Fw: 6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes.

[Steve Kinney]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/10/2016 02:52 PM, xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:
>> In a real fight the only rule is to end it by the fastest,
>> safest means available.
> 
> Safest for whom? I assume that, finding yourself in a fight, and
> knocked about the jaw a few times, that you'd choose not to simply
> grab your adversary by the head and crack his skull onto a fence
> pole or something to immediately kill him?

If my assailant can reach my jaw, I can reach his eyes, trachea,
gonads, knees, shins and metatarsals.  Why should I let him hit me at
all, much less over and over, is a bit of a mystery...

> Fast, and surely safer for you than messing about. But then we
> have..
> 
>> Winners create and exploit every possible advantage:  They lie,
>> cheat, take every advantage and the fewest risks possible while
>> giving their adversaries no chance at all.
> 
> So you would just crack the dude's head on the fence pole then?
> That's what "winners" do?

In a real fight, the winners are those who walked away intact - and
ideally that includes the aggressor.  I have only been assaulted three
times; and three times, both myself and my assailant walked away
physically unharmed.  Just lucky I guess.

> I suppose it depends on what you're trying to win. This certainly
> the way the players look at thingson a battlefield, and in finance.
> It probably, even, scales down to the board game Monopoly.
> 
> But there are other games. And your contention about it NOT being a
> game, just shows you're not acquainted with games. Doesn't mean
> people aren't playing for keeps. It might be a zero-sum game.
> 
> Still just a game. And there are still better ones.

In a game there are agreed rules, and participation is voluntary.  In
an assault, there will be one or more assailants, and one or more
intended victims who did not agree to participate.  In a game, the
object is to win.  In a fight, the object is to stop the assault.

Game theory is a branch of mathematics that attempts to model natural
processes; it has numerous applications in combat, but combat is not a
game:  At any scale, combat is the process of an assault in progress.  "

I prefer terms like "systems dynamics" rather than "games" in this
context, because the word "games" has way too many loaded connotations.

> And in any event, with an attitude like that I certainly wouldn't
> want to join an 'organization' that you're at the helm of.

In the political organizations I participate in, decisions are made by
consensus and specific tasks necessary to carry out those decisions
are delegated to volunteers.  A trusted facilitator has some influence
but no real power.

The 10/90 rule states that in voluntary organizations, 10% of the
participants do 90% of the work; it's a fairly accurate estimator.  If
enough of that 10% gets pissed off and walks out, the organization
falls over; that is the real power structure I have seen in the field,
and it is a reasonably healthy one.

> How you 'win' is as important as 'what' you win. This is not some 
> namby-pamby point of moralism on my part. It is a matter of
> strategy for attaining the goal. Because an organization of people
> that worked, and operated, according to the principles of "winning"
> that you're espousing -- if successful, would simply become the new
> gang in town themselves.

If the neighborhood committee should happen to turn predatory, oh
well, at least the other locals will have a fresh historical example
of how to deal with the problem.

>> Individual, uncoordinated acts of sabotage and non-cooperation
>> can not defeat a criminal gang that owns and controls a
>> neighborhood.
> 
> Coordination is one thing. There is no 'organization' needed to
> coordinate a flash mob. Send out the email or txt message alerts.
> People show up, or don't.

I can't remember an example of a flash mob that accomplished a
political political objective.  Flash mobs garnered some publicity
when the fad was still going on, but publicity is a tool, not an
objective.  All wishful thinking aside, knowing better does not make
things better - just "getting the word out" accomplishes nothing in
politics unless followed up immediately with organized action.  Maybe
that's why the "flash mob" thing came, saw, and left.

> Creating organizations, as implied in the quote in your pic, is
> something altogether different. _An_ organization, to me, implies
> not just some coordination / communication amongst freely
> associating individuals, but a system of control, which dictates
> from leaders to subordinates. Little fish do things they don't want
> to do in order to climb the ladder and get to boss around little
> fish. There is a flow of information, and orders, from top to
> bottom. *THIS* is _an_ organization.

An organization is an instance of "organic" cooperation toward shared
goals, with coordinated division of functions among the participants.
 The definition as a system where dictates flow from leaders to
subordinates seems pathological to me.  Homey don't play that.

> There is no way to go rid of "criminal gangs" by creating more
> criminal gangs. Which, is all such organizations can, or will
> become. All organizations, companies, governments and so on, once
> they get large enough, become effectively organized crime.
> 
> Power corrupts. Create powerful organizations? You're just
> creating effective mechanisms for corruption.

When an organization's power is established and maintained by violent
means that organization is already terminally corrupt.  It may grow
larger and more powerful, it may deploy more overt and larger scale
forms of violence, but it will not become more corrupt.

When an organization's power is established and maintained by mutual
aid in unified resistance to violence, that organization will be
inherently resistant to corruption, more so if it proves itself
competent by acquiring real power by using nonviolent force successfully
.

Humans are, collectively, a major pain in the ass.  If you insist that
any organization with humans in it must be foolproof, you must insist
that there BE no organizations - as apparently stated above.

But no organization means no power.  No power means no results, and no
push-back from violent institutions protecting their turf from
competitors.  And it seems to me that the potential push-back is what
keeps people glued to their sofas watching stage managed political
events on TV, rather than turning out to create political events of
their own in real life.

:o/
















-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX/AwNAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqEj4IAJH0sp8g/vLG/bQyS7cSj116
CjGtGSld6318bSns3DW3Epsz1thT3IOOwtJ1Fc7An6kauP4KpxaosMNN7O1PAJ22
ZxgCLnKzOR4b4zjIU0YTlrkJAaEzs2PU0CkGyvjnRlps0G+PYHizZ7Ca+DlGFgCP
hsmI/PwD7879+rcyBzJJvwzMKPjMxfHLGkk1WrxSHtLc8aXJlLJUyKo9tRSneB01
9KSKUEBIdsmkSqJq+wXAExAxV/4itAcWxr+K3yRB3L0eS9Mkm5IFiOjPHPM9zpbV
yW0Bi/5xHp3IRXI+5kIJveXCM6KEYJa+GKstx7puTRBY3MEz4Mq++VQtQaqQrU8=
=w9hS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----