‘Affect’ is generally defined as ‘emotion’, and philosophically defined as ‘the ability to affect and be affected’. One has ‘affection’ for someone or something. Two of the most powerful modes of affect are love and rage, polarized, yet intertwined. One can ‘kill in a heat of passion’, a phrase that implies both love and rage as the motivator of action.

Technology is considered to be an extension of our bodies, by both philosophers of technology and neuroscientists. When we use a simple tool, our brains begin to treat it as a new part of our body. Technology can be said to be ‘prosthetic’. However, one should avoid a rationalist bias and not see technology as merely an extension of our rationality. Technology is just as much an extension of our animal passions – affect – love and rage.

Understanding the relationship between our animal selves and technology becomes more difficult when we begin to discuss more complex tools such as communication technology. Marshall McLuhan referred to such technologies as extensions of our nervous system. A global network as an extension of a collective nervous system is a complex animal indeed.

There are many examples one could choose to explore such concepts: long-distance relationships, warfare, economic transactions, etc. I have chosen American football.

A game of professional football has evolved into an incredibly complex technological situation. Communication technologies and human passions form a system in which affect is constantly being modulated, not just for the players on the field, but the fans.

When watching the New Orleans’ Saints games this season, one can observe that the team and fans seem to be coming from a place of love, forming an affective feedback loop of positive feelings. However, football requires the modulation of rage, and games are not without their outbursts in which rage can no longer be contained by the technological system. Nevertheless, the prevailing affect appears to be one of solidarity. 

Crowd noise has played a crucial role in the Saints’ wins inside of the Superdome. During the defense portions of the game, the crowd took advantage of the reflective walls of an indoor stadium by making enough noise to interfere with the visiting team’s communication technology. To no avail, Brett Favre used earplugs to improve his team’s communication technology. A technological response to a disadvantage is not uncommon, but in this particular case, noise won out. The crowd and the team form a feedback loop of larger than life communication, much like the Zerg race in Starcraft who benefit from their numbers and ability to swarm.

The philosopher Michel Serres plays off of the meanings of the French word for ‘parasite’ in his book The Parasite. The word simultaneously means parasite, host, and noise. For him, “the parasite invents cybernetics”. Noise is always a message in a communication system. Noise, like communication technologies, may play off of the rage our primitive brains, but it can also be an expression of love and solidarity.

The power of crowds was evidenced at the end of the last game, when cell phone networks were jammed by their immediate use by masses of people just after the climactic end of the game. But, that is all I can say about it for now. I think I’ve got something in my eye.

Now, don’t mistake me. The show in question is utter fucking trash. V, as the title simply stands, is a science fiction drama about an alien race that comes to Earth purportedly in peace but in reality has dire intentions for mankind.

It has been talked about nigh-everywhere online at this point about the absolutely obvious parallels between the “evil aliens” and the presidency of Barack Obama. The aliens call spreading their message “spreading hope and change” calling upon the most recognized words of Obama’s campaign. By the end of the episode, the aliens have revealed they have advanced medical technology, and they plan to install “healing centers” in every city in the world, for free. Essentially, they want to offer Universal Healthcare. A group of conspiracy theorists who are “in the know” about the aliens, reveal that they plan to use this plan for healing everyone to take over the world.

I am dead serious. If this show doesn’t come off as some neo-con’s wet dream, I don’t know what does.

Now, leaving politics aside in relation to this show (which is difficult, considering television media’s response to Bush’s policies was to create 24, a show about how tearing the Constitution and Geneva Conventions to shreds was the best possible thing in the world.), I want to focus on the subject of conspiracy theorists and their role in non-linear history.

One of the biggest points we have to make about history’s essential non-linearity is that the future is completely unpredictable. This seems like a very basic idea, but it also often seems lost on many who would essentially agree.

“The future is unpredictable.”
“Yes, that is true.”
“However, you are absolutely sure that within 10 months the Bilderberg group is going to use financial powerhouses such as Goldman Sach’s to overthrow our government and institute a New World Order.”
“Well yeah! Don’t you see the writing on the wall etc etc etc…”

Why, especially in Western society, do we often perceive history as this ultimate endpoint that is being worked towards. That some event or cataclysm will be the solution and things will be okay and we won’t have to worry about the future anymore.

Where does this, shall we say, perseverance for the future come from? In political campaigns like Obama’s we see it. Selling the idea of working together for a “brighter future.” To what end? How does staying ahead technologically secure the future? Does the future of the planet change because we are the most powerful nation?

