Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts

Monday 22 May 2023

Conspiracy Realist





The Telegraph's Meredith Walker, wrote an article yestereday corroborating the key points I made in my previous post. They are that when .GOV has an inconvenient human rights obstacle to remove, it cannot manufacture easily ignored mandates such as the lockdown rules broken by Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings, Sir Keir Starmer, Neil Ferguson (subsequently rewarded with an OBE), SNP MP Margaret Ferrier and Sir Gavin Williamson (Knighted for his efforts) among other Members of Parliament.


“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” ― Henry Kissinger


Here's the article.

During my two decades in tech I’ve seen governments manufacture public outrage to serve their desire for control more times than I can count. There’s a predictable pattern that starts with a complex social problem receiving widespread attention. Everyone acknowledges the gravity of the issue. There is a rush to “do something”. 


But “something” too often involves magical thinking and specious “solutions”. Frequently, technology is painted as both cause and solution. Problems are presented as existing “online” and thus their solution is framed as technological. This almost always involves some combination of expanding surveillance and curbing the fundamental human right to privacy and free expression. 


The Online Safety Bill is a perfect example. Under the pretext of protecting children, its provisions could lead to the implementation of government-mandated mass surveillance applications on every UK smartphone. These would scan every message you send. 


The opaque databases and error-prone AI technology that would power this surveillance regime could lead to the mass deplatforming of millions of people based on unreliable algorithmic systems. Such a system would also introduce vulnerabilities and flaws that would inevitably be exploited by hostile states and hackers. 


While politicians have denied for months that the Bill will break encryption, the Home Office has been quite clear that it believes end-to-end encryption is enabling child abuse on the internet. 


The cynicism of this argument is made clear when we recognise that the Government has reduced support for measures protecting children that seem more likely to work. Early intervention services spending was slashed by 50 per cent from 2011 to 2021; referrals to children’s social care rose 9 per cent in 2021-22 alone. 


There’s no way to square this with the idea that protecting children is the first priority, rather than a pretext for government-mandated mass surveillance.


As written, experts agree the Bill would nullify end-to-end encryption, which Signal and other apps use to ensure that only you and the people you’re talking to read your messages. 


This encryption is what stands between citizens and the criminals, scammers and (sometimes) regimes that would dearly love to have access to their innermost thoughts.


This would make Britain a global role model for repressive regimes. If the UK declares that it’s fine to surveil all communications, it will set a precedent others will follow. 


It will have written the playbook by which authoritarians around the world could justify similar systems, where phones could automatically report citizens to the government if they write “Hong Kong Democracy”, “Ukraine Invasion”, “LGBTQ resources” or whatever else a government decides to ban. Being the first country to mandate such systems would be a stain on Britain’s legacy. 


Whatever happens, Signal is committed to ensuring people everywhere have the ability to communicate privately. When the Iranian government blocked Signal, we recognized that the activists, journalists and citizens in Iran who needed privacy were not represented by the authoritarian state. We worked to set up proxies and other means to help them access Signal. 


If the Online Safety Bill is passed, we promise that we will do everything in our power to ensure that the British people have access to safe and private communications. But we will not undermine or compromise the commitments we have made to you, no matter what the Government says.


However bleak the prospect, I remain optimistic that it will not come to this. The cynical and unworkable reality of the Bill is becoming clearer, and well informed politicians are moving to remedy its most troubling provisions. 


The Online Safety Bill is part of a pattern. But it’s a pattern we can stop here. There are real measures that the Government can take to protect children and I sincerely hope that Parliament will look to address them, rather than stripping away privacy and other fundamental rights.


Meredith Whittaker is president of the Signal Foundation

Monday 5 December 2022

Sage of Quay - Skin In The Game




WoW - This is seminal internet dialogue, mediated by microphone and more.

It doesn't start to get sizzling until halfway, or as we like to say, why are we allowed to question orthodox history Churchill yet not Hitler?

Saturday 18 July 2020

Hollyweird - Obituary




It's been around 9 years since I first learned about the degeneracy and concentrated evil that props up Hollywood, or Hollyweird if you wish.

I had an inkling I might see the fall of the magic machine in my life. I hoped that would be coupled with exploding consciousness of the heinous practices that permeate the military, industrial, scientific, congressional and entertainment complex, but it was never a sure bet, and it has been a lonely journey.

