BRANDISHING SIX MILLION

The difference between Russell Brand and his detractors. By that I mean the people who call him a shill and THIRTYTHREE tattoo brandisher is that Russell is a lot funnier than the uninvited mullahs of mediocrity.

Experimenting with different voices is not something that can be done exclusively in the head, as posited in this post about 15 year old Hildegard of Bingen (the anchorite but not the only anchoress in that particular anchorhold) completely silent in her dungeon cell, writing plainchant music widely regarded as seminal in its original form.

I guess a mimic has to practice new voices. It's not perfect saying them out loud because the resonance is different than from any bystanders perspective? Bing ai Chat says the acoustical differences between the speaker of words and the listener but not the hearer are related to the "vocal-tract-size differences that result in formant-frequency variation across speakers". Bing ai then goes on to suggest 'Therefore, a listener has to adjust his/her perceptual system to the acoustic characteristics of a particular speaker' and then posts some mickey mouse footnotes and links in the metadata. That's for me you wont experience that. I'll write about it separately as it's fascinating and worth sharing.

That's Bing. Bing has complex care issues, somewhat self evident from the output depending on who you are. I popped over to Microsoft's Chat investment in Generative Pretrained Transformer land and asked a really easy trick question.

Elon Musk is currently hosting a live spaces event with special guest Ron DeSantis. Please write an essay of no more than 2000 words from a Continental philosophy angle as opposed to the Analytical point of view on whether the world's richest man (and entrepreneur) should or should not host political events? 

Essay Emboldened for Speed Readers

Title: Elon Musk Hosting Political Events: A Continental Philosophy Perspective

Introduction:

The intersection of wealth, entrepreneurship, and politics has become increasingly prominent in contemporary society. As the world's richest man and a renowned entrepreneur, Elon Musk's decision to host political events raises important questions about the role of individuals in shaping political discourse. In this essay, we will explore this issue from a continental philosophy angle, contrasting it with the analytical perspective, and examine the ethical implications of Musk's involvement in political activities.

I. The Role of the Individual in Politics:

From a continental philosophy standpoint, the individual holds a significant place in shaping the political landscape. Thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger emphasized the importance of individual agency in challenging existing power structures. For Nietzsche, the "will to power" embodied the individual's ability to shape reality according to their own values and ideals. Heidegger, on the other hand, highlighted the concept of authenticity, encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own existence and engage in meaningful action.

Elon Musk's decision to host political events can be seen as an embodiment of Nietzschean and Heideggerian ideals. By leveraging his wealth and influence, Musk exercises his individual agency to actively participate in shaping the political discourse. From this perspective, his involvement can be seen as a way of challenging the existing political order and offering alternative visions for the future.

II. Critiquing Analytical Perspectives:

Analytical philosophy tends to prioritize objective analysis, detached from personal biases and individual subjectivity. It often emphasizes the separation of public and private spheres, viewing political engagement by individuals as potentially biased and detrimental to rational decision-making. However, from a continental perspective, this analytical detachment can be seen as problematic and disconnected from the lived experiences and values that shape political realities.

Continental philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault, critique the notion of an objective observer and highlight the inherent biases and power dynamics that underpin knowledge production. They argue that individuals cannot separate themselves from their social, historical, and political contexts when engaging in any form of analysis or decision-making.

Applying this critique to the analytical perspective, we can question the assumption that individuals should abstain from political engagement due to their wealth or entrepreneurial status. By actively hosting political events, Musk embraces his subjectivity and acknowledges his role in the broader societal landscape, rather than pretending to be a neutral observer. This self-awareness aligns with the continental philosophy emphasis on recognizing and engaging with one's own situatedness within power structures.

III. Ethical Considerations:

Hosting political events as the world's richest man raises important ethical considerations. Critics argue that Musk's involvement can lead to the amplification of his own personal interests and potentially distort democratic processes. Moreover, his immense wealth and influence may grant him disproportionate power, undermining the principle of equal representation and participation.

From a continental perspective, ethical concerns are rooted in a broader understanding of social responsibility. Thinkers like Emmanuel Levinas and Simone de Beauvoir stress the importance of recognizing the other and considering the implications of one's actions on the well-being and freedom of others.

Applying this perspective, Musk should approach his political engagements with a sense of ethical responsibility. He should be cognizant of the potential consequences of his actions, ensuring that his involvement does not perpetuate unjust power dynamics or suppress the voices of marginalized groups. By recognizing the alterity of others and promoting inclusive and equitable dialogues, Musk can align his political activities with continental ethics.

Conclusion:

From a continental philosophy perspective, Elon Musk's decision to host political events represents an exercise of individual agency and an active engagement with the political realm. Contrasting with the analytical viewpoint, continental philosophy emphasizes the situatedness and subjectivity of individuals, calling for a recognition of personal values and interests in political engagement.

