cold war to promote a 'moderate' (i.e. pro-western) Islam across the globe - and particularly in Europe.

This is an interesting point as well.  The empahsis on Cold War rhetoric, and indeed totalitarianism, are hallmarks of what I would consider a very Neoconservative analysis of politics.  For example, we could consider Jeane Kirkpatrick, whose seminal work was "Dictatorships and Double Standards".  Timothy Garton Ash explains the link:

I'm waiting for someone to pen a new version of the late Jeane Kirkpatrick's famous article of 1979, "Dictatorships and double standards", in which she argued that friendly, anti-Soviet, rightwing autocracies should be treated differently from pro-Soviet, leftwing totalitarian regimes. Double standards? Yes, please. Today, a friendly autocracy will be defined partly by its positioning in the struggle with jihadist terrorism and partly by its readiness to sell its energy and natural resources to the west.

TGA is on the money with the highlighted distinction.  According to Kirkpatrick, an authoritarian government is quite different to a totalitarian one.  Totalitarian governments can, apparently, not transform to democratic ones, whereas merely authoritarian ones can.

Therefore, if the choice is authoritarianism or death at the hands of an existensial threat, authoritarianism is the better choice because, in theory, we can return to democratic rule later.  Of course, it doesn't work like that, and Kirkpatrick was hilariously wrong in her understanding of the Soviet Union, but the logic is still there.  It is not only inherent in our foreign policy, such as how we sucked up to Uzbekistan but will not deal with Iran, but the logic also applies internally.  To us.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Lives/dp/0713999225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220396670&sr=8-1

In 1905, Albert Einstein published a shocking explanation of Brownian Motion, the random movement of particles, likening it to the kind you would observe watching a drunkard stumbling down the road. The Drunkard's Walk became a powerful tool in understanding the purely random - that, which by definition, has no specific pattern. In his new book, Leonard Mlodinow examines the law of the Drunkard's Walk in relation to everyday human life, the way in which we are all continually pushed this way and that by a variety of random events that, together with our reactions to them, account for much of our particular path in life.Mlodinow reveals the reasons behind behind traffic jams, the spread of rumours on the internet, the length of time you can expect a wad of money to last in Las Vegas, why you have to stir coffee and the way the scent of a perfume spreads through a room, to name but a few. This engaging read reveals the nature of random processes in daily life, thereby altogether altering the way we perceive the events that happen around us.

http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1997JMemetics.htm

Abstract: Selectionism emphasizes carving patterns, memes remind us of minimal replicable patterns, but a full-fledged Darwinian process needs six essential ingredients to keep going, to recursively bootstrap quality from rude beginnings. While there may be situations ("sparse Darwinism") in which a reduced number suffice, another five ingredients, while not essential, greatly enhance the speed and stability of a Darwinian process. While our best examples are drawn from species evolution, the immune response, and evolutionary epistemology, the Darwinian process may well be a major law of the universe, right up there with chemical bonds as a prime generator of interesting combinations that discover stratified stabilities.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

This.

Is.

Awesome.

A world class education, for free.  You couldn't hope for anything better than this.  Anything MIT does, you can download course material and learn until your heart is content.  Anything from Aeronautics to Writing.

http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3847883/The_Master_and_Margaret_%5B2005%5D.3847883.TPB.torrent

You know, just in case...

YOU DECIDE

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4557935.ece

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/18/so_pathetic_so.html

I have got second rate Pajamas Media bloggers taking my bait.

These are notes I've compiled from The Pirate's Dilemma by Matt Mason - a book about how piracy and copyright violation is changing both economics and culture.

I'll try and lay it out as best as possible, but I have a lot written down, so it may take some time to digest.  Its well worth it however, for a view of a much more interesting, better world.

Via Threat Level

A Turkish computer hacker who was helping that country's media and national police investigate computer crimes was kidnapped and tortured by a notorious ATM hacker, according to a report from the Turkish press.

The victim, known online as "Kier," had been leaking information to Turkish reporters about an underground figure called Cha0, when he briefly disappeared. He resurfaced in May, and described being abducted and beaten by Cha0 and his henchmen.

A photo of Kier stripped down to his underwear and seated in a chair surfaced on the online crime forum DarkMarket, according to a source there, who provided a copy of the photo. Kier is seen holding a sign that reads in part: "I am rat. I am pig. I am reporter. I am fucked by Cha0."

Thats some fairly serious pwnage, it must be said.

With my vast philosophical library doing nothing but gather dust, I have decided what better way to raise the extelligence of our forum by putting them to good use and having a sort of weekly discussion on one philosopher or another?

My idea is quite simple.  Every week we pick a philosopher (I might pick them myself, to keep it surprising), we look at their ideas, kick around anything we find interesting and, if we get lucky and find something truly useful, try to integrate it into a large philosophical system.  I can also upload papers or works I have, either discussing the philosopher in question or by the philosopher themselves, for those who want to read them, and not merely extracts I am cribbing from Wikipedia or the Stanford Philosophical Dictionary.

Sound interesting?

Found this interesting news article about Moore here:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/theater/373004_fanfare01.html


Somehow, on its low-ceilinged loft stage on Capitol Hill, the Annex Theatre will squeeze an infinitely tall high-rise.

While its topmost floors are occupied by a corporate management of interdimensional archangels, a divine superhero sits in the lobby suffering a crisis of faith. Here, an amnesiac named Andrea Change seeks her true identity, a quest that will threaten to unravel the fabric of creation.

Is this Dante's Purgatory, perhaps? No, it's a science-fiction mystery from the fevered mind of Seattle writer Scotto Moore, whose punctuation-defying "interlace [falling star]" has its world premiere this weekend.

"I definitely have an absurdist streak in me," Moore admits, in a typically soft-spoken understatement. After all, this is the guy whose last staged work was an adaptation of the faux religious tract "Principia Discordia," in which Malaclypse the Younger reveals the ways of Eris, Goddess of Chaos and Confusion.

He's the scribe behind the popular Internet video series "Cherub, the Vampire with Bunny Slippers," a parody of the cult television show "Angel." He's also working on a set of stories about the floating head of Timothy Leary.

Despite Moore's delight in the outlandish, his current play, much like most of his other work, really comes out of some serious spiritual thinking about the nature and existence of God.

Growing up in Iowa, Moore was raised in the Lutheran Missouri Synod, a moderately conservative and scripture-focused Christian denomination. Attending a Lutheran school, he spent the first hour of every day studying the Bible, a religious devotion he maintained through his teenage years.

But he also was reading the science fiction of writers like Philip K. Dick, whose dark and dystopian stories often blended religious tropes into his visions of the future. He also counts authors Neal Stephenson, Vernor Vinge and William Gibson as influences.

Later, stumbling away from the faith of his youth, Moore discovered the writings of the Gnostics, an early array of Christian sects later deemed heretical. The mystical ideas of these forgotten gospels echoed the science fiction he had come to adore, with its conception of mysterious gods, a divine spark waiting to be free and demiurges that police the outer realm of the heavens.

Moore explained that "interlace," for all of its oddity, is really a riff on the Gnostic idea of an unknown God that looks at the material plane and finds it lacking.

At the heart of the play is Moore's own wrestling with issues of faith, ones spurred by "minor tragedies that cause you to question things." When his mother married a Catholic man, for example, he couldn't reconcile which half of the family was going to heaven.

In adulthood, Moore still looks for his niche. "Interlace" was originally a novel, reworked for the small stage. He also sings with the Elegant Catastrophe Singers, an alternative music a cappella group he has performed with for the past 10 years.

Now an agnostic, Moore admits to some nostalgia for the comfort of certainty in belief he knew in his youth. Which is why, in large measure, his play is a thinly veiled search for the divine, and expresses the discomfort of finding it so close.

http://gawker.com/5030531/dead-monster-washes-ashore-in-montauk

This is an actual monster, some sort of rodent-like creature with a dinosaur beak. A tipster says that there is "a government animal testing facility very close by in Long Island," but unless the government is trying to design horrible Montauk monsters that will eat IEDs and fart fire at bad Iraqis, we're not sure why they would create such an unthinkable beast. Our guess is that it's viral marketing for something. Ali Lohan's new album perhaps. Click thru for larger dino-damage.

For those who want a source on the history of the Bavarian Illuminati who wasn't batshit insane, try

http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/mhj/index.htm

This is the third part (of four) of Abbé Barreul's massive polemic history of the French Revolution. This portion of this book is of interest because it contains extensive quotes from the actual literature of the Bavarian Illuminati. This is the most comprehensive work in English on the historical theory, structure and practice of the Bavarian Illuminati. It complements Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy, the other major contemporary account.

Founded in 1776, shortly before the American Revolution, the Bavarian Illuminati were a secret society with a revolutionary ideology, and a centralized structure. According to Abbé Barreul, they subverted the Masonic lodges of Europe, and were one of the key driving forces behind the French Revolution. New members were gradually initiated into the group's radical ideas, which, according to Barreul, were atheist and anarchist in essence.

Barreul was very conservative, and his translator, Robert Edward Clifford, likewise. However, Barreul was a serious historian, even though he wrote from a decidedly non-neutral point of view. As a contemporary, he was able to view the primary source documents and interview participants. As such this book is today, in and of itself, a primary source.

Today, civil society in Europe and America has enshrined the ideas of 'Liberty and Equality' that Barreul thought would lead to the complete breakdown of civilization. The Bavarian Illuminati are considered by some to be the forerunners of the Communist and Fascist movements. However, as I have stated before, this is probably parallel evolution. The more paranoid believe that the Illuminati (or some equivalent, such as a cabal of reptilian shape-shifters) are still in business and manipulating, e.g., world leaders, the education system, and mass movements. But this is for the individual reader to decide... --J.B. Hare, May 11th, 2008.

From Claudius the God, by Robert Graves:

There is nothing in this world, I suppose, so glorious as a Roman triumph. It is not like a triumph celebrated by some barbarous monarch over a rival king whom he has subdued: it is an honour conferred by a free people on one of their own number for a great service he has rendered them.

[...]

The [triumphal] procession entered the City from the north-east by the Triumphal Gate and passed along the Sacred Way. Its order was as follows. First came the Senate, on foot, in its best robes, headed by the magistrates. Next, a picked body of trumpeters trained to blow triumphant marching tunes like one man. The trumpets were to call attention to the spoils, which then followed on a train of decorated wagons drawn by mules and escorted by Germans of the Household Battalion dressed in the Imperial livery. These spoils were heaps of gold and silver coin, weapons, armour, horse-furniture, jewels and gold ornaments, ingots of tin and lead, rich drinking-vessels, decorated bronze buckets and other furniture from Cymbeline's palace at Colchester, numerous examples of ..enamel work, carved and painted...totem-poles...embroidered Druidical robes... Behind these wagons came twelve captured British chariots, the finest we could choose... Next came more wagons, drawn by horses, containing models in painted wood or clay of the towns and forts we had captured...

After these came flute players... white bulls.. priests of Jove.. acolytes... a live walrus... the skeleton of a stranded whale... a transparent-sided tank full of beavers...arms and insignia of captured chiefs, and then the captured chiefs themselves...

[...]

...This exalted and happy personage was attired in a gold-embroidered robe and flowered tunic and bore in his right hand, which was trembling a little, a laurel bough, and in his left an ivory scepter...