Soul crushing for the greater part.

That's all changing now, and while it wont be on the horizon of mass media consumers, it will soon be on their doorstop and impossible to ignore.

I dedicate the Zapatilla track above to Hollywood and more importantly their unconscious consumers who are entertained to death for a wee while longer, as the gravity of how it really works sinks in.

Tuesday 5 November 2019

Jon Bercow, Keith Vaz & Frith Manor


I was shooting my mouth off earlier on Facebook-em-Danno, about John Bercow the corrupt former speaker of the house of commons. 

If he was a Christian or a Muslim I would publish the BREXIT plotting that all sides of the most divisive issue to tear the British people apart should demand to know, but there are limits to free speech. 

This doesn't mean, JB wasn't one of the most learned speakers in modern times. He knew his subject better than his adversaries and delivered it in that dazzling upper-class, Pompous-English cadence that wannabes like myself wouldn't mind being capable of, but I didn't attend a top school like Frith Manor in Woodside Park as John Simon Bercow did.

Now the thing about JB is that his BFF was Keith Vaz MP, so I searched my blog archives to see if I could illuminate the depths of whatever made both of these men completely untouchable by the most powerful levers of statecraft.

Just imagine my pearl-clutching and heart palpitations as I discovered that manipulation of my esteemed and generally ignored work had taken place? My blog post about Vaz had been kneecapped. 

I nearly fainted for an encore.... many of the cast spontaneously broke into tears and the audience looked like they collectively stood up to applause, as the curtain was drawn, but as we can't see a thing with the spotlights turned on us, it's about the feelz not audiencide eye-contact in the business.

Anyway, Vaz, or maybe even his mates 503'd the last of three posts about Keef On The Goa Vaz. Not because I called him oily in the headline... that's still there. 

The content is gone. 



I was itching to find out how I had triggered things, so I hit on an idea, and for the first time ever, I searched the waybackmachine to see what the archives said, as top journos in the United States had confidently informed me that all claims of meddling could be settled in this manner.


Hah, the good old days eh.

Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end.

Thursday 11 April 2019

Donald Trump Showers Praise on Wikileaks




We are now going to find out if Trump is treacherous to Julian Assange or if this is a very clever step in tightening the noose around the deep state occultists.

I'm not optimistic.

Only one thing is certain. 

The pseudo left will be silent or even celebrating.

As will the fake right.

Y'all make me sick.

Tuesday 16 January 2018

Security Violations



Not sure what's going on but all of my digital life has been monitored for years since I started to publish controversial information. 

In the old days unauthorised persons would go into my gmail account and change the layout and background colour in settings as a kind of calling card to let me know.

I'm not particularly worried about these latest warnings, but if you see anything that doesn't make sense, please let me know. My mobile number is +44 7466 705 882

Thank you.

Sunday 2 July 2017

Breaking: ISIS Is Down




ISIS uses the Roman Alphabet for abbreviation and so from this we knew the terrorist group is a British, US and Israeli "strategy of tension" intelligence creation. 

The Mossad Website has been down for about a week now (since I've been checking), so I thought I'd post a screen grab of the old site which openly flaunted its ISIS credentials. The video interview below is of two Israeli authors talking about how Mossad refers to itself as ISIS in communications. 

ISIS is also a the Egyptian Sister of the God Osiris which is an occult reference used by those in the know and not worth going into here. Most people have a very poor grasp of symbolism and mythology of the ruling elite despite it's ubiquitous presence in the statues and architecture in every continent on the planet.

Anyway ISIS is down and that's a good thing. I concur that as Kissinger leaked some years ago, Israel will not last as we know it. It seems at some point that Zionist Jews are going to be forced to learn that they have, are, and always will be willing dupes and patsies for whatever is in charge, until they learn to examine their own mythology creation such as the establishment of the State of Israel by the Rothschilds and the holocostly mythology with its banal chamber-gas that leaks everywhere but reality.

Choice is in their hands but I think I know a toxic and self destructing culture when I see it. The eternal victim complex is in my experience too attached to its story telling to saddle up and do the hard work.

Saturday 3 December 2016

Smells Like Teen Spirit Cooking - Big Data on #PizzaGate



#PizzaGate is the fastest and longest rising user-generated news topic on the internet. The corporate media are obliged to protect the politically powerful child abuse and trafficking networks in the US because like the UK Parliament and British media they are compromised and blackmailed too.