The answer is, of course: No.

So, where does conspiracy theory fit into all of this?

Well, I find conspiracy theorists very interesting because they are almost like self-negating prophecies. The fact that a conspiracy theory exists is a testament to individual thought. Billions of people all with individual thought will not be easily subjugated by an extremely small group of people. So, through conspiracy theory, we have a group of people who are convinced there are plots by shadowy forces to take over the world. However, by simply expressing such a theory, they are showing that such plots will have little luck in the real world because people already suspect such a thing from the outset and will have nothing to do with it. If such tactics were attempted to be used, such massive amounts of rioting would occur as to destabilize most of the civilized world. Prophecy negated.

This isn’t to say I don’t think there are people who are playing with power. As we know from Nietzsche and Foucault, power relations are some of the most basic tenets of human social interaction. On some level, we all seek to exert power over one another, in whatever capacity we have the ability to.

So, there are definitely groups who want to abuse their status and power.

The funny thing is, you can’t really call most of them conspiracies.

Consider Dick Cheney. Straight up evil motherfucker. He was heavily involved with PNAC (Project for the New American Century), which had no problem stating that they believed the best course of action in the modern world was for America to start World War 3 and take over the rest of the civilized world in one fell swoop.

Consider a recent memo from Citi that leaked online. In it, Citi theorists discussed how soon there is going to be much more plutocracy in the world. The world is quickly moving towards more plutocracy than ever, they described, and went on to describe how to survive financially in a heavily plutocratic world. They clearly defined practices to profit from plutocracy.

Consider something much older: from the bowels of the McCarthy hearings of the 1950’s, during investigations of the likes of the Ford Institute and the Carnegie Foundation, we learn that as early as 1910, such private educational institutions planned to move the country towards more socialism sympathetic policies by influencing the education system.

This isn’t conspiracy theory because we are being told exactly what they plan to do. How is that conspiracy? That is just plain being honest. The people involved also think its in the best interests of the people they hold interest in, so they think its not inherently evil.

Not only that, but in reference to the socialist ideals of groups like the Carnegie Foundation, when a new head of the foundation is chosen, most of the original ideology of such a foundation can (and definitely was) lost. Much of what was found in reference to their socialist agenda was minutes of meetings from 40 years before the investigative trial. Most of the staff of the foundations at that time were young, eager, and had no knowledge of such plans. As such, they let congressional investigators search the minutes of early foundation meetings without worry, because they had no idea whether or not such things existed in the minutes themselves.

Ah, 1910, a great year for socialism in America.

2009, and evil aliens are offering socialized medicine.

Somehow, I don’t think the “conspiracy” really panned out.

So not only do we have “conspiracies” with the inability to come to fruition over time (and an example of one that has proven that the exact opposite of what was planned has occurred), we also have the fact that these activities are far from conspiratorial because they are simply not hidden.

The super villains behind such machinations are much like a James Bond villain, divulging every juicy detail of their master plan to take over the world to our hero, Mr. Bond, right at the pinnacle of the film. Bond uses his savvy and know-how to destroy the plan.

However, in reality, the absolute menacing size of the population of the world makes it nearly impossible to pull off any such power grab, no heroes needed.

—

Quickly, back to Obama. I can almost see our villain now…

“Do you expect me to talk?”
“No Mr. Beck, I expect you to have socialized medicine pay for your Appendicitis treatment!”

“Beck. Glenn Beck. Martini, no salt. I salt it with my tears.”

During the G20 protests, we saw the first use against civilians of the LRAD sound weapons.

Apparently this is “change we can believe in.”

Now, politics aside, I am slightly frustrated at the outrage over this issue, not because I think using weaponized sound is a good thing, but more because I see multiple ways in which to disrupt/defuse such tactics.

Compared to getting shot with rubber bullets, responding to sonic cannons seems like child’s play.

To begin with, a simple way to deal with the use of sonic cannons without making a physical response would be to buy earplugs and cover your ears with tight fitting, sound dampening headphones, further drowning out the sound to an at least bearable volume. Also, learn to communicate using sign language, which allows you and fellow protesters to be essentially “deaf” throughout the process but still able to communicate freely.

However, if you really want to get things cooking, show up in a truck with your own sound system. Get someone who is equipped with earplugs and headphones wired with a wireless mic and get them close enough to the sonic cannon to be able to get a good sample of the sound emanating from it. Have the wireless mic wired into a laptop, and have your laptop invert the soundwave, and play it back at the loudest volume possible, directly back at the sonic cannon. As the sonic cannon seems to be a repeating sound, like a car alarm, you don’t even need a very long sample, nor a long time to invert the sample. As long as you can sync the inverted sound with the origin sound, the inverted sound wave will cancel out the origin soundwave, defusing the sonic cannon entirely.