Of course, these are not our sort of people, oh no.  We enter a little later on:

The procession proper...was followed by a laughing and cheering rabble giving a mock triumph to Baba, the clown of Alexandria, who had come to Rome to improve his fortunes. He rode in a public dung-cart, to which had been yoked in a row a goat, a sheep, a pig and a fox. He was painted blue, with British woad, and dressed in a fantastic parody of triumphal dress. His cloak was a patchwork quilt and his tunic an old sack trimmed with dirty coloured ribbons. His scepter was a cabbage-stick with a dead bat tied to the end of it with a string, and his laurel branch was a thistle. Our most famous native-born clown, Augurinus, had recently consented to share the government of the Society of Vagabonds with Baba. Baba was held to resemble me closely and therefore always played the part of Caesar in the theatricals that the two of them were constantly giving in the back streets of the City. Augurinus played the part of Vitellius, or a Consul of the year, or a Colonel of the Guards, or one of my ministers, according to circumstances. He had a very lively gift for parody. On this particular occasion he represented the slave who held the crown over Baba (an inverted chamber-pot into which, every now and then, Baba's head disappeared) and kept tickling him with a cock's feather. Baba's sack-tunic was torn behind and disclosed Baba's rump, painted blue with bold red markings to make it look like a grinning human face. Baba's hands trembled madly the whole time and he jerked his head about in caricature of my nervous tic, rolling his eyes, and whenever Augurinus [touched] him struck back with the thistle or dead bat....The spoils of this rival triumph were displayed on handcarts wheeled by ragged hawkers — kitchen refuse, broken bedsteads, filthy mattresses, rusty iron, cracked cooking-pots, and all sorts of mouldy lumber — and the prisoners were dwarfs, fat men, thin men, albinos, cripples, blind men, hydrocephalitics and men suffering from dreadful diseases or chosen for their surprising ugliness. The rest of the procession was in keeping: I am told that the models and pictures illustrating Baba's victories were the funniest things, in a dirty way, ever seen in Rome.

Taking from Dreaming5GW again:

Given the persistent mention of "manipulation" in discussion on Dreaming 5GW, the above is worthy of consideration, if only because the near-godlike powers of manipulation through an extreme number of domains is often assumed to not only be possible but desirable. However, since maintaining secrecy will be key in such efforts, the 5GW manipulator would not quite fit the practical joker archetype.

The 4GW warrior — and the Global Guerrilla, which is not necessarily the same thing as a 4GW warrior — quite possibly would fit the archetype.

[...]

I had written in the Twit that TDK could "accelerate" the GG process, on the basis of a few very subtle hints — mostly meaning at the time that more than one reviewer commented on how the ideas, images, etc., of the movie, and particularly the Joker, stayed in their minds after the viewing.  Essientally I wonder if the Joker, as epitome, may really become an icon for GG for those so inclined, even those not quite on that side of the fence.  The movie could serve as a kind of primary memetic hub, via which disparate individuals and groups are inspired toward global guerrillaism of one type or another.  Of course, so much depends on the entire movie, which I have not seen.  I do think however that the case is already being made to make Heath Ledger an iconic star of the James Dean variety; more than one reviewer suggests an Oscar for the performance.

On memetic hubs:

hxxp://www.dreaming5gw.com/2007/04/memes_as_nodes_in_complex_inte.php

    Moral resilience operates on multiple levels. First, at the level of an organization as a result or product of what Colonel Boyd described as:

    "A grand ideal, overarching theme, or noble philosophy that represents a coherent paradigm within which individuals as well as societies can shape and adapt to unfolding circumstances—yet offers a way to expose flaws of competing or adversary systems. Such a unifying vision should be so compelling that it acts as a catalyst or beacon around which to evolve those qualities that permit a collective entity or organic whole to improve its stature in the scheme of things."

    Secondly, as the membership internalize the values of the "unifying vision" and acquire moral resilience which in turn produces psychological resilience in the form of the individual's behavioral response to stress or threat.

    Thirdly, moral resilience is itself an attractive meme, a "beacon" that draws support in the form of new members ( a "catalyst") or the admiration of uncommitted observers. Or perhaps, repeated demonstrations of moral resilience may have a daunting effect or undermine the morale of adversaries and competitors.


    ["On Moral and Psychological Resilience," ZenPundit, 20 May 2006.]


*

    I have said many times: the hardest thing to track is a meme.  But I have never given an explanation for why this is so.  Here it is:  memes do not travel.  They are not transmitted.  They emerge.  Within individuals.  This is OODA.  Network theorists might postulate a series of concrete effects, or causes, leading to such emergence, and collectively call each set of effects 'meme' for explaining how quite similar memes emerge in diverse locations; and they're welcome to do so, because that itself is a useful meme.

    [" 'Global Guerrillas' as 5GW Warriors,"  CGW,  19 October 2006.]


*

    What causes new linking though between blogs with no prior connection ? I would suggest that memes play a central role in "attracting" and later sustaining such connections. Sociability is certainly an important variable but I don't think that is critical in making initial decisions to make contact in the first place. The blogosphere is a very detached place; after all, if we really wanted to be "social", we'd get off the computer and go speak to a live human being ! Many of us are online (or are online addicts) because we are craving intellectual stimulation that may be lacking in our professional or personal relationships.

    ["Bar-Yam's Shifting Hub:  But Are Memes a Critical Factor in New Links in the Blogosphere?" ZenPundit, 01 January 2007.]


*

    Network theorists may believe definitive 'networks' exist connecting these individuals, but in so doing they often make the mistake of believing that what they have discerned to be stable routes and routings — i.e., networks — can be understood to exist regardless of the individuals using those paths.  I.e., to define a network is to believe that such interaction between individuals is prefigured by the available routes of data transmission....

    These network theorists may finally be realizing that so-called networks do not lead to the emergence of activity so much as that activity leads to the emergence of networks — and that these actual connections are transitory, ephemeral, constantly changing.  Any established 'network' may in fact be merely a fossilized account of activity rather than an ongoing account of real activity. We must not equate the architecture with the activity, because they are separate things.  Most importantly, in a world of static, and particularly in a future world in which larger numbers of sources exist (many of them more empowered through the effects of globalization and the fluidity of the architecture they are using) — i.e., in a world with increasing levels of static — the imposition of a definitive network architecture onto the world for the express purpose of channeling activities will become increasingly difficult.

    "Interlude:  Static Visualized, Conceptualized," CGW, 2 January 2007.


*

    But these eccentrics were eccentrics.

        ec·cen·tric  adj. 2. Not having a common center; not concentric; "eccentric circles".

        [see eccentric on Webster's Online Dictionary]

    I.e., they're likely to follow their own paths. A sphere is not a circle, after all; and Emerson's 'ephemerals' in the poem he used to open his essay on "Circles" are all individuals.  They are individual in that they follow their own paths, uniquely; but nonetheless, these multifarious path-treaders on the surface of the sphere rarely seem to grasp the fact that they are attached to surface conditions, and that all their unique movements have a common center.  They do not see the sphere; if they did, "A new genesis were here."
    ["Emersonian Circles," CGW, 8 March 2007.]


*

    Increasingly rapid advancement of technology and increasing levels and varieties of interaction in a globalizing world will make vertical establishment of a particular order relatively impossible — relative to the efficacy of similar methods used in the past — and thus chaos which would be resolved into a beneficial and desirable order will necessarily be resolved at the root level, i.e., at the level of the individual.  Guide the most individuals, and you will have the most influence in shaping the system — if, that is, you guide them well....

    If future empires are to manifest, they will manifest when a sufficiently large number of people join an 'empire of mind.'  A manner of thinking produces a corresponding manner of doing.

    ["Empires of the Mind," CGW, 21 March 2007.]


*

    According to the Jamestown Foundation, a Syrian member of Al-Qaeda, Abu Mus'ab al-Suri, has formulated a new operational strategy growing in popularity among global jihadists.  The plan's primary feature is radical decentralization.  In al-Suri's opinion, the biggest mistake that the jihadi movement made was to grow dependent on fixed camps, like the ones Bin Laden maintained in Sudan and Afghanistan.  Although useful in training recruits, fixed locations trapped Al-Qaeda units where Western forces could eventually invade and destroy them.  Similarly, al-Suri also sees the traditional hierarchal model of a terrorist or insurgent group as a weakness.  If authorities capture one member, the organization as a whole is put at risk.

    Instead, al-Suri proposes a "jihad of  individual terrorism," with self-contained autonomous cells employing an easily available (most likely on the internet) terror "template" to start their own jihad.  The glue holding these autonomous jihadis together would simply be a common cause, with leadership offering little more than ideological guidance.  There would be no organizational links between cells.


    ["Future War: The War on Terror After Iraq," Adam Elkus, Jihad Monitor, 26 March 2007 (pdf) .]

The Joker is obviously a theme we could use, and ride off the success of the film.  The question is, of course, how?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1038747/The-world-shocked-Italian-sunbathers-ignoring-dead-gipsy-girls--But-Italy-showing-chilling-Roma-children.html

It was the week's most shocking picture: gipsy girls dead on a beach ignored by sunbathers... Now there is more chilling evidence of how Italy's brutal crackdown on the Roma has sick echoes of the country's fascist past.

She looks like any teenager the world over. Wearing a denim skirt, pink designer T-shirt, and with long hair tied back from her face, Samantha is a child who would make any parent proud.

Yet just a few days ago, this bubbly 14-year-old found herself taking part in an excercise that would seem unthinkable in a modern, civilised European country.

She was ordered to line up at the local community hall near her home in Naples, Italy, and dab her right forefinger in black ink before placing it on a government census form.

Samantha was photographed and given an identity code - F43 - as officials asked for her full name, address, age, religion and where she was born.

Most controversially of all, she was told to state her ethnic background.

Every detail, including the fact that her parents are immigrant Roma gipsies from Serbia, was catalogued and put on a national computer system.

She was mortified. Her eyes bright with anger, Samantha said she felt like a villain in the only country she has ever known.

'That same day, the Italian kids started calling me "gyppo" in the streets.

They pointed at me and laughed. I felt like shouting back and saying: 'I am Italian just like you. I was born here too.

'But I didn't dare, in case I started a riot.'

Samantha was taking part in a compulsory new census of Italy's 160,000 Roma people, promised by the inflammatory Right-wing premier Silvio Berlusconi in the run-up to his successful election this spring.

Anyone with a sense of the past would be forgiven for a strong feeling of foreboding about what is happening.

Thousands of migrants, many of them Roma gipsies from the old communist bloc and racially troubled Balkans, have poured into the country since the dismantling of border controls across a greatly expanded European Union in 2004.

The huge diaspora was political good fortune for 73-year-old Berlusconi.

In a country where fascism under dictator Benito Mussolini thrived until the end of World War II, Berlusconi warned of a 'Roma emergency' in big cities and produced a dossier of dubious figures alleging foreigners were involved in half of Italy's attempted murders, muggings and robberies.

The interior minister went further. Roberto Maroni, a leader of the anti-immigrant Northern League aligned with Berlusconi's nationalist Forza Italia party, claimed the controversial census and fingerprinting was essential to discover 'who is entitled to be here and who is not'.

It would stop anonymous armies of Roma children being sent out begging or stealing by their families, 60 per cent of whom have no identity papers or passports, he claimed.

Gipsy people with the right to stay would be re-housed in 'decent conditions rather than with rats'. The remainder, Maroni made clear, could expect deportation.

The article goes on, but you should read some of the comments on the story.  Or maybe not, since they are quite disgusting.

Examples include:


They are only doing what the UK should have done years ago. All illegal immigrants should be registered.

- swisschris, New Malden , UK., 26/7/2008 7:34



Bit extreme. But over here imagine what we would be saying about their human rights? How come they can do it there, but in Britain we are hamstrung by that law?

In many ways we should be doing something similar. Keeping control and track of immigrants. Never mind, they will probably all come over here now and we will give them houses and benefits, and they can still carry on stealing for pocket money and no one will have a clue as to who they are and where they are except when they claim their money.

- Chris Puddy, Hay on Wye, United Kingdom, 26/7/2008 9:15


What total exaggeration. The Italian people are deeply worried about the impossibility of
integrating the Roma into society; Roma are a people determined to stay outside society's mainstream. In doing so they engage in much criminal activity. Assuredly if had tried to integrate they would have been left alone.
The Italians have a non xenophobic attitude to foreigners but they are being driven to desperate measures to try and get a grip.
Once again the EU, by allowing unrestricted free flows of peoples, have caused problems where none existed.
To bring up fascism as an agent of these moves is deeply insulting to the Italian people.
Roma should integrate or get out.