I salute the citizens of the United States for using the information researchers like I and many others published over the years to shame the British, who turned their back on the children. The sheer quantity of information and quality of videos being produced is unsurpassed in the history of the internet. It's a great day for people who care, and we can finally let go of those who have no business having opinions on anything other than their cat or food pics published on Instagram or Facebook.


Sunday 4 September 2016

Gab.ai CEO Andrew Torba & Censorship





During the 2014 genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, Israel bombed a civilian population targeting and murdering 500 Palestinian babies, infants, toddlers, children and minors.  I was being followed by an extra 500 new Twitter users a week as a news source on the topic. That number was kneecapped overnight and I knew that Twitter had fallen to the ubiquitous Zionist censorship that makes films like American Sniper and publishes news demonizing any voice that stands against it, such as Jeremy Corbyn.

I remained on Twitter and had 41,000 followers with a retweet count averaging a statistical reach of between 5-8 million Twitter users each month. I had a hundreds of verified followers including Hollywood film directors, Hollywood Scriptwriters, Globally famous journalists and influential people who chose to follow me anonymously but privately encouraged my work, which raised awareness of systemic child abuse (now scrubbed from Google Search) and the Zionist genocide of Palestinians. I was recognised as outing a number of powerful child rapists and shifting the narrative that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and has the most moral army.



It was only a matter of time before powerful forces including Sunday Newspaper editors, House of Lords nutjobs and a plethora of child abusing, Israel-supporting fan boys and girls managed to get me suspended with no reason provided by twitter.

I was alerted to the new free speech platform Gab.ai and registered immediately noting that there were 20,000 earlier applications than mine waiting for a beta user approval.

Fortunately I was approved in minutes and either they know how to profile influential social media users or someone has shared all the Twitter accounts that have been suspended in the last few months including the celebrity voice Milo who is also on GAB.ai

GAB is populated by a lot of Alt Right users so if you don't like free speech it's not the place for you. They welcome all people so I hope those who can handle views other than their own register to join but do be patient while they scale up. I'm not Alt Right. I like their maturity though.




Friday 6 June 2014

Wednesday 3 April 2013

How To Argue Online - Notes on Rhetoric


[n.b. Please use the comments box for suggested additions to these notes] In negotiating the so-called 'blogosphere' you will need to be aware of certain obligatory rhetorical tools with which to rebut opponents. The following are a few I have noted at random, and can be used in comments boxes or when critiquing a publication: 


A priori - your apriori supposition is that: ‘I operate by the clear light of reason, you according to preconceived notions’. You are using pure thought and evidence, your opponent is unthinkingly in thrall to canards, tired clichés, and various pieces of received wisdom. 

Always Psychologise - If your opponent criticises you more than once, he is evidently obsessed/ fixated by you, you are being stalked by him etc, his objections are to be reread as ‘symptoms’ of his disorder etc. 

Armchairs Pontificate from them; or rather, accuse others of so doing. The armchair is sundered from the Real World (qv) and no access to truth is possible therefrom. Use advisedly: an 'armchair politician' is a caustic insult, but an 'armchair TV critic' has rather less force. 

Barred If you have been barred from a blogger's comments thread it is always because you 'reminded them of some uncomfortable truths', you 'told it like it was' etc, never because you were an insufferable troll or (for example) a tedious prick whose diversionary ramblings and clumsy put-downs were an embarrassment to all but yourself.

Chorus It is axiomatic that your opponent always speaks as part of a ‘chorus’ or ‘company’, whereas you of course speak as an autonomous individual. Whereas your opponent merely chimes in with a consensus, you have the courage to speak out and tell it like it is - as is the case with all the others who support your position. (see also 'Brigade'- "Your opponents form a 'brigade', cf Peace Brigade, Bruschetta Brigade, Root Causes Brigade etc. " (Lenin)

Climbdowns Necessarily 'humiliating'. People are 'forced' into them

Conspiracy Theory = suggesting that Western governments (or businesses) are anything other than benign or incompetent. 

Critics Are invariably 'confounded'. 