The question in that situation is, though, are they able to cite you for breaking noise ordinances? Perhaps they could, but it is likely you would be able to fight such a charge in court since they, in turn, were breaking noise ordinances themselves.

Remember kids, a hack-a-day keeps the fascist technology at bay.

1.) Does there have to be a reason?/Can there be a reason?
2.) If so, is there a reason?
3.) If there is a reason, what is it?

We have to start with the first question, and depending on that answer we may or may not move on to the second… similarly for the third question.

 These are not easy questions.

 If there can be no reason, then I suppose the people who say there is no reason are correct and we can stop there, each of us content with simply trying to make comfortable in our minds the very reason that there can be no reason (which seems to me like something that might actually be understandable, and the end of the regression of Why’s). If those people are incorrect however, then are the remaining questions themselves by their nature impossible to answer or are they simply too difficult to have been answered by any human in history? Or have they been answered, and if so where is this mofo who has the answers? And if they are impossible, is it because of our perspective as part of the universe itself, or because of some other reason? If some other reason, what would that be? If on the other hand they are not impossible questions, but too difficult for anyone to have answered thus far, will someone or something eventually answer them? If so, who or what will that person or thing be, and when will it happen? Also, if it is possible to understand the answer, and someone or something does provide the answer, will the Illops personally have enough intelligence to understand it?

A while back I watched the old animated version of Horton Hears a Who with Laurel. I remember being particularly moved by the story and Laurel even cried a little. The Whos’ struggle to be heard and Horton’s efforts to save them from a doom brought on by their obscurity really highlighted a myriad of social injustices. Homosexual civil rights, class warfare, healthcare tragedies, etc. are often ignored by the good while the evil people of the world tramp all over them. We should all strive to “hear a Who.”
Not long after watching it, though, I began to think that it could have been intended as an anti-abortion story especially with the oft-repeated line “A person is a person, no matter how small.” I began to wonder if one of the beloved Dr. Seuss classics was actually just a pro-life whining session. The book was written in 1954 but the “abortion debate” is a lot older than some of us realize.
No worries though, a little internet research cleared that shit right up. It seems that Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) was inspired by the mistreatment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII and the post WWII US occupation of Japan. He even dedicated the book to a Japanese friend of his. Given the original sentiments of the story I’m sure he intended to highlight the abuse and exploitation of all the world’s downtrodden minorities.
Of course, I wasn’t the only one to notice the apparent apt-ness of this story in relation to the abortion debate and pro-lifers everywhere have taken up the mantra “A person is a person, no matter how small.” to support their case. Even though I had settled the question of the original intention I still wondered how Seuss would react to this usage of his work. Alas, the internet has come to rescue once again. Philip Nel is a Seuss biographer and according to him Seuss threatened pro-life groups with a lawsuit for using his words on their stationery. Audrey Geisel, Seuss’ widow, even said that the good doctor did not approve of these groups using his words to support their point of view.

Well there, it’s ok with Dr. Seuss if you kill your fetus.

Personal anecdote/testimony: I, a resident of Louisiana, get frustrated and short-tempered during the summer. I hate being hot. I hate walking around sweating and having to deal with shit while I’m hot, especially when there are mosquitos present. In the winter I just want to stay inside and comfortably read and play video games.

Seriously, is there something to this? Does this have anything to do with aggression? Do Eskimos have wars? And if Africa got cold, would anyone act differently? I’m not trying to claim anything here. I just wonder if there’s something to it.

Recently, in a fit of desperation to find people I could converse about the incessant maelstrom of thoughts which inhabit my skull, I created a flier for a philosophy reading group. Luckily enough, four eager participants showed up to the first meeting, and hopefully soon enough we will be on our way to weekly discussions of a near anarchically chosen set of reading material.

What struck me in this situation was how giddy two of the members got over the idea of having “homework.” This was the specific word used to describe our first set of defined reading. Even though this reading group is essentially unstructured, the immediate association with the kind of material we are delving into is that of academia.

Then, in just the last few days, I was conversing with a friend with whom I had not spoken to in many months. She commented on how I remind her of another friend of hers in some ways, as we both speak as though we are still in college. We both consider everyday situations through a thoroughly “academic” lens.