- JD, London, 26/7/2008 9:16


Good for Italy, they are one of the very few countries that have the guts to do anything about these vermin. Until you have experienced what these thieves are like, you cannot comment on any hardship or sympathy that they may deem to want.

- Mike Jones, Farnborough, Hampshire, 26/7/2008 9:30


I blame the EU for being too lenient about immigration matters in the first place. Eventually this is bound to lead to this sort of attitude.

- Nathalie, Manchester, UK, 26/7/2008 10:12



'Bout bloody time! Let's get it started over here as well.

- Ghengis, Little Snoring, 26/7/2008 10:21



I'm, in no way, condoning what Italy is doing, but these people are parasites. They need to get educated and employment and assimilate into civilized society. It's year 2008 for God's sake.

- Olga, Los Angeles, USA, 26/7/2008 10:23



What do people expect in this era of Liberal madness, the mixture of cultures simply does not work, time is proving it, it is nothing to do with racism, these people should be judged on their behaviour and how they destroy previously good countries step by step.

- Common Sense, London, England, 26/7/2008 10:27


A country wanting to clear out illegal immigrants? How dreadful, the UK should be doing this.

- Nige B, Pudsey, 26/7/2008 10:30


If they want to be treated as "equals", maybe they should choose to live in dwellings with plumbing, not camps and they should send their children to school, not to steal on the street.

- Gabrielle, London, UK, 26/7/2008 10:30


The Italians have had enough! Most of the crime, sometimes with extreme violence, is by illegal immigrants mostly Roma. Next stop UK!

- martyn robinson, northampton uk, 26/7/2008 10:34


I wish we had a government that was half as tough on immigration.

- The Tory, Oxford, UK, 26/7/2008 10:43



We need this kind of government here too. Why don't people stop tippy toeing around these issues for fear of upsetting a tiny few? what about the feeling of the majority?

- Billy h, Hull, 26/7/2008 10:53

http://www.zotero.org/

May be useful for the students here.

This is a spin-off from my post yesterday about Quentin Fucking Letts, but its something I've been considering for a while, and wanted to talk about more, as a general trend within current political discourse, especially among the "opinion-formers" in the media.

Its hardly a novel or surprising insight, I'll be the first to admit. I know that its a particular aggravation of the brilliant American blogger HTML Mencken, of Sadly, No! fame and the more I see it within our own papers and political discussions, the more it pisses me off.

Some people, it seems, are far more in favour of civility in a discussion than actual decency. As anyone who reads me fairly often knows, I am hardly the poster-child for civil discussion. I rant, I swear, I mock and I troll. "All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored" and all that. But I think, underneath it, I am a fairly decent person. Not in the 'decent left' sense, hell no, those people are the poster children for Civility over Decency (especially as Alan 'Not the Minister' Johnson's lack of concern for human rights shows), but in the basic sense that no matter how nasty or cutting or rude I am, I'm only violent in my presentation of language.

In short, I'm not the sort of person who calls for pre-emptive attacks on enemy countries. I do not condone torture. I despise 'extraordinary rendition', hate racial profiling, cannot stand people who barely disguise their bigotry and blood-lust under the guise of cheerleading the "war on terrorism" and the war in Iraq especially. I don't think we should be throwing out everyone whose skin colour is a little too dark, nor cutting benefits for those most at risk in society. I don't think we should deny gays, atheists, Muslims, transsexuals or anyone else rights that the majority enjoys.

That's decency. Having some motherfucking respect for the people around you, not demonizing people who have never hurt you, not acting like a jerk simply because "I've got mine, and fuck everyone else". Or cowering in a corner going "oh no, the scary people different to me are here, we must deal with this immediately!"

Because, lets face it, when you dig behind the supposedly 'respectable' and civil writing of papers like The Sun, or the Daily Mail, or especially The Express, that is all that is left. Its dressing up ugly and vile opinions in nice sounding tones. A perfect example is that insufferable cunt Peter Hitchens, who just recently denied that homophobia has any real meaning. Well I'm sure gay people all over the world who are being killed, denied rights, attacked and smeared for their sexual leanings will be SO glad to hear that.

But you see, he said it in a nice way, with clean respectable words and no swearing, so he's perfectly alright!

Whereas on the other hand, all those nasty people over at the Guardian who were saying rude things about Thatcher are evil and nasty leftists. Never mind that none of them are contributing to a set of beliefs designed to deny Thatcher any of her basic human rights. Never mind that Thatcher put in place policies that did ruin many peoples lives, to benefit a few. Oh no, the problem is all those horrible and sweary Guardian types, who refuse to shed a tear at the idea of Our Great Leader passing away.

Well fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks in that way. Oh boo-fucking-hoo, the nasty little leftists won't be all nice and civil when discussing your sacred cows? Civility is "manners masquerading as morals", to quote Sidney Blumenthal. Its about an unspoken social code that relates in absolutely no way to the actual ethical ideas. Its a way of controlling the forms of argument, of dismissing people without actually having to refute what they say.

Noting the letters that Lett's reprinted at the Mail, the common theme among them seems to be that Thatcher's leadership did not enrichen or improve their lives, so why the fuck should they have to kowtow to her and her legions of brainless followers and admirers among the press corps? Letts doesn't answer that, because he can't. The idea of treating such a woman as a great leader worthy of such honour is disgusting, and the level of invective it deserves is well beyond that expressed in the Guardian. Presumably Letts would have us all drink tea with our little finger's sticking out while discussing the pro's and con's of torture and genocide as well.

The fact is that you simply can't fight some people and the ideas they espouse by being civil. You have to let people know that they're vile, hateful scumbags with no sense of standards or simple human decency. You have to stand up to them and (rhetorically) kick them in the balls. Repeatedly, in some cases. This whole "oh I respectfully disagree with your views on kicking out all the 'Muslim terrorist scum infesting this country with foreign diseases'" bollocks has to stop.

And yes, I am an angry leftist. If you call yourselves a decent fucking human being and you look around at the state of current affairs: a supposedly left-wing government tearing down civil rights and engaging in pointless foreign wars while the gap between rich and poor rises, and a bunch of cretinous reporters in the tabloid media who are willing to give them hell over the only few things they have done right, then you'd be fucking angry too.

And if you don't like it, Letts, you can blow me.

http://www.havenco.com

From "The Pirate's Dilemma"

The micronation [of Sealand] made international headlines in 2000 when a company called HavenCo struck a deal with the "royal family" to build a heavily armed offshore data sanctuary to house "sensitive" information anonymously, outside the reaches of governments, lawyers, ex-wives, and other prying eyes. Gambling sites, file-sharing networks—really, anyone trying to escape state surveillance or the tax man—were welcome.  The only data HavenCo won't house is anything to do with child porn, spamming, or terrorism.

http://www.amazon.com/Agent-Chaos-Norman-Spinrad/dp/1584450428

First published in the 1960s, Spinrad was one of the first writers to perceive the totalitarian implications of the cradle-to-grave welfare state. But at the same time he was too organically a radical ever to be confused with a conservative. Result: "Agent of Chaos!"

Boris Johnson thinks he wants democracy. But in the course of his adventures he discovers that democracy to him means freedom. It's a banned concept from the Millennium of Religion. Like God.

He finds himself dealing with a byzantine political situation worthy of anything from the banned past. The dictatorship is the Hegemony. Opposition is provided by the aptly named agents of C.H.A.O.S. Meanwhile, the Brotherhood of Assassins plays a game that no one can fathom. Whose side are they on? Whose fool are you?

Spinrad explores his philosophical theme in a manner all too rare in contemporary science fiction. The problem is that Order will always try to eliminate any random factors. By its very nature, it encourages opposition and that feeds the forces of chaos. But chaos has built in problems as well. Its victories cannot help but feed the forces of reaction, of order. The heroes in this novel ultimately opt for personal freedom. The villains try to establish a dictatorship over the very nature of reality itself.

And then Spinrad throws in the discovery of aliens. A starship sets forth to meet them, the Prometheus. The Hegemony doesn't like that.

If a GASM does take off, or has the potential to, remember to post it to POEE.co.uk, Eris Bar and Grill, the various Myspace and facebook Discordian groups, 23ae, the Verwirrung Blog and anywhere else you may get a decent level of interest in it.

This is, of course, a central point of the GASM, but I felt it needed to be made clear and explicit.

Ask me anything and I shall give you sage wisdom from the advice puppy.

Example:

Advice puppy, can you help me with my bills?

Stimergic learning is covered here.

The structure of secular conservative "framing" of events is discussed here.


Note the most interesting thing, that actually being an amorphous mass with seperated command structures but all communicating is actually an effective strategy.  Its essentially an open-source platform, applied to political and information operations.

In both cases, each rely on various groups innovating and trying varying methods of attack, the communicating their effectiveness back to other groups who share their aims.  The techniques are refined, then packaged for mass release.  Then the process is repeated.  It is constant refinement based on the ability for fast feedback AND, a mass of people willing to try various strategies.

Its essentially a Black Swan approach to events.  By allowing groups to experiment, the whole movement can take advantage of successful methods, whereas failures will only impact on those directly involved in them.  Its very smart, really.

[- Mark Twain]

"The human race has only one really effective weapon and that is laughter."
- Mark Twain

"Wit is a dangerous weapon, even to the possessor, if he knows not how to use it discreetly"
- Michael de Montaigne


Both Montaigne and Twain were, of course, entirely right in their assessments.  Especially Montaigne, that genteel and erudite man of letters, whose scholarly essays were always filled with amusing and witty anecdotes, usually at his own expense.

But the fact remains, humour is a weapon.  In fact, its the best weapon there is.  How powerful is a potential Adolph Hitler if all his voters are laughing at him?  Bigots and fundamentalists of all stripes have a decidedly dim view of humour for this reason.  It's not a product of force, but of the intellect.  It doesn't reduce cities to rubble or execute heretics, but at the same time it can be used to kill a man stone dead, in the eyes of those whose respect and fear he needs the most.

Even the traditionalist militarists and corporatists are suspicious of humour.  Its not something that can be used for inflating an R&D budget, nor acquired and stockpiled at great cost.  Equally, its subversive tendencies chafe against the regimentation and hierarchical nature of corporate life.

The thing is, with all weapons, you have to know how to use it right.  Just like in a knife fight, where an inexperienced idiot with a blade is a greater danger to themselves than an unarmed expert, you have to know how to use humour properly, or else you'll end up hoisted on your own petard, as it were.

Because of this, a sort of rumour, or perhaps a scurrilous lie, has been spread about humour.  Apparently, its an inborn trait, like blonde hair, or height, or wanting to be a corporate liar.  Some sort of genetic fluke which makes some people funny and others not.  And if you are one, then you can never be the other, try as you might.

It is, of course, complete and utter bullshit.  No doubt some people have more of a natural flair for humour – perhaps an ease with large audiences, a natural disposition to be the centre of attention, an excellent command of the English language.  But humour, like any other skill and especially writing style, can be cultivated and developed, up until the point it can be forged into a weapon, a perfect design to smash enemies and leave them looking like fools.

Unfortunately, this means we're going to have to do some incredibly unfunny analysis of humour and how it actually works.  If that bothers you, then I suggest you look away...now.

Right, now we're rid of them.  I suppose I should start from the beginning.  What is the point of humour?  Psychologists have actually found that humour, while an innate trait among most humans, also serves some interesting sociological purposes as well.

Usually, these are divided down into six reasons:

we laugh out of instinct
we laugh out of incongruity
we laugh out of ambivalence
we laugh for release
we laugh when we solve a puzzle
we laugh when we regress

Additionally, two meta-reasons are often added to this analysis:  we laugh out of surprise, or because we feel superior.