Difference of Opinion It is axiomatic that your opponent does not, nor ever will, be objecting to the content of your opinion. He is necessarily stung by and unable to tolerate the sheer difference of opinion, and his arguments simply express this fact. (copyright J.Hari.) 'You are obviously unable to tolerate any point of view different from your own' etc 


Emotion –your opponent is necessarily and invariably ‘excitable” “agitated’ “animated”; you, by contrast, are immobile, impassive, devoid of emotion. 

Entertaining - You find your opponent entertaining. His arguments are 'amusing', 'diverting' and so on, a kind of sport, which you have enjoyed. At some point, however, this becomes 'embarassing' and you should advise your opponent to retire before he humiliates himself. At all costs avoid suggesting you are seriously engaged with what he is saying.

Evidence – demand it. Always refer to as ‘empirical’. If actually offered, criticise the methodology. 

Fascism - If all else fails either: 1. find some link between your opponent and fascism, and the Nazis in particular. 2. Wheel in some analogy about fighting/ collaborating with the Nazis. Refer any dispute to the Second World War as a point of comparison. (see also Godwin's Law, courtesy of Anon. at the Weblog). Identifying your opponent with fascism enbles you todramatise yourself as fighting fascism - universally agreed to be noble and good. 

The Guardian A newspaper bought exclusively by people who wish to complain about the mentality of its readership and the venality of its columnists. The Guardian (2) Whereas you might think The Mail and The Times are middle class papers reflecting middle-class preoccupations, for your purposes 'the middle-class' are exclusively Guardian readers and the Guardian is the quintessentially middle class paper. The expression 'middle-class Guardian reader' should be avoided as a tautology. 

Glee - Always 'scarcely concealed'. 

Goaded (qv raw nerve). If an opponent responds to your comment, he has necessarily been 'goaded' into responding and is thus exposed as a fool. Your superficially inept remarks are retrospectively revealed to have been a trick designed to 'provoke a response', and your opponent has 'fallen for it'. 

Human Rights When reading about the human rights of some particular person or group, you are required to ask indignantly about the rights ofsome other person or group. Imply that the rights of the latter cancel out those of the former. 

Humour Your opponent is always 'earnest', his pronouncements are 'solemn', he takes himself 'too seriously' etc It is important that the monopoly of humour, irony etc remains with you, and that your adversary is always the object of laughter, never its source; your relation to him is only ever that of being 'entertained' - not challenged or stimulated (such an admission would be fatal). If you lack genuine wit, simply pepper your prose with 'lol' and gleeful exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!

“intoning” – when quoting your opponent's argument always interpolate ‘he intones/ intoned’. (Especially 'he intoned solemnly' or 'he intoned darkly'). This works with almost any statement. Even if your opponent is not ‘intoning’ your remark will have a delectable sarcasm, as in '“fuck you” he intoned, solemnly'. 

Irony To give your comments a protective coat, it is always worthwhile intimating, hinting, allusively indicating that you are 'being ironic'. Retroactive irony can also be used - declare after receiving criticism that your opponent has perhaps 'missed some of the irony' of the post. No one will inquire too deeply into 'missed irony' for fear of redoubling their original oversight. Note, you do not have to actually be ironic, simply append 'guess the tone' or 'tongue firmly in cheek' and your opponent will be reluctant to entangle himself in the invisible gauze spun around your words. That your tongue, along with the rest of you, is de facto firmly between your cheeks will pass without notice.

Criticism of Israel Concede that of course, in principle, criticisms of Israel are not necessarily anti-Semitic. Give the impression that this is so obvious as hardly to be worth mentioning. Having got this out of the way, every particular criticism of Israel can be exposed as implicitly anti-Semitic. 

‘…is itself an example’ - E.g: : ‘”stale cliché” is itself a stale cliché’ ‘”I’m using no rhetorical ploys” is itself a rhetorical ploy’; 'your remarks on logical incoherence were themselves..". You get the idea. Endlessly adaptable. Creates the impression that your opponent has refuted himself, thus sparing you the trouble of doing so. c.f. 'unwitting'; 'precisely my point'.

Just a Bit of Fun Anything which is 'just a bit of fun' is not susceptible to analysis or understanding. Any attempt at analysis or understanding should be met with the response 'come on, it's just a bit of fun'. (Films and TV programmes are always 'just a bit of fun'). 

The Last Word - Invite your opponent to 'have the last word', thereby ensuring that he cannot (and that you just have). 