After some postulation, I have to say, I think I may very well be offended by this very idea. Why must my speech patterns and desire to research be immediately associated with being in an educational institution. At what point can we even say how much of what I do is directly related to being in academia? Those who attended college with me would recall a very lazy and shiftless individual, often doing the bare minimum to get by. Why then, when I actually give a damn about something enough to research it, to be invested in desiring knowledge of it, and to be able to speak eloquently and intelligently about it, why must it be associated with academia?

I bemoan a society in which the very idea of critical thinking just being something someone might do just because they care to is considered out of the ordinary and must be somehow tied to education. Certainly, to learn is to be educated, but not all education is gleaned from academia, and not all knowledge is able to be conveyed in books.

So, to the idea that I seem as though I consider myself to be an academic, I say this:

BALDERDASH.

So, we are introduced to the Anti-sec Movement. The question I immediately ask myself upon reading this is: are they considering the over-arching implications of destroying Full Disclosure? Are they merely hackers who are upset at script kiddies, who encroach upon their own elite hierarchy? Do they have motives other than simply destroying the current Security-Information Complex?

To begin with, the fear-mongering of the Security-Information Complex seems like a moot point to the current generation. While they use fear to induce the older generation to buy unnecessary anti-virus programs, firewalls, etc., most of the current generation knows that if they need such protection, they can achieve similar ends with either Open Source, or they can simply turn to hacking groups who have invariably produced “cracked” versions of popular anti-virus programs/firewalls/etc., effectively making them free. So, the fear ingrained in those who do not understand the technology is summarily not ingrained in the current generation, who scoff at the fear tactics of the Security-Information Complex.

Secondly, the fear-mongering used by the Security-Information Complex is not only used to sell products to unassuming consumers, even more often it is used to sell scare-tactics to government agencies, often producing reports for governments with scary stories such as a “digital Hurricane Katrina.” Using such damning language to describe such situations to a group which barely understands the technology, they are able to make massive affect in how current governance’s are responding to the internet and information technology and management. So, the consumer is not the only group affected by this situation by far.

As for their proposal that Full Disclosure needs to be eliminated to create a truly secure “white hat” Security-Information Complex, disallowing the festering masses access to such dangerous material. Do they really consider this material dangerous, or are they simply sick of script kiddies stealing their thunder by using their exploits? Do they want to stem the dissemination of information truly to stop corporate exploitation of security fears or is it more tied to a desire to regain the elite status of early hacking communities? One cannot say for sure with the scarce amount of information we are presented with, but it seems that either way they have not considered the far-reaching effects of closing off this dissemination of information.

Returning for a moment to Anonymous and their effective tactics, we have to realize that Anonymous is not a group of elite hackers. In fact, they represent what Anti-sec wants to destroy, a movement of script-kiddies who find exploits readily available via Full Disclosure and use it for their nefarious activities of producing “epic lulz.”

I personally see this as an attack on our generation’s last bastion of hope for revolutionary change in 21st century governance. In the way that Marxism often expected too much of its citizens, requiring them to not only be skilled workers, but to also be skilled philosophers and governors in their own right, needing to be intimately involved in their own government at every level as well as being intimately involved in the production of usable resources/commodities; the Anti-sec movement would have us all need to not only be thoughtful, philosophical activists, but we would also all need to be intensely skilled hackers in our own right, making our own hacktivism coalitions just to be able to find our own set of exploits to be able to spread a message.

Without Full Disclosure, we would lose a huge lifeline to our generation in terms of being able to become activist “script-kiddies.” Just as Lenin learned that the masses cannot be expected to all be so adept at evolving their knowledge to create a functioning Marxist society, we must be ready to accept that without this information being freely available, we will not be able to expect our generation to become hacktivists and activate change through the exploitation of information security.

0.5 - The Fall of Empires, the Fall of Nations (the Rise of Digital Socialism?)

I fear the success of Anti-sec and how it could change the landscape of revolutionary political activity on the internet.

Just like how the printing press broke down barriers of dissemination of information lead to revolutions and the fall of the Empire and saw the rise of Democracy, the internet stands to have the ability to topple the notion of Nation and bring us into a new epoch of thought and government. We may not have another chance like this for our generation.

Will the internet follow its predecessor or will the battle for information control be quickly won by control instead of resistance?

We only have one solution if we truly want to “Recreate ‘68.” We must embrace the revolutionary spirit and philosophical background of the French worker/student movements in 1968 and use our skills to enable the true Electronic Revolution.