Surprise is obvious and easy.  Its also one of the most universal reasons for laughing.  Embarrassment and trickery are core to this idea.  Obviously, you have to maintain the level of surprise for this type of humour to work.  Easily guessed wordplay might be witty, but lacking that factor, it is not especially funny.

Surprise is, in essence, the cardinal rule of comedy.  It should have some role in almost everything funny you do.  Without it, comedy ceases to be.  Its a curve ball that throws the audience off balance.

Superiority, of course, is one that should actually interest us too.  All good humour has an element of both tragedy and cruelty to it, to be really effective.  What adds to that effectiveness is the feeling that those who are not the target of the joke, or who guessed at or appreciated the joke, are superior to those who are not.

This may sound, in theory, elitist, but it need not be.  In fact, comedy of this sort is often the great equalizer, documenting and mocking the failings of the great and powerful, of people who want to put you in your place.  Comedy of this sort is the true razor blade of rhetoric, its use is to cut the other person down to size.  Its transgressive nature questions assumptions and cherished beliefs.  As social criticism, it is especially effective because humour goes beyond restrictions and social norms.  Humour can also be used to maintain the status quo, to ridicule out-groups...but that sort of humour is boring and stale.

Instinctively, we laugh as a verbal substitute for an attack.  The laugh of the triumphant is the one that says "I am better than you."  It is a way of venting hostility when physical assault is not practical.

Incongruity makes us laugh because something is internally inconsistent, it is paired or matched in odd ways.  When we realize why, or how, we laugh.  Often this is related to the idea of superiority, though the original appearance of the incongruous may be surprising as well.  The two combined are especially effective.

Ambivalence is similar to incongruity, but instead of the clash or conflict of irreconcilable ideas or perceptions, ambivalence is the simultaneous presence of mixes signals.  Once decoded, the language expresses both of these feelings, usually love and hate, at the same time.  It is an attempt to maintain dignity, to cover up our foolish errors, and is especially useful in self-deprecating humour.

Release is a pretty obvious one.  We laugh to release tension, to remove ourselves from uncomfortable or dangerous situations, to air truths that may be otherwise hard to face.  This release is especially useful if it can be experienced as a group event – and the element of surprise must be removed.  The audience must know what lies behind the door, or what happens next to the over-curious cat.  That is where the rule of surprise no longer applies.

After we've been roughed up, its nice to see someone else take a few lumps.  The idea is that if we are laughing at them, then they cannot laugh at us.  This humour can spark a revolutionary sentiment, or quash it, giving safe release to emotions that may be better used getting people to work at something else.  Consider its use carefully.

Puzzles are also elements of surprise.  Its a matter of configuration, the set up.  You have to frame a problem or a riddle in a certain manner, then propose a valid, if surprising, answer to it.  We take delight in the surprise, and comfort in the superiority of knowledge.

In terms of regression, Freud argued that comedy was as important as sleep.  It allowed for more primitive urges and desires to be expressed in acceptable social ways.  Especially for infantile, sexual or aggressive behaviour.  A playful mood, adopted as relaxation, is the most common form of this sort of humour (consider the comic strip – often the most common form of humour regardless of nationality or culture).  This also includes a desire for social approval however.  Regressive humour is rarely continued without a form of social acceptance, especially from authority figures.  It is therefore a tool to be used when you and your audience share a target in common, someone whom you both dislike and feel needs to be made an object of ridicule.

In short, humour is a manifestation of what society really believes, but dares not say.  It pierces beneath the bullshit and spin to get at the Really Real (Perceived) Truth of the matter.  Because sometimes we cannot deal with tragedy directly, we rely on humour to ease our way to acceptance.

Sick humour, in and of itself, is rarely effective, except perhaps as an opening gambit, a ploy to attract attention.  Beyond that, it can actually have a negative effect on audiences.

So, that's the why of humour, the idea as to why we need it.  Now we move onto the nuts and bolts, the how of humour.  These are the necessary ingredients for any comedic routine.  Without them, the humour may taste somewhat off or wrong, and in worst case scenarios, ruin the entire joke.

The six principle ingredients are:

Target
Hostility
Realism
Exaggeration
Emotion
Surprise

The target is the most important aspect of this.  A successful target must fit the persona and style you are using, as well as the interests of the audience.  Therefore, pick your battles carefully, and with this uppermost in your mind.  Just remember, you have to reaffirm some the prejudices of your audience, and be very unfair to whoever your target is.  Oh well, such is life.  There is no room for balance or explanation in a joke, you have to be as ruthless as a General.  See the weakness, and exploit it for all its worth.  Deny the goodness of your target.

If you cannot pick a person, then pick an experience with universal appeal.  But I prefer the well known person route, since we are talking of humour as a weapon here.  Also, remember that if you do pick an experience, do not make it too broad.  It has to be specific in what it entails.  Driving is not funny, women who manage to multi-task every single fucking thing in the world while driving, however, can be.

Hostility is next.  Comedy is cruel.  In our case, necessarily so, because we deal with cruel people in a cruel world.  This hostility is a powerful antidote to the hostility many of us feel to those we are surrounded by in our every day lives – it is a release, because we all have an element of hostility towards something.

Authority is a natural target the world over for comics.  Remember it, cherish it, use it.  People all around the world hate their leaders, their systems, the powers they have to labour under.  This humour is nihilistic – no one is too powerful or too pure to be beyond reproach.  Just remember lots of people have sympathy for the underdog, so direct that hostility upwards.

Next to authority, money and business are also perfect targets.  Aside from that, angst, the painful knowledge of the ugly reality, is another one.  Merchandising human suffering is the fuel which angst runs on.

Realism.  Like all good propaganda and disinformation, comedy contains a kernel of truth hidden within it.  Comedy is essentially telling the truth via lying, the use of juxtaposition, surprise and the bending of language to give life to an unexpressable reality.

Most of the facts of humour should be logical and obvious, but hidden via convention and expression so that we don't quite apprehend them correctly.  A major deviation from reality wont prevent humour, however it will likely not be as funny as a joke based on reality is.

Exaggeration.  Ah, poetic licence.  Humour is what allows people to suspend disbelief, and this should be used to its full advantage.  Absurdity, hyperbole and outright lying are all acceptable because, as the exaggeration signals to us: hey, its only a joke.  Often the foil to the realism of the joke, the two are held up and follow from each other to create the incongruity that results in laughter.

Emotion.  Hostility alone is not enough emotion.  There has to be an element of anticipation within the audience, the joke has to be built up.  In effect, you create tension, then you release it.  The audience is wound up, then down.  You must, in effect, adopt a persona which can bring about this effect within an audience.  Almost always, the best way to do this is with a character that shows a sort of boundless, almost infectious energy.  You also have to know how to use language.  Where to stop, where to start, where to pause – there must be a rhythm to your delivery.

Stand-up in particular is more a funny man doing material than a man doing funny material.  To a degree, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The man who is delivering the material is funny, therefore his material must be funny too.  This identity/rhetorical sleight of hand is not always true, but it is worth remembering and considering.  Delivery is key, and cannot be understated.

Surprise.  Of course, this was mentioned in the previous chapter, but merits a mention here as well.  Charlie Chaplin defined surprise in terms of a film scene in which the villain is chasing the heroine down the street.  On the sidewalk is a banana peel. The camera cuts swiftly back and forth from the banana peel to the approaching villain.  At the last second, the heavy sees the banana peel and jumps over it—and then falls into an open manhole.

The surprise cannot be telegraphed.  No matter what.  It must be genuine, or else it loses its impact.  You have to master the poker face, keep the audience in suspense for just long enough to pull the rug out from under them.

OK, this is getting far too long already, and I cannot possibly hope to include every single possible hint about comedy.  But keep these ideas in mind, play around with them, practice, and encourage creativity within humour!  And as you get better...put it to a use!

The Circular Firing Squad

Anyone familiar with left wing and left of centre politics is very aware of the circular firing squad phenomena.  The name says it all really.  You have a large coalition of people with varying aims, backgrounds, means and ideologies, all gathered under one supposedly large tent.  The thing is, tensions are apparent between various groups.  Socialists loathe the liberals loathe the post-modernists loathe the anarchists loathe the socialists. 

And so, when a disagreement does come along, the battle-lines are already drawn.  Nearly everyone prepares to stand by their ideological convictions and shoot the next person along in the head, until the whole thing causes the entire group to unravel.  Hence, the circular firing squad.  Its the "land-mine" of the political circus.  The right is somewhat susceptible to it as well, but not to nearly the same degree (possibly because the right-wing is where authoritarian mass movements are currently, and thus left-wing authoritarians simply don't have the number to enforce consensus).

The circular firing squad is the bane of anyone who has ever had to try and coordinate groups with disparate aims.  The question, as always, is how to overcome it, once it becomes an overriding problem.  Because its not, not always.  The long tail of politics demands that groups with different philosophical, strategic and tactical backgrounds but similar aims should cooperate on goals of mutual benefit.  That way, the most effective methods of advancing can be discovered through empirical observation, of trial and error.  To a degree, the circular firing squad can be used to weed out those who put ideological above effectiveness.

The problem comes when its intractable on every side, that few will accept the inefficiency of their tactics, and others, while not wanting to lose their manpower or voices, do want them to change.  The problem at this stage is how to circle the square, break the deadlock and get people back into a mindset where they cooperate for mutual gain while respecting each others differences.

I think the answer is pretty simple, in theory, but hard in practice.  What is required is an enemy.

Oh, not in that sort of sense.  I don't mean the fictitious "we must always have an enemy so we can hold together" sort of thinking, which H. L. Mencken so accurately described and which makes up the basis of most totalitarian policy while in power.  Nor the equally flawed, quasi-social sciences view that enemies provide social bonds for society and that there is a psychological need for an enemy, for people to define themselves against as much as they define what they are for.  These ideas are stupid and pointless and only lead to hysteria.

No, I mean an actual enemy, one who really threatens and presents risk to the groups in question.  Consider the best example we have in modern history and national mythology, that of world war two.  We have ass-kicking Socialists (such as Orwell), committed Communists (like Khrushchev), old style imperialists (Churchill), aristocrats (von Stauffenburg), anarchists, nationalists, capitalists, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, atheists and many other positions all contained under one roof, fighting the threat from fascist aligned governments in Europe and Asia.

They all managed to work together because the threat was there, and the threat was real.  Afterwards, the spoils could be divided and old arguments resumed.  But without everyone pitching
in and getting involved, they would be picked off, one by one, until none remained.

That is the virtue of having an enemy, a real one.  Not only do they instruct you, on a tactical and strategic level, they remind you who your real enemies and friends are.  Enemies, as dangerous as they are, nevertheless serve a purpose.  Acting as an external focal point for aggression amongst groups who should otherwise be on the same side seems as good a use as any I can think of.

The simple fact of the matter is that life is a game.  There is no rule or reason to it, no way of simply explaining away its existence.  And like all games, it exists to be played.  Often, without consideration as to the morality or consequence of ones actions.

One of the defining traits of a trickster is hunger.  Another is the multiplicity of identity.  A trickster hides behind a thousand masks.  But which of those masks, if any, is the true identity?  It seems, in the final analysis, the answer is none.  The trickster defines their own existence for themselves, their hunger creating (relatively) temporary aims, but no overarching goals.  Unless the goal is the maximization of disorder itself, the pleasurable clash of chaos, from which a wily and intelligent individual came come out ahead of everyone else.

The essence of a trickster is also that of puppet master, of someone who enjoys the creation of events behind the scenes to drive the ongoing drama, to manipulate persons and events to the goal they desire.  It is almost certainly a necessary result of a certain sort of intellect, who quickly becomes bored with abstraction or the grind of a normal existence, that takes delight in twist and turns and ambivalent signals.  But there is, of course, a sinister aspect to this archetype as well, which should not be overlooked.  While the jokes may or may not be harmless, depending on the disposition of the trickster, they do rely on deceit, thrive on manipulation, hiding their machinations until the moment of unveiling, when they reveal the trick as what it really was – the conceit of man become god, directing their own miniature drama. 