The Left (i) Rather than attacking the ‘Left’ as such, it is better to undermine the word and cause to be it ineffectual, either by constantly diluting it in ‘liberal-left’ or simply by using phrases that render it meaningless, as in ‘my fellow leftist Stephen Pollard’

The Left (ii) An umbrella organization consisting exclusively of students on the one hand, and, on the other, middle-class people who like hosting dinner parties. Contrary to a lingering misconception, The Left has nothing to do with the working class, who are actually quite content with how things are. (However, 'while The Left are undoubtedly a laughably impotent bunch of middle-class Students Waving Placards, they are alsoand simultaneously a Sinister Worldwide Plot, all powerful, with tentacles reaching into every orifice of the civic body, working in cahoots with global Islamofascism etc etc etc '. [courtesy of bat])

Liberal Tolerance is simultaneously: A) The cardinal virtue of our democracy and what differentiates us from extremists, totalitarians, theocrats etc B) Politically correct madness which opens the door to theocrats, totalitarians, extremists etc 


Neither a lender nor an adder Rather than making an argument, with his own words or voice, your opponent is lending or adding his voice to a certain pre-existing argument or 'chorus' (qv). (He may be doing sounwittingly (qv). In any case, his argument is not quite his and he is those exposed as a clueless dolt.) 

Historical Record. Your opponent is invariably unfamiliar with it, while you master it with matchless facility. Allude to it wherever possible, encourage your opponent to acquaint himself with it. So much the better if you have a cache of slightly obscure references that you can dispense, especially if these bear only tangential relationship to what you are discussing. In particular, when called upon to explain the relevance of the reference, explain that you are not about to spoon-feed your opponent and advise him to get off his flaccid fundament and do some independent reading. It will, you can assure him, be its own reward.' [courtesy of Lenin] n.b. The ‘historical record’ is the events of history as they appear in their correct order and final significance. It is the objective status of events, uncluttered by mere partisan interest and subjective interference. If it is difficult gaining access to the HR, imagine how much more difficult being its trusty custodian. Fortunately, in our times, the custodian -and occasional author - of the historical record is a humble English Blogger called Oliver Kamm.

In Reserve Rather than jumping in with full-blown polemical fireworks, an alternate strategy is to give the impression you have great and devastating arguments in reserve, and are holding back. And you are holding back partly through sheer magnanimity, partly to spare your subject utter humiliation. Start by implying that your very intervention is an act of graciousness on your part, as in ‘Normally, I don’t involve myself in these kind of spats, however..’ or ‘I have resisted the temptation to comment on this issue so far, however.. .’; and you go on with ‘let’s just say I find this position less than convincing, putting it mildly....’ ‘let’s just say there are elementary logical procedures that haven’t quite been grasped here’. 

Nomenclature/ Semantics etc Since arguments (at least in the blogosphere) tend to take place in language, it is always possible to claim your opponent is merely quibbling over words. Eg: "Zizek's theory of revolution as expressed in this article is nonsense" "But it's not a theory of revolution at all" "Call it want you want, I don't want to get hung up on questions of nomenclature" 

Unoriginal If you can find no substantive points of disagreement, try lamenting that your opponent's argument is 'hardly original' or 'laughably unoriginal' perhaps. This will almost certainly be true at some level, and your opponent is unlikely to be so immodest as to protest the contrary. 

Over-analysing/ Over-interpreting In general things have a perfectly familiar and obvious significance which they wear on their surface. Some people, however, insist on discovering other and more 'interesting' meanings beneath this innocuous surface. They may even claim that this process is called Thinking. These people are generally intellectuals, however, and you should have little difficulty rousing your audience against them. Analysing or interpreting certain things, eg a good film, rather than simply enjoying them, is often symptomatic of a mental illness known as intellectualism - symptomatized in a small pudgy body and oversized cranium. 

Profanity and the demotic. Used sparingly (so as not to be mistaken for some incensed half-wit), your use of the profane/ demotic is a right laugh and a sure sign that you represent robust common sense and can sniff out and debunk pretentious academics and pseudo-intilectukals. Try mixing it with more refined prose for full effect, as in “after careful and sustained reflection, I have now arrived at the inexorable conclusion that X is a clueless twat who talks counter-revolutionary shite.” Be careful, use of demotic language may provoke truimphant claims to have 'touched a raw nerve' (qv) from your opponent. 

Parody - Although you may want to attempt parody yourself, it is better to ironically opine that your opponent has been the victim of a parodist. This can take a couple of forms: 1. ‘Please direct me to the original weblog of which this is evidently a parody.’ 2. ‘A malicious third party is posting under your [the opponent’s] name/ has gained access to your blogging account, and is writing absurd risible nonsense in order to discredit you.’ 

Political Correctness.. always already 'gone mad'. 

People You've Met If you wish to establish the veracity of some chosen stereotype, all you have to say are the magic words, “Look, I’ve actually met people like this..”. Your vapid generalisation will instantly assume concreteness, and your opponent buckle before an unassailable empirical factoid. In the 1980’s it was lesbian CND supporting Guardian readers who people had invariably ‘actually met’; in 1930’s Germany it was doubtless avaricious Jews. (compare with ‘someone who has actually been there’). 

Postmodern - use to refer to any jargon unfamiliar to you. Apparently the term has a more precise meaning, but this is only according to people who write in unfamiliar jargon and can therefore be safely ignored.

Posturing - always 'empty'; no one has yet pulled off a posture that's even half-full. 

Precisely my point- the opponent’s argument is really yours, as in ‘I could hardly wish for a better confirmation of my point.’ (see ‘unwitting’) 

Pseudo - A prefix which attaches to intellectuals. So tenacious is this attachment (which can be dowloaded from doxa.com) that intellectuals can never be mentioned without it. Indeed, many argue that only pseudo- intellectuals exists. The real thing is a mere mirage or retroactive illusion created by the prefix pseudo-. 

Pretentious - Anything which cannot be paraphrased into journalese, (almost) anything French, anything not yielding some sort of immediate and calculable return, anything which one cannot imagine being spoken by a 'bloke down the pub', (almost) anything you can imagine being spoken by an intilletukal. 

Psychology Always 'pop' - or 'psychobabble'. Note, there is no law of contradiciton in rhetoric, so don't let the psychology rule stop you from 'always psychologizing' (qv). 

Pub The Pub is always a sign of blokeish familiarity and common sense. Do end a discussion with “right, I’m off down the pub”, so indicating a sensibly English awareness of the limits of mere intellectual debate andtouching base with the Real World. (The mere mention of this last is sufficient to debunk certain kinds of high-flown jargon.) Of course, his gesture (of touching base with The Real World) can be performed without having to visit the pub or even leave your armchair – you can also break off a debate by reference to some favoured TV program that requires attention, preferably ‘the football’ or something Popular (never, God forbid, ‘an Ingmar Bergman film’ or ‘a documentary about Heidegger’). Always remember: You are at one with the Common People (who go down the pub and watch telly) and not at all part of the despicable Middle Class/ Intelligentsia.

Quotations Always 'out of context'; if however someone accuses you of 'quoting out of context' say that all quotes are out of context by definition 

Raw Nerve - If your opponent responds to you with anything like gusto/ feeling you have necessarily ‘touched a raw nerve’. This can be used against all but the most blandly neutral reply. Try saying it in various contexts, just to unsettle and bemuse e.g: “Mark, "I'd really like that reference for Hegel’s comments on Zoroastrian religion?” “Ah, it touched a raw nerve did it?” 

Real World - Invariably, a place where things are different. Inhabited by ‘ordinary people’. Often located in Glasgow’s East End or even outside the First World altogether, as in ‘this might sound plausible in Christ Church common room, but it rings pretty hollow in the Guatemalan jungle’. Needless to say, your interlocutor is unfamiliar with it.

Reminders – are always ‘salutary’. Your opponent has a poor memory and needs many such reminders. 

Refreshingly un-P.C. If you're afraid to salute bigotry, don't worry, here's your get out clause. 

Sarcasm – always refer to as ‘clumsy’, unless a favoured columnist uses it, in which case it is 'delectable'. 

Screed - if referring to your opponent's book at all costs describe it in some other terms: Screed, tract, glorified pamphlet, loose collection of essays, collation of occasional journalism, assortment of republished ephemera etc 

Self-Appointed- If you prose is criticised for its sloppiness it is by a 'self-appointed literary critic'; if your opinions are deemed offensive it is a self-appointed commissar of political correctness; if your taste in literature or art is ridiculed as vulgar it is by a self-appointed arbiter of taste etc. The rule is roughly this: any judgement made about you, any criticism of your arguments or your style, has been made by someone who has appointed him /her self rather than, presumably, being divinely or officially appointed.You may run into problems if criticised by someone who is genuinely divinely or officially appointed (The Pope, High Court judge), but simply dismiss them as arguing from authority. . 