There is also something cruel about the nature of such tricks, as they reveal nothing of the tricksters own goals, an insight into their thinking.  No, the trickster holds up a mirror to the world.  They do not create the desires, only manipulating and redirecting them to other ends.  Therefore, a fear and hatred of the trickster is a fear and hatred of oneself, of the base drives of your nature which drove you to follow their hidden directives.  It reveals the weakness of the other, and in some cases, that alone is a cutting and deadly blow.

The trickster too, reveals something of his relationship with the other here.  He is at the same time, reliant on the dupe, and yet somewhat callous and despising of him.  It is often the case that those drawn into such games as the trickster desires will be used for personal entertainment and thrown aside without a thought once the game is over – but then, the trickster is still reliant on a steady stream of such people.  If all the world were tricksters, then he would not be able to play his game.  Equally, without any trickster-like attributes, the world would be without imagination, and no-one would take the baits offered.

Trouble is often a means to an end.  But even when it lacks, that is no reason not to cause trouble.  While there may not be a reward in terms of material or personal gain, there is often the element of learning – of discovering or confirming that in this sort of situation, a person does that, or the similarities between possibly otherwise disparate concepts.  For a trickster, the world is a lab as much as a stage, and everyone within is both an audience and an unwilling test subject.  Caution leads to boredom, which leads to stagnation, whereas experiment and change are the spice of life.

Because, or possibly despite this lack of inherent meaning in the world, it becomes a mystery, waiting to be explored.  Without a metaphysical base of nonsense to keep one's nose in the books, you come to be interested by those around you.  Who they are, why they became the way they are.  Their defense mechanisms and habits, what they do and the hidden meanings behind it.  Like a book of codes, it awaits a clever enough decipherer to become understandable.  Unfortunately, cracking such secrets is not without risk, and the occasional failure, while painful, can teach us much.

The intrigue, the irony, the spectacle, this is what makes life worth living.  With all this at one's doorstep, why be so serious?

Today, ladies and gentlemen, I would like you to watch a little video.  I know you get links to Youtube posted on here every day, and if you are like me you don't click on many of them (slow connection, relatively speaking).  This one, however, is only two and a half minutes long, and is important to the rest of the post.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07WX3F7UQWA is where you can watch it.

Are you done now?  Yes?  Good.  Pretty scary, of course, but nothing you haven't seen before, right?  Of course not, we are all wordly people here, and we know the face of batshit insanity when we see it.

But lets put a little spin on this otherwise unremarkable piece of information.  Obviously, this mother is indoctrinating her son into Dominionist political theory - that is to say the political theology of the religious right, which blends into such insanity as Christian reconstructionism, a belief system that would quite happily have every single person who posts here on this site stoned to death for Apostasy.

This child will then grow up, get fairly good grades despite his obvious lack of knowledge about the real world, and go to a University like Patrick Henry, where he will be further indoctrinated to become a Soldier of Christ.  He'll likely get a degree in something like Political Science or Social Policy and his University will arrange for him to have an internship with a Member of Congress.

Quite likely, this child will excel in their role of intern, being used to having to work long hours with little payoff and total obedience to authority.  Internship is also the quickest way towards getting onto a Congressman's staff.

Now, as I'm sure we know, Congressmen are not exceptionally smart or knowledgeable.  Some are, but the majority are little more than glorified salesmen, whose product is themself.  Instead, they will rely on their staff to present them with the data and facts on upcoming votes and subcommittee discussions on various topics.  And who will be giving them this data?

That's right, its the little shithead who believes evolution and global warming are liberal lies and homos deserve to be stoned to death.  Now remember, these Christian Universities are likely producing tens of thousands of these little shitheads every single year.  Think happy thoughts, and remember to become acquainted with your local reverend.

http://www.protagonize.com/

This is an interactive collaborative fiction website I'm thinking of joining.  I just saw it advertized on Facebook and while normally this has led to bad things (don't ask) I think this has potential.

Of course, it would be great for planting Discordian memes, as well as practicing fiction writing skills in general, so I'm in.

Link for reading


Adventerous?  Bold?  Possibly futile?  I don't know yet, but this book was recommended via http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/ and I like the lad, so I'm willing to give it a shot:


There's a book I've wanted to mention for a while, and now is the opportunity. It's called A Nietzschean Defense of Democracy, and it's written by an ODU professor (whom I have yet to meet) by the name of Dr. Lawrence Hatab. I first read it by checking it out from the ODU Library, but you—lucky you—are able to read it online, for free, here! (Well, not all of it, but please enjoy what there is and bring your questions to me so that when I meet Dr. Hatab and ask him my own set of questions regarding his work, I can add yours as well.)

The book makes a convincing argument that conclusively shows Nietzsche would support democracy over, say... a tyrannical military regime. Because the book is centered around agonism—agonistic democracy is a big theme—I would imagine Dr. Hatab thinks Nietzsche would be an agonist in our modern age. Some aspects of the American government are already agonistic—the U.S. Congress certainly has some level of agonism to it, and the whole play of running for President is all about "who is the better man", or "woman", in a competitive manner.

On page 232, Dr. Hatab wrote the following: "Agonistic democracy allows for social change that is less likely to outstrip the capacity of a population to affirm and absorb that change. A democracy should allow any radical doctrine a full hearing in the political arena, but outcomes in a democracy will likely frustrate most radicals, since democracy tends to generate more measured and mixed paths of change, the results of more deliberative exchanges between multiple narratives, rather than revolutionary overhauls." Unlike the equal, all too equal kind of democracy that is idealized, agonistic democracy would be a solution to achieving at least some of the ideas Nietzsche has in mind.

So, I had a nice day out in Salisbury with an old friend, catching up and reminiscing about the good times.  Anyway, she was visiting her step-brother later that evening, and I'm currently house-sitting, so I decided to go back home but not before stopping off at the supermarket and pick up a pizza, a couple of beers and the like, since I have no real plans for tonight.

So there I am, walking down the main high street, when I smell these two kids in front of me.  And I mean smell, it was like they had drowned themselves in cider or something.  Quite disgusting actually.  But yeah, since this is the main road, and its still busy even in the evening, I try to slip past, brushing up against one of the guys as I do so.  I quietly apologize and continue on.

I walk about two feet before I hear a slurred "hey you fucking twat, where the FUCK do you think you're going?"  I keep going for about another five feet, stop, then slowly turn around to look at him.  The kid's about 17, I would guess, maybe 18 at best.  Greasy hair, acne, ill-fitting clothes, slight highness when he raised his voice while shouting at me.  I look him up and down and say "I said I was sorry.  What else do you want, a blowjob or something?"  I turn to walk away, since though the kid looks puffed up, he doesn't seem on the verge of punching me.  Not yet, while he gets to show off his astounding wit to his mate and random passerby's.

"Listen to me you cocky little faggot" he started.  I hate that.  I am slightly shorter than a lot of people, I accept that.  I'm 5'9", so I know I'm not tall, but I'm not exactly a midget either.  But it means everyone with a 2" height advantage thinks you're a midget or something. He seems to lose his thread for a second, then goes on "you don't think you can just mouth off to me like that do ya, ya fucking twat?  See my mate here?"  I glance to suspect number two, holding a mobile in his hands, then look back to Acne Boi.  "He's got your fucking portrait now, you fucking idiot.  Its his fucking screensaver.  What you gonna do now, you cocky little fuck?  We know your face, you twat.  We'll track you down and fucking do your windows in mate."

I get a small adrenaline dump now.  Its not exactly the sweating shakes anymore, since I've had quite a few over the past few years for one reason or another.  Its more a tingle of excitement at the pit of my stomach, and slightly twitchy fingers.  I'm alert now, my senses are sharp and I'm ready to react to any move him or his buddy make.

"Well", I start, "firstly I wont have to worry about that too much, since you'll have to grow some balls to try something like that, and I doubt I'll be here in 5 years time.  And secondly, I trust the officer behind you caught that threat you made against my good self?  You fucking idiot, mouthing off at someone on a main street in broad daylight.  Remember now not to bend over if you drop the soap".  I smiled as the copper in his bright flourescent jacket put a hand on each of the kid's shoulders.

Have I mentioned recently I hate this fucking town?

This is the thread where we can document and laugh at all the current wingnuttery and tin foil hattery over the 2008 elections.

For example:

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9745.html

Over at Free Republic, they're investigating the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Scandal.

What scandal? They don't seem to know yet, but confidence is fairly high that something will turn up. Here's one essai:

I belive the reason [Barack Obama] won't release [his birth certificate] is because it lists his full name including the firstname of Barry, not Barack, and lists him as caucasian, not african.

He's worked awfully hard (changing his name to something african sounding and calling himself black, instead of white or mixed) to further his career. He's not about to have that all blown up by the truth that he's just as much white as black.

Um, yeah. Or maybe the doctor's signature trails off and reads "Aieee!" and the document is spattered with human blood. Also, be warned that we mean 'kerners' in the literal sense. A scanned copy of the document was released earlier this month (on Daily Kos and at least one other liberal site), and here's where that's been going:

The typeface on [a sample birth certificate from Hawaii, the 'Decosta image,'] is much darker and thicker, and has less kerning (spacing between the letters), than the Obama image. Moreover, the color of the green paper comes through almost all of the letters regardless of magnification or image compression.

By comparison, you will not see the grey and white pixels found between the letters on the Obama image.

When you enlarge the letters in the Decosta image, they all tend to remain solid, especially letters like "I, L, B, E, H," that continue to look the same no matter how large you make them. Conversely, when you enlarge the letters in the Obama image, they start to fall apart — that is, they start losing pixels. This is exactly what happens to bitmapped text created by a graphics program.

OK, now let's compare the borders of both images.

In the Obama image — or, should I say, "images," because the edges of the vertical borders in the Kos image overlap the horizontal ones, whereas the...

People have asked why I'm so fascinated by the right wing in America. I believe this goes some way toward answering the question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7475279.stm

The net's regulator Icann has proposed a complete overhaul of the way people navigate the internet.

They will vote to decide if the strict rules on so-called top level domain names, such as .com or .uk, can be relaxed.

The plans would allow firms to use their brands as web addresses while individuals could use their name.

[- Nietzsche]

What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice.
- Nietzsche

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson


You can talk all day long about enabling discourses and the power of worldwide, real-time connectivity and the ability to not only capture media attention but in many senses become the media, and it will not, can not, change basic facts about the world.  All of the above is rather amazing, and can be very powerful in competent hands.  But there are older truths, mechanisms of control and power, that still shape the world around us, and cannot simply be forgotten in the face of this shiny new technology.

We've been sold a lie, and this lie is that of a world where tough battles can be fought and won on a purely intellectual, literary and moral level.  That is not to say that these are not important facets in any victory – I would so far as to say they are necessary components.  But we've been taught time and time again to keep our heads down, follow "the rules" when it comes to such a conflict: rules put in place by people other than ourselves, rules which are weighted towards those who write them and create mechanisms whereby your petitions and arguments can be swept aside by sheer force of arms and threat of violence.

Don't believe me?  Just look at Zimbabwe for the past few days for a perfect example.  The MDC opposition can talk until they are blue in the face, they can have the world's media on their side and the support of two very powerful nations, not to mention the backing of the UN – and yet its the MDC who are getting their faces kicked in, their arms broken and bodies slashed open on the streets of Harare.

And that's an important point in today's world.  Because in a world where civil liberties are on the retreat, not only in one or two countries but across the globe in the name of 'counter-terrorism' and unspecified 'security measures' we need to remember exactly how we got those liberties in the first place.

So its time for a little story.  Not the neat, sanitized history textbook version, but how thing's actually went down.  This is precisely how it happened: every single victory for freedom was bought at the risk of insurrection and the threat of violence against the ruling classes.

Count them off:  the Barons who took King John to task had their own private forces and marched them down London in defiance of the Monarch, bringing about the concept of haebus corpus, as poorly implemented as it was for several generations.  The depredations of the French aristocracy were ended not by pious pleas to the Catholic Church and moral arguments about the obligations of the nobility, but by the Jacobins and the guillotine.  In America, of course, freedom was won by force of arms where the colonists successfully defeated those loyal to the Crown.

And it need not be actual use of force that wins the day either.  Universal suffrage didn't come about in the UK because of our enlightened leaders, oh no.  It happened because 2 million pissed off men had come back from World War One, and they weren't going to take any shit from a bunch of cowards up Westminster way – and if Parliament pressed the issue they knew at the end of the day it would be them swinging from London Bridge.  Hell, during Martin Luther King's time, the mass protests – which invariably contain the potential for mass violence even if it is only implicit – against a background of left-wing extremism did more for the civil rights movement than a thousand arguments about the fundamental dignity of all humankind – no matter how true those arguments are.

Do I advocate violence?  Not necessarily.  I do not live in the conditions found in Zimbabwe, not yet at least.  If I did, I most certainly would, even though I'd probably get my thumbs broken for suggesting it tomorrow.  But the absence of possible insurrection, the removal of this threat, is the single greatest motivator for a government to strip civil liberties from its citizens.

And usually, it starts with the physical methods of being able to enforce such threats.  But then, the process becomes more subtle, sneaky.  You teach 'em ideas like nationalism – my country right or wrong – and put the fear of violence on them...if they get too far out of line.  The process becomes internalized, the idea that violence is just only when waged against dangerous outsiders takes, that taking part in risky political ventures will result in the removal of welfare is normal and these methods of control are transmitted via the majority of the communications system of a country.  Think of all those keyboard warriors going on about Iraq and terrorists...they didn't fool you or me, but they sure helped get a good portion of the country thinking the threat came from Baghdad and not Washington.

Quashing violence is often done in the name of restoring "law and order", whether nationally or internationally, and on that basis alone it is considered "right", since most people naturally associate the law, as a body of rules in general, as a just system of arbitration.  But what happens when those laws are not just?  What happens when the social contract has broken down, as it has in so many parts of the world, where words on paper are nothing more than excuses to rob, steal, murder and pillage with impunity?

That's where lessons like this need to be taught, and why they need to be remembered.

California takes a step forward, Britain takes a step back...


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iran-is-safe-for-discreet-gays-says-jacqui-smith-852336.html

Gay and lesbian asylum-seekers can be safely deported to Iran as long as they live their lives "discreetly", the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has claimed.

In a letter to a Liberal Democrat peer, seen by The Independent, Ms Smith said there was no "real risk" of gay men and lesbians being discovered by the Iranian authorities or "adverse action" being taken against those who were "discreet" about their behaviour.

Remind me, isn't this supposed to be a left-wing government or something?

http://paranoidlinux.org/

Paranoid Linux is an operating system that assumes that its operator is under assault from the government (it was intended for use by Chinese and Syrian dissidents), and it does everything it can to keep your communications and documents a secret. It even throws up a bunch of "chaff" communications that are supposed to disguise the fact that you're doing anything covert. So while you're receiving a political message one character at a time, ParanoidLinux is pretending to surf the Web and fill in questionnaires and flirt in chat-rooms. Meanwhile, one in every five hundred characters you receive is your real message, a needle buried in a huge haystack.
~Cory Doctorow (Little Brother, 2008)

When those words were written, ParanoidLinux was just a fiction. It is our goal to make this a reality. The project officially started on May 14th, and has been growing ever since. We welcome your ideas, contributions, designs, or code. You can find us on freenode's irc server in the #paranoidlinux channel. Hope to see you there!

I think the above quote explains it pretty well.

You can download Cory Doctorow's book here if you want to know more.  Its not necessary, but it is a good book, and he is encouraging people to share it.  I also think something along the lines of Paranoid Linux has potential, even though it is Linux.

[super-empowered individuals and groups with access to modern knowledge, technology, and means to conduct asymmetric attacks in furtherance of their individual and group interests.]

This is the thread where I'll be posting links, thoughts, downloads and outlines of what I consider as a useful model towards helping solving a current problem - the framework of 5th Generation Warfare.

The biggest 'problem' of our current imes is power asymmetry - in short, our "leaders" are becoming less empowered while everyday human beings can access more information and power than ever before.

Let's take a moment to savor the flavor of Newspeak here -- "Asymmetrical Warfare" is actually the most "symmetrical" form of warfare that's ever existed, because it puts small dedicated groups of insurgents on equal footing with any military on earth. It is actually the restoration of power balance in human culture, and these birth pangs of the Kali Yuga are the sign of something better on the horizon.

The Patriot Post breaks down 5th Generation warfare as thus:

A. The technological advances represented by the Internet;

B. Scalability of impact;

C. Information as an empowering and leveling force;

D. The media as an independent organ that is stronger, more pervasive, and more independent than ever before;

E. Borders no longer impede data flow.

This convergence is neither neat nor simple, precisely because it is a multiplicity of converging factors. Calling 5GW "Information Operations" is an extreme oversimplification, because that is merely one aspect. With the exception of the Internet, these contributories are capable of historical reduction. The Internet of today can be likened to the Guttenberg printing press in the 15th Century in terms of its revolutionary.aspect for dissemination, though it is exponentially more powerful. The aspects of scalability and the decreased effectiveness of borders are absorbed into the uniqueness of this technology.

Regarding scalability, this is a factor of immense importance. At no other time in human history has it been possible for one person to destroy the functional productivity of a world economy with the push of a button; however, the "love bug" virus did precisely that, for approximately a week, before being eradicated. One programmer unleashed literally billions of dollars of damage to business across the world; however, the damage was widespread and unfocused. A small team of cyber warriors could no-doubt create incredible damage, yet limit the scope and spread of the damage with proper tools.

World-wide, the media has expanded and become independent. The mere fact of publication in a particular country no longer means that that particular nation endorses the contents. This is especially true with television and the Internet. Censorship is increasingly difficult to effect. Indeed, when media personalities seek to destroy or create political realities through sheer fabrication (Dan Rather's fraudulent documents come to mind), or the inappropriate release of national sensitive data (e.g., Geraldo Rivera), we enter a dangerous Brave New World.

The Strategist goes further, defining 5th Gen as:

the use of "all means whatsoever – means that involve the force of arms and means that do not involve the force of arms, means that involve military power and means that do not involve military power, means that entail casualties, and means that do not entail casualties – to force the enemy to serve one's own interest."(5) It includes the appearance of super-empowered individuals and groups with access to modern knowledge, technology, and means to conduct asymmetric attacks in furtherance of their individual and group interests. Arguably, its first identifiable manifestations occurred in the United States during the anthrax attacks of 2001 and the ricin attacks of 2004. Both sets of attacks required specialized knowledge, included attacks upon federal government offices and facilities, succeeded in disrupting governmental processes, and created widespread fear in the public. To date, no individual or group has claimed responsibility for either attack, and neither attack has been solved. The attacks were quite successful in disrupting government processes and creating public fear but, thus far, their motivation remains unknown.

Its a complex and still developing field.  But I intend to try and get onto the cutting edge of this, and find out how useful it really is as a model, and what solutions and inspiration it can provide for modern day issues.

"Artistic ambition. The Greek artists, the tragedians, for example, wrote in order to triumph; their whole art cannot be imagined without competition. Ambition, Hesiod's good Eris, gave wings to their genius. Now, this ambition demanded above all that their work maintain the highest excellence in their own eyes, as they understood excellence, without consideration for a prevailing taste or the general opinion about excellence in a work of art. And so, for a long time, Aeschylus and Euripides remained unsuccessful until they finally educated critics of art who esteemed their work by the standards that they themselves applied. Thus they strive for victory over their rivals according to their own estimation, before their own tribunal; they really want to be more excellent; then they demand that others outside agree with their own estimation, confirm their judgment. In this case, to strive for honor means "to make oneself superior and wish that that also be publicly evident" If the first is lacking and the second nevertheless desired, one speaks of vanity. If the latter is lacking, and not missed, one speaks of pride."

Welcome to the modern day war zone.  Right now, as I speak, a thousand battles are being waged for your submission and allegiance.  Commanders and politicians have decided that the enemy is us and that we are to be bought to heel, as soon as possible.

No doubt some of you think I'm using hyperbole, or metaphor to illustrate an example of our socially fractured society and the commodification of identity.  And while those certainly are problems, anyone thinking about those in relation to my rant today are wrong.  Right now, you and I are quite literally at war with at least one government, namely that of the USA.

Oh to be sure there won't be running battles with light infantry.  No air-strikes are going to be called in on your house, and I'm reasonably certain you wont get carted away to Guantanomo Bay, or any other black site that exists.  But just because guns aren't being loaded and blood isn't been spilt doesn't mean this isn't a conflict.

You see, war isn't about the clash of armies on the battlefield anymore.  Hell, its barely even about killing, except as an advertising hook or a final solution for people who refuse to stop being a pain in the ass.  No, warfare has moved through the gentlemanly period of pitched battles and low casualties, blown apart by Napoleon and perfected in the slaughterhouse of WWI.  Its not even the dirty political warfare that characterized the Cold War, marked by futile superpower conflict and strategies designed to bleed a superpower by third world proxies, and on the other end of the scale by terrorism.

No, warfare today is about fighting on the psychological and narrative level.  Its about capturing the mind, and shackling it to the agenda of the day, regardless of what that agenda may be.

The thing is, you see, as warfare has become less and less about artful strategy and less bound by codes of conduct – be they religious, cultural or legal – the real issue has not been arms, logistics, intelligence and skill, but about the sheer will to fight.  Whoever goes on fighting the longest, whoever is willing to do what it takes to persuade the other side to accept their interests, whoever is able to effectively frame the agenda in a certain manner, is the winner in the modern world.  You can even suffer strategic setbacks if your message and will is powerful enough.

And of course, if you accept this as essentially true, broadly speaking, then logically you come to the problem being people who wont get the fuck on with the message.  The enemy ceases to be those who threaten certain strategic alliances, deposits of raw materials and the lives of the citizenry.  No, the enemy becomes anyone who undermines that message and so weakens that will to resolve the conflict – and that person can be anyone, even your own citizenry.

Back in the day, they used to call this PsyOps.  It used to only be a wartime enterprise.  Dropping leaflets over enemy cities and troop formations.  Doing pirate broadcasts using exiles and friendlies from the nation you are at war with to convince them of widespread resentment towards the government.  Smear and ridicule important political and military leaders in any way possible.

Like I said, it used to be only a wartime enterprise.  But now, thanks to the Cold War terrorism, carried to its conclusion by the likes of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, the difference between peace and war only exists in a legal sense.  The potentially endless war on terror means actually endless psychological operations – carried out against not just the enemy, but the civilian population at home as well.  The media has to hang the enemy with words and discourses and justifications before the military can do it in fact.

Nowadays, PsyOps is only one part of a much broader school, known as Information Operations.  Do you operate a blog, report on the failing and lies and crimes of your country?  Then you are are, according to this world-view, engaging in warfare against the state.  But its not just about information per se.  You have to think about this much more broadly.  For example, protests.  A protest is not just a protest.  It never can be.  Its an expression of low intensity conflict relying on moral discourses and popular expression of dissidence, aimed at bringing about a political-military confrontation.

And just where do you think something like Operation MindFuck fits into this system of ideas?  Since many of us tend to think of O:MF as a way of mentally shaking people up, getting them to question their assumptions, physically deconstructing the popular discourses of the day, stripping away the bare truth hidden beneath self-serving platitudes...well, in that case, it is nothing more than a direct challenge to state power.