Silences Yours are dignified, your opponent's revealing. 

Snide - a witty remark that happens to be aimed at you becomes 'snide'. 

Someone who has actually been there - someone who has ‘actually been’ to a place (eg Nicaragua/ anywhere in the Real World) obviously knows what they are talking about and is automatically deserving of respect. Their small sack of anecdotes is unassailable by logic, statistics or other documentation. Best admit defeat.

Tenuous - Your opponents grasp of logic, the facts, the English language. 

To argue is to lose The very fact that your opponents argue against you is the best evidence against them. It means that your post has 'upset quite a few people', 'got a few people quite agitated' 'got under their skin' etc They have not made an argument but had a tantrum, they are not making reasoned points but ‘throwing their toys out of the pram’. 

Too Generous - e.g: "It would be tempting to attribute the use Chomsky makes of this material to intellectual idleness and incompetence, but I fear this is too generous a judgement." Here, one gets to have one's cake and eat it. Any one of a number of variants are possible: e.g. “It would be tempting to attribute the writer’s lexical ostentation to a too patent need to assert his cultural credentials/ an autodidactic zeal to display the fruits of his lexicological and bibliophilic labours/ social insecurity, and a frustrated desire to be admitted to the universe of Belles Lettres, but that would be too generous”. 

Turkey - If your opponent is criticising the policies of some state you favour demand that he talks about Turkey instead. This may sound a feeble ploy, equivalent to saying ‘please talk about something else’ but can be effective if you use language like ‘if you’re being consistent’ ‘disproportionate and selective attention’. (You may if you wish substitute some other country for Turkey – obviously so if, by chance, your opponent is talking about Turkey.) 

University, your opponent is at. Bear with me. In the realm of doxa, the university is entirely seperated from the Real World (qv) and populated by Student Revolutionaries. This image of the university is unassailable, and safely entrenched beyond refutation, so don't worry. It is thus rather useful if you can insinuate a connection between your opponent and the University (the University of doxa, that is, not any particular institution). Moreover, there is, belonging to this University of Doxa, an equally mythic 'undergraduate' who reappears endlessly in statements such as: 'this is an elementary undergraduate error'; 'As every undergraduate would know..' , 'one can find this kind of thing in any standard undergraduate essay.' 'if this were an undergraduate essay.. etc' and so on and do forth. This poor mythic undergraduate has been kept at university for countless years by the requirements of rhetoricians and polemicists. 

“Unwitting” – almost everything your opponent does is ‘unwitting’, eg revealing his real sympathies, confirming your argument, showing his true colours etc. 

Unworthy of serious consideration That your opponent’s argument ‘doesn’t merit a response’, is ‘unworthy of serious consideration’, that commentary or mockery ‘is superfluous’ shouldn’t of course prevent you from saying so at great length. 

“What I actually said” - your opponent has invariably failed to grasp this. Thus, you should suggest that he ‘tries addressing what you actually said’ or even ‘please address you remarks to the person who actually made the argument you refer to.”

"Who are you to say that?" Your opponent makes a coherent, plausible argument. You might think you've had it, but no - this meaningless question removes the ground from under his feet, shifting attention from what he's said to the position from which he speaks. E.g., "2 + 2 =4" Who are you to remind us of elementary mathematical truths?" qv 'self-appointed'.

Monday 10 September 2012

The Internet Is Our Generation's Library Of Alexandria - It's Under Attack



On June 2nd last year I warned that a war on the internet was imminent. I spoke about this to my webcam but that recording is no longer as I had my Youtube account shut down for transferring video from Google Videos to Google Youtube. This happened after I wrote a scathing review of some CIA disinformation mockumentary. I'm uninterested if that caused it. I just point out the timing.

I had no idea about SOPA, PIPA and ACTA at the time I warned about the war on the internet. I was paying close attention to Bill Clinton and his warmongering and vicious wife 'Unhinged Hillary'. They were both telling us just after the 2011 Bilderberg meeting that the internet was too dangerous to their class - the power elite. Some of the most extraordinary evidence of the crimes committed by both the Clinton's are on the internet and I assure you I was a supporter till I could no longer ignore the evidence.