That may dishearten some of you.  But the simple truth is, thinking for yourself, and then communicating those thoughts to others, will always be seen that way, so long as this world-view dominates.  You may as well get used to it, because unless you decide to never share your views, or have a frontal lobotomy, you will almost certainly do something that could be considered an act of war.  And if you get really good at it, you may even end up in a real domestic war – as the crazy elements of the thuggish far right, security services and corporate sponsored smear teams conspire to make your life hell through intimidation, surveillance and character assassination.

And to be honest, once you realize that you are in the war, a certain clarity accompanies that knowledge.  You can now diagnose this uneasy feeling all of the above has been creating.  You know what it is now, the nature of the Beast is discerned and laid bare.  Once you know what the problem is, you can set about dealing with it.  Few things are insurmountable, once you understand their purpose and context.

Unfortunately, you have little choice about this.  The line has already been drawn in the sand, and you're on the wrong side.  What happens next is a matter of policy, insanity, personal whim and plain old bad luck.  Because you're not quite the perpetual pain in the ass that, say, Al-Qaeda is, you won't be facing the guns.  You can be drowned out by voices of far-right harpies, military "experts" who 'just happen' to be taking pay cheques from the Pentagon and spineless journalists more content with attacking those who search for the truth than politicians who hide it.

There is a spectrum of responses, if you will.  If you do this, the response will be that.  And if you do something else, the response will differ in proportion.  But like all Platonic constructs of reality, there are gaps in the conceptual definitions put forward.  And it is in such gaps that the game must be played most effectively.  Operation MindFuck works best in areas where they are no response.  So go beyond blogging, or political protest, or pranks, or sabotage and mild acts of ontological guerilla warfare.  Mix and match, be innovative, experiment and push the boundaries.  And remember, even though this is a war, unconventional forces always have the advantage over hierarchies.

So I decided to go with Verwirrung instead of the PD.com soundtrack, mainly because that way if the 23ae crew, POEE etc want to download it they wont feel left out.

So here we have album one, Creative Disorder.  Basically a collection of the most Discordian artists I could think of, or tracks in terms of name or content.  The download is 93.7 MB and is in mp3 format.  More mirrors will be forthcoming.

http://mihd.net/w0ei78u

Edit Listing for CD 1


KLF - 3AM Eternal
KMFDM - Dogma
Bjork - Human Behaviour
Dans le Sac - Thou Shalt Always Kill
Thom Yorke - Black Swan
MC5 - Kick Out The Jams
Skinny Puppy - Pro-test
Modest Mouse - Doin' the Cockroach
Dead Kennedy's - I Fought The Law
Sonic Youth - Kill Yr Idols
SubQtaneous - Out Of Control
Chevelle - Antisaint
Jane's Addiction - Pig's in Zen
PiKANTiK - The Sacred Chao
Vision of Disorder - Imprint
Garbage - Paranoid
David J and Alan Moore - This Vicious Cabaret
Devo - Freedom of Choice

http://www.juggalofaith.com/

The POEE forums have been borked all day.  Are you doing an update or something?

I've been asked to help promote this, so...

See http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080512-preparing-for-cyber-warfare-us-air-force-floats-botnet-plan.html and http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/05/3375884

The thing is, as I understand it, a botnet kind of requires you to covertly take over many computers on many different servers in order to have any sort of real impact.  Because

1) bandwidth isn't free
2) the idea is to make it impossible to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate attackers.  If all the attacking IPs are .mil, it wont be hard to identifty, isolate and block them

And the thing is, if the USAF is going to go out there and take over computers with the blessing of the White House and Pentagon...what's to stop them keeping your computer as a slave PC for their botnet?  How does that idea sound, of the Pentagon having a presence on your laptop?  And assuming they did it with consent (of either the manufacturers or those foolish enough to sign up) what else would the DoD do with a civilian computer that has been "drafted" for military purposes?  Does this make the owner a combatant or legal target?  What if an enemy nation or sub-national group were to assassinate, bomb and sabotage companies and individuals who signed up to the botnet?

And secondly, what else would the USAF do with such a botnet?  As I understand it, botnets are also used for spamming.  Will we suffer even more online psyops from the Pentagon?

["Democracy," he writes, "is about the conditions that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and by making power responsive to their hopes and needs." It depends on the existence of a demos -- "a politically engaged and empowered citizenry, one that voted, deliberated, and occupied all branches of public office."]

This was taken from Prof Chalmers Johnson's article on Alternet today.  Link for the full detail.  Important details are highlighted.



Wolin introduces three new concepts to help analyze what we have lost as a nation. His master idea is "inverted totalitarianism," which is reinforced by two subordinate notions that accompany and promote it -- "managed democracy" and "Superpower," the latter always capitalized and used without a direct article. Until the reader gets used to this particular literary tic, the term Superpower can be confusing. The author uses it as if it were an independent agent, comparable to Superman or Spiderman, and one that is inherently incompatible with constitutional government and democracy.

Wolin writes, "Our thesis is this: it is possible for a form of totalitarianism, different from the classical one, to evolve from a putatively 'strong democracy' instead of a 'failed' one." His understanding of democracy is classical but also populist, anti-elitist and only slightly represented in the Constitution of the United States. "Democracy," he writes, "is about the conditions that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and by making power responsive to their hopes and needs." It depends on the existence of a demos -- "a politically engaged and empowered citizenry, one that voted, deliberated, and occupied all branches of public office." Wolin argues that to the extent the United States on occasion came close to genuine democracy, it was because its citizens struggled against and momentarily defeated the elitism that was written into the Constitution.

...

To reduce a complex argument to its bare bones, since the Depression, the twin forces of managed democracy and Superpower have opened the way for something new under the sun: "inverted totalitarianism," a form every bit as totalistic as the classical version but one based on internalized co-optation, the appearance of freedom, political disengagement rather than mass mobilization, and relying more on "private media" than on public agencies to disseminate propaganda that reinforces the official version of events. It is inverted because it does not require the use of coercion, police power and a messianic ideology as in the Nazi, Fascist and Stalinist versions (although note that the United States has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison -- 751 per 100,000 people -- of any nation on Earth). According to Wolin, inverted totalitarianism has "emerged imperceptibly, unpremeditatedly, and in seeming unbroken continuity with the nation's political traditions."

The genius of our inverted totalitarian system "lies in wielding total power without appearing to, without establishing concentration camps, or enforcing ideological uniformity, or forcibly suppressing dissident elements so long as they remain ineffectual. A demotion in the status and stature of the 'sovereign people' to patient subjects is symptomatic of systemic change, from democracy as a method of 'popularizing' power to democracy as a brand name for a product marketable at home and marketable abroad. The new system, inverted totalitarianism, is one that professes the opposite of what, in fact, it is. The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed."

....

Among the factors that have promoted inverted totalitarianism are the practice and psychology of advertising and the rule of "market forces" in many other contexts than markets, continuous technological advances that encourage elaborate fantasies (computer games, virtual avatars, space travel), the penetration of mass media communication and propaganda into every household in the country, and the total co-optation of the universities. Among the commonplace fables of our society are hero worship and tales of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, action measured in nanoseconds, and a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose adepts are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge. Masters of this world are masters of images and their manipulation. Wolin reminds us that the image of Adolf Hitler flying to Nuremberg in 1934 that opens Leni Riefenstahl's classic film "Triumph of the Will" was repeated on May 1, 2003, with President George Bush's apparent landing of a Navy warplane on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

...

The main social sectors promoting and reinforcing this modern Shangri-La are corporate power, which is in charge of managed democracy, and the military-industrial complex, which is in charge of Superpower. The main objectives of managed democracy are to increase the profits of large corporations, dismantle the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health services, public housing and so forth), and roll back the social and political ideals of the New Deal. Its primary tool is privatization. Managed democracy aims at the "selective abdication of governmental responsibility for the well-being of the citizenry" under cover of improving "efficiency" and cost-cutting.

.....

One other subordinate task of managed democracy is to keep the citizenry preoccupied with peripheral and/or private conditions of human life so that they fail to focus on the widespread corruption and betrayal of the public trust. In Wolin's words, "The point about disputes on such topics as the value of sexual abstinence, the role of religious charities in state-funded activities, the question of gay marriage, and the like, is that they are not framed to be resolved. Their political function is to divide the citizenry while obscuring class differences and diverting the voters' attention from the social and economic concerns of the general populace." Prominent examples of the elite use of such incidents to divide and inflame the public are the Terri Schiavo case of 2005, in which a brain-dead woman was kept artificially alive, and the 2008 case of women and children living in a polygamous commune in Texas who were allegedly sexually mistreated.

Another elite tactic of managed democracy is to bore the electorate to such an extent that it gradually fails to pay any attention to politics. Wolin perceives, "One method of assuring control is to make electioneering continuous, year-round, saturated with party propaganda, punctuated with the wisdom of kept pundits, bringing a result boring rather than energizing, the kind of civic lassitude on which managed democracy thrives." The classic example is certainly the nominating contests of the two main American political parties during 2007 and 2008, but the dynastic "competition" between the Bush and Clinton families from 1988 to 2008 is equally relevant. It should be noted that between a half and two-thirds of qualified voters have recently failed to vote, thus making the management of the active electorate far easier. Wolin comments, "Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism." It remains to be seen whether an Obama candidacy can reawaken these apathetic voters, but I suspect that Wolin would predict a barrage of corporate media character assassination that would end this possibility.

....

Foreign military operations literally force democracy to change its nature: "In order to cope with the imperial contingencies of foreign war and occupation," according to Wolin, "democracy will alter its character, not only by assuming new behaviors abroad (e.g., ruthlessness, indifference to suffering, disregard of local norms, the inequalities in ruling a subject population) but also by operating on revised, power-expansive assumptions at home. It will, more often than not, try to manipulate the public rather than engage its members in deliberation. It will demand greater powers and broader discretion in their use ('state secrets'), a tighter control over society's resources, more summary methods of justice, and less patience for legalities, opposition, and clamor for socioeconomic reforms."

Imperialism and democracy are, in Wolin's terms, literally incompatible, and the ever greater resources devoted to imperialism mean that democracy will inevitably wither and die. He writes, "Imperial politics represents the conquest of domestic politics and the latter's conversion into a crucial element of inverted totalitarianism. It makes no sense to ask how the democratic citizen could 'participate' substantively in imperial politics; hence it is not surprising that the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates. No major politician or party has so much as publicly remarked on the existence of an American empire."*

==============================


* Although it should be noted several academics have expressed support for such a project in glowing terms.  For examples, see Niall Ferguson, Michael Ignatieff and Frederick Kagan. [Cain]

I find these patterns fascinating, if somewhat futile in their predictions.

=========================

Saecular theory (Strauss & Howe)

1. High -- a spring of extreme conformity, communal focus, large-scale planning and building, economic security, institution-building, and extreme optimism. What was once radical now becomes firmly codified establishment dogma throughout the culture. As it ends, people become more sophisticated and curious about the world. (1945-1964)

2. Awakening -- a summer of social experimentation, expansion of individual rights, inner-directed growth, devaluation of old establishment institutions, emergence of a new set of social ideals. Old dogma is destroyed; and the dominant values and aspirations of the next era emerge before disillusionment eventually sets in. (1890-1910, 1964-1980)

3. Unraveling -- an autumn of institutional and infrastructure neglect, culture wars, economic bubbles, sex scandals, drug prohibitions, fanatic religious movements, political corruption, runaway corporatism, and general decadence. With the old consensus intellectually, economically, culturally, and physically in tatters, things begin to fall apart, preparing the way for the new. (1910-1929, 1980-2001)

4. Crisis -- a winter in which the world is politically, economically, and physically (and usually violently) remade, with a new establishment and new institutions built around the ideals and values that emerged during the previous Awakening. Individual rights are at low ebb. Attention is outer-directed as communal priorities, teamwork, and conformity re-emerge, and people re-engage with the larger society. (1773-1794, 1844-1865, 1929-1945, 2001-2020?)