Please go through all the Cathy O'Brien testimony to verify that claim for yourself.

It's easy to pretend that the internet is not under threat. However it is. It's also easy to buy the thin end of the wedge about commercial considerations. They are the WMD claims of this decade.

I feel very grateful that I've scoured the internet for most of the secrets that the corporate for profit media will never touch and so if it's switched off tomorrow I still know who, what, how, when, where and how much.

You however might need to make a decision on whether to spend some time figuring out where the secrets are or speaking up to keep the internet going in the golden years for a while longer.

If you haven't watched the movie Agora, about Hypatia and the Library of Alexandria I've embedded a trailer above and now I leave the task in your hands. The debate between an explanation for the cosmos between Aristarchus and Ptolemy is where we're heading back to if we let the elite war on the internet turn it into a duty free airport shop with clicks for cash only.

It wont be awesome if you don't speak up. Word.

Thursday 26 January 2012

ACTA SOPA PIPA - The Assault On What People Share On The Internet



It's as if the elites are paranoid about what we are going to share this 2012. The golden age of the internet is probably behind us. I might go back to reading books and at least remembering how it once was. That I stood up for it.

Wednesday 18 January 2012

#SOPA #PIPA BLACKOUT DAY JANUARY 18 2012


I hope you can join me to campaign digitally against this iniquitous legislation that is ALL about keeping humans down. Doing nothing is not acceptable. Start with your Twitter profile here.

Go black, it's better than advertising.

Sunday 15 January 2012

If Richard O'Dwyer Is Extradited. Tweeting Links Mean You Could Be Next



We all know 20th century industrial strength mass media copyright law is a flared trouser polyester mess and in the way of a new economic model that embraces and facilitates the hope for a digital future. Make no mistake we are in danger with this new law that can extradite UK citizens to the US for doing what Google does. 

Link to content.

Please add Richard's mum Julie O'Dwyer to twitter and start speaking up. It's time to take a stand.

Tuesday 13 December 2011

Pre & Post-Internet History




I think the internet challenges the language of historians in many ways. Pre internet history likes neat symmetrical interlocking shapes. Library history insists on concrete starts and ceremonial finishes. It likes old fashioned good guys and bad guys. It has no language for totally new types of historical event and can't deal with messy complexity. It imposes binary outputs on multilateral inputs and struggles to identify when it deceives itself in the present thus contaminating the past and messing up the future. 

Traditional historical language is imploding with the language of information warfare, singularities, emerging globalised conciousness and groaning with the burden that WWIII  may already have started but wont be officialy recognised until the victor declares checkmate through a new variant of Stuxnet.

Academics, scholars and historians through books, documents and archives were once the official narrative but now Vox populi and real time verbatim counts for something too.

Let's face it. A trillion internet arguments in the comments of billions of blogs, Facebook updates and social media and news platforms not to mention zillions of tweets will shape what people in the future think about events in the past just as much as the mendacity we're fed and sold in the present by the corporate for-profit mainstream media.


I put it to you that our understanding of ourselves, including where we came from, who we are, what we're doing here and where we're going is on the edge of monumental change. It's a race between education and catastrophe.

Saturday 6 August 2011

Alchemical Archives

Photobucket

If you enjoy recorded historical talks like rare Marshall McLuhan lectures, Buckminster Fuller, Krishnamurti or seldom found Terence McKenna there's a new blog called Alchemical Archive releasing some very fresh stuff with all the files available for download. It's only just started and there's close to 40 releases for August alone. Viva L'Internet.

Tuesday 2 August 2011

Sorry To Interrupt

Photobucket



Unmissable 7 minutes on the clash of civilisation with corporations in advertising taking place on the internet through mobile phones. Don't miss it.


Via Eaon

Monday 13 June 2011

The Internet Scares Our Masters




They are much more petrified of us then you believe. Exercising your voice and what your heart feels is a human right. If I can do it naked you can do it however you please. It's unlikely you will lose an advertising account over it, and if you do is that the sort of business you want? Listen to your heat and tell your brain to shut up.

Tuesday 7 June 2011

Naked With Charles - Internet Censorship


I'm wearing a longhi that I've had since 1993 but that's not quite as interesting as the full frontal nudity message.