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

Marxist theory of history

In a broad outline, Marx recognized seven distinct epochs of human history, each corresponding to a particular mode of production:

1. The Foraging Mode of Production. Marx himself called this mode "primitive communism". Human society is seen as organized in traditional tribe structures, typified by shared production and consumption of the entire social product. As no permanent surplus product is produced, there is also no possibility of a ruling class coming into existence. As this mode of production lacks differentiation into classes, it is said to be classless. Palaeolithic and Neolithic tools, pre- and early-agricultural production, and rigorous ritualized social control have often been said to be the typifying productive forces of this mode of production. However, the foraging mode of production still exists, and often typified in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies. Past theories of the foraging mode of production have focused on lack of control over food production (Meillassoux, 1973). More recent scholarship has argued that hunter-gatherers use the foraging mode of production to maintain a specific set of social relations that, perhaps controversially, are said to emphasize egalitarianism and the collective appropriation of resources (Tim Ingold, 1987, 1988; Robert Kelly, 1995).

2. The Asiatic mode of production. This is a controversial contribution to Marxist theory, initially used to explain pre-slave and pre-feudal large earthwork constructions in China, India, the Euphrates and Nile river valleys (and named on this basis of the primary evidence coming from greater "Asia"). The Asiatic mode of production is said to be the initial form of class society, where a small group extracts social surplus through violence aimed at settled or unsettled band communities within a domain. Exploited labour is extracted as forced corvee labour during a slack period of the year (allowing for monumental construction such as the pyramids, ziggurats, ancient Indian communal baths or the Chinese Great Wall). Exploited labour is also extracted in the form of goods directly seized from the exploited communities. The primary property form of this mode is the direct religious possession of communities (villages, bands, hamlets) and all those within them. The ruling class of this society is generally a semi-theocratic aristocracy which claims to be the incarnation of gods on earth. The forces of production associated with this society include basic agricultural techniques, massive construction and storage of goods for social benefit (granaries).

3. The classical mode of production. It is similar to the Asiatic mode, but differentiated in that the form of property is the direct possession of individual human beings. Additionally, the ruling class usually avoids the more outlandish claims of being the direct incarnation of a god, and prefers to be the descendants of gods, or seeks other justifications for its rule. Ancient Greek and Roman societies are the most typical examples of this mode. The forces of production associated with this mode include advanced (two field) agriculture, the extensive use of animals in agriculture, and advanced trade networks.

4. The feudal mode of production. It is usually typified by high feudalism in Western Europe. The primary form of property is the possession of land in reciprocal contract relations: the possession of human beings as peasants or serfs is dependent upon their being entailed upon the land. Exploitation occurs through reciprocated contract (though ultimately resting on the threat of forced extractions). The ruling class is usually a nobility or aristocracy. The primary forces of production include highly complex agriculture (two, three field, lucerne fallowing and manuring) with the addition of non-human and non-animal power devices (clockwork, wind-mills) and the intensification of specialisation in the crafts--craftsmen exclusively producing one specialised class of product.

5. The capitalist mode of production. It is usually associated with modern industrial societies. The primary form of property is the possession of objects and services through state guaranteed contract. The primary form of exploitation is wage labour (see Das Kapital, wage slavery and exploitation). The ruling class is the bourgeoisie, which exploits the proletariat. Capitalism may produce one class (bourgeoisie) who possess the means of production for the whole of society and another class who possess only their own labour power, which they must sell in order to survive. The key forces of production include the factory system, mechanised powered production, Taylorism, robotisation, bureaucracy and the modern state.

6. The socialist mode of production. Since this mode of production has not yet come into effect, its exact nature and whether it will exist remains debatable. Some theorists argue that prefiguring forms of socialism can be seen in voluntary workers' cooperatives, strike committees, labour unions, soviets and revolutions. The socialist mode of production is meant to be a society based on workers' control of all production, with a property form equating consumption with productive labour. The key forces of production are similar to those in capitalism, but changed in their nature due to workers' control and collective management. Additionally, the merging of mental and manual labour is meant to increase the level of productivity and quality of the productive forces. The primary ruling class of this mode is meant to be the working class. The primary form of exploitation is meant to be self-exploitation - in other words, the exploitation of some people by others (the "exploitation of man by man") is meant to be abolished.

7. The communist mode of production. Since it refers to the far future, it is a highly debated theoretical construct. Some theorists argue that prefiguring forms of communism can be seen in communes and other collective living experiments. Communism is meant to be a classless society, with the management of things replacing the management of people. Particular productive forces are not described, but are assumed to be more or less within the reach of any contemporary capitalist society. Despite the imminent potential of communism, some economic theorists have hypothesised that communism is more than a thousand years away from full implementation while others argue that it will never be realized at all.

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

Illuminati theory of history

The first stage, Verwirrung or chaos, is the point from which all societies begin and to which they all return. It is, so to speak, the natural condition of humanity—an estimation which the reader can confirm by closely observing his neighbors (or, if he has the necessary objectivity, himself).

The second stage, Zweitracht, begins with the appearance of a ruling or governing class. This is the Antithesis of chaos, of course, and leads directly into discord when the servile class discovers that its interests are not the same as the interests of the ruling class.

The third stage, Unordnung or confusion, occurs when an attempt is made to restore balance or arrive at the Hegelian Synthesis.

The fourth stage, Beamtenherrschaft or bureaucracy, represents the Parentheses that occur when the Hegelian Synthesis does not succeed in reconciling the opposites.

The fifth stage, Grummet or aftermath, represents the transition back to chaos. Bureaucracy chokes in its own paperwork; mind is at the end of its tether; in desperation, many begin to deny the logogram and follow the biogram, with varying degrees of success.

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

The Classical Greek conception, via Hesiod


The Golden Age is the only age that falls within the rule of Cronus. It is said that men lived among the gods, and freely mingled with them. Peace and harmony prevailed during this age. Humans did not have to work to feed themselves, for the earth provided food in abundance. They lived to a very old age but with a youthful appearance and eventually died peacefully. Their spirits live on as "guardians". Plato in Cratylus (397 e) recounts the golden race of men who came first. He clarifies that Hesiod did not mean men literally made of gold, but good and noble. He describes these men as daemons upon the earth. Since δαίμονες (daimones) is derived from δαήμονες (daēmones) (=knowing or wise), they are beneficent, preventing ills, and guardians of mortal men.

The Silver Age and every age that follows fall within the rule of Cronus' successor and son, Zeus. Humans in the Silver age lived for one hundred years as infants. They lived only a short time as grown adults, and spent that time in strife with one another. During this Age humans refused to worship the gods; Zeus destroyed this race for its impiety. After death, humans of this age became "blessed spirits" of the underworld.

Men of the Bronze Age were hard. War was their purpose and passion. Not only arms and tools, but their very homes were forged of bronze. The men of this age were undone by their own violent ways and left no named spirits but dwell in the "dank house of Hades".

The Heroic Age is the one age that does not correspond with any metal. It is also the only age that improves upon the age it follows. In this period lived noble demigods and heroes. It was the heroes of this Age who fought at Thebes and Troy. This race of humans died and went to Elysium.

Hesiod finds himself in the Iron Age. During this age humans live an existence of toil and misery. Children dishonor their parents, brother fights with brother and the social contract between guest and host (xenia) is forgotten. During this age might makes right, and bad men use lies to be thought good. At the height of this age, humans no longer feel shame or indignation at wrongdoing; babies will be born with gray hair and the gods will have completely foresaken humanity: "there will be no help against evil."


More?

I've been going through the book again with a pen and notepad, trying to get some of the ideas presented within to their most basic level, hopefully to create a short, scepticism guide for the tl/p/o;dr crowd.  Here is Part One.

=============================


What you don't know is far more relevant than what you do.

Being unexpected is what gives the Black Swan its impact.

'Experts' are no better at making predictions than anyone else – only at using technical jargon to maintain a plausible narrative.

Planning does not work, however allowing people to tinker and experiment and get rewarded for fortunate accidents does.

We learn specifically from a Black Swan event.  They do not help us generate metarules.

Recursive events (events that cause other events, feedback loops) are key to creating Black Swans and maintaining complexity.

There are few rewards or recognition for acts of prevention.

Platonicity:  what happens when we mistake the map for the territory, the abstract for the real, the neat concepts for the messy reality.  Potentially useful, but limited and have random and unforeseen side effects when they do fail (Anerstic Delusion).

Sterile scepticism: talk is cheap, talk about language problems, philosophy and pseudo-scepticism that plays around with word definitions to eliminate the problems of randomness are even cheaper.

Stories replace stories.  You need a better narrative to replace a bad or ineffective one.

The triplet of opacity:  everyone thinks they know more than they do, they assess history retroactively (hindsight is 20/20) and the over evaluation of factual information and "authoritative" persons.

History jumps, it does not crawl or steadily progress.

People will cluster around the same framework of analyses, no matter how non-factual or temporary these frameworks are.  This is a result of pathological categorization – wanting to put people in boxes to explain their behaviour.

Events fall into one of two domains: Extremistan or Mediocristan.  Events in Mediocristan are scalable and basically predictable.  Randomness is mild, it usually falls within the ranges of a Bell Curve.  In Extremistan, events are non-scalable and much more extreme.  Usually, Mediocristan events are those related to biology (for example, height) whereas those related to Extremistan are socially based (income, or book sales).

Inductive logic is for suckers: working from particulars to general rules is a recipe for disaster.  Past indicators are not a guarantee of future performance.

The Black Swan is a problem relative to expectation and lack of knowledge.  Those most certain of the future are the most likely to get tripped up and fall flat on their face.

Most people, given the choice, will choose to believe they live in Mediocristan, even when the evidence shows they do not.

Knowledge is domain specific: we have problems translating abstract classroom knowledge into real world applications.  Equally, we can easily navigate a social situation which, when presented as a logical problem, totally confounds us.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  No evidence of disease is not the same as there being no disease, and just because we do not know the function of something does not mean it has no function.

Corroborative facts cannot tell us what is true, only what is false.  Negative empiricism is superior to naïve empiricism, where one can 'prove' anything with facts.  A negative hypothesis is needed, falsification is needed.

Confirmation bias – we only look for evidence that supports our beliefs.

The narrative fallacy – we like to invent causes for events, even where none exist.  We put explanations and an element of causality into a sequence of facts.  Post hoc rationalization of events without meaning are common.

Narratives allow us to ignore the unusual.

Dopamine will lower your critical thinking abilities: you'll become susceptible to all sorts of fads, such as New Age mysticism, tarot cards or economic forecasts from a lack of it.

Information is costly to obtain – the more random the information the harder it is to store.  Hence stories allow us to store more information, but with the downside of a loss of appreciation of the true randomness present.

Both art and science are symptomatic of our need to reduce complexity and inflict basic order on human existence.

People can and will hold incompatible and disparate beliefs based on the same factual evidence.

In the absence of other information, we will rely on stereotypes or even complete nonsense to explain events.

There are two types of Black Swan, the narrated and the truly unexpected.  The narrated Black Swan is an overrated and hyped rare event, the true Black Swan is not talked about.

We are biologically constructed to seek small, yet repeatable and sustainable rewards. 

The Black Swan is an asymmetry of consequences – either positive or negative.

You can either be a sucker, and run blindly into the danger you didn't know was there – or you can slowly bleed in the face of dangers you knew existed while hoping that it will lead to a pay-off that is worth it.

Silent evidence: often we are mislead by the sample in any experiment, because we do not take into account those who failed to be counted (the dead supplicants fallacy).

The survivor bias: we work from the fact someone survived to find the secret of their success, but in reality the fact that they survived is the secret of their success.  People do not write about or promote knowledge of their failures.

The Ludic fallacy: life is not like a game.  The sources of uncertainty are not well defined, the "rules of the game" are not totally apparent.  If you treat life like a game, where you know all the rules, the unknown and unexpected will hit you like a truck.