While ethical concerns surrounding Musk's involvement exist, they can be addressed by adopting a continental ethics framework that emphasizes social responsibility and the recognition of others. By being mindful of the potential consequences of his actions and promoting inclusive dialogues, Musk can navigate the political landscape responsibly and contribute to the broader discourse in a manner that respects the principles of democracy and social justice.

In evaluating the appropriateness of the world's richest man hosting political events, a continental philosophy perspective encourages us to consider the potential transformative power of individual agency and the ethical responsibilities that come with it.

That's how I learned ELON MUSK has invited all presidential candidates onto the Twitter platform he owns and Linda Yaccarino allegedly runs, and regardless of my own biases, it's self evident that the legacy media are unable to provide that level of engagement or complexity, in real time.

All Presidential candidates are most welcome on this platform

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 24, 2023

This is why we need more not less voices from Russell.

The Backpedalling Begins

The yearning of the duped to be reassured by the gaslighting media that they're not wrong is pure infantilism. The Atlantic knows what's coming, yet paradoxically despite this canary in the coalmine article, their readers still have no idea.

They're not my words but when I first read them, I could feel a conviction the like of which I'd never encountered before.

"Nothing can stop what's coming. Nothing"

Are Legacy Media Trying To Tell Us Something?

Now that the Covid narrative has jumped the shark, I think it's safe to say the legacy media are trying to get through to the people at the back of the train.

It's time to wake up and it's time to speak up. There's so much more iniquity in the juice that I don't have the heart to tell family and friends I care about, so I'll tell you instead.

There are solutions [Link], they're not guaranteed and we're learning more every day. But it's you who have to awaken. We know only too well the dangers of us trying to do it for you.

Everything but experimental vaccines give you heart attacks.

Ya feel me?

Many Thanks for all the Retweets

My week on twitter: 468 New Followers, 1.25K Mentions, 3.75M Mention Reach, 1.23K Replies, 15.2K Retweets. via http://t.co/Hw4ncJqzNH
— Charles Edward Frith (@charlesfrith) June 22, 2014

I've never run my Twitter account to be popular. 

In fact, I think about 50 people a day unfollow me. Fortunately more people are prepared to stick around than leave so I want to thank you all for the very important (for me and I hope for you) retweets. Usually the reach is around two million Twitter users a week but lately it's been getting up to 3 million and approaching 4. My tweets are not candy floss subjects so I appreciate you all for getting the word out on subjects the mainstream media can never touch, because of who owns them, and who advertises in them.

The exception to this rule is Russia Today who featured one of my Tweets on the fiasco that is NATO backing the same psychopaths they call freedom fighters in Syria and are now obliged to call terrorists in Iraq (even though they trained many in Jordan recently). It's a classic example of the Orwellian double speak world we live in that only the internet can call out this media nonsense that people are being spoon fed.

Many corporate media consumers have no idea what is going on, or are silent over it for reasons I assume are to do with keeping their heads down below the parapet, or putting money before conscience.

We are the media now. So be it.

Update: My tweet featured in Al Jazeera

@charlesfrith Congrats on your 500★ tweet! http://t.co/5HKMJePH3J

— Favstar.fm 500★'s (@Favstar500Favs) July 5, 2014

Update 27 July 2014 - We smashed the 4 million barrier - Thank you

My week on twitter: 697 New Followers, 2.56K Mentions, 4.69M Mention Reach, 1.95K Replies, 30.8K Retweets. via http://t.co/Hw4ncJqzNH
— Charles Edward Frith (@charlesfrith) July 27, 2014

Update: We tore through the 15 million mention reach metric, so either something is very wrong or very right ;)

My month on twitter: 1.95K New Followers, 9.3K Mentions, 15.6M Mention Reach, 7.07K Replies, 93.9K Retweets. via http://t.co/Hw4ncJ8qzz
— Charles Edward Frith (@charlesfrith) September 1, 2014

George Stephanopoulos Is A Warmongering Whore. Dennis Rodman Is Great

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

I love the way George "I served under Bill" Stephanopoulos comes across as a sadistic little cunt who wants to sell war to the fluoridated masses and Dennis Rodman comes across as cool as fuck. Let's not forget that the US has the largest slave force on the planet in its black persecution prison complex and tortures mammals around the planet in a war on terror that it is responsible for. 

George Stephanopoulos comes across as a whore. 

A mouthpiece of the corporate whore media. 

I have read his biography. 

He's  a professional brown noser.

@PiersMorgan - Media Weasel & Coincidence Theorist Gatekeeper

I don't own a TV, and I no longer listen to the news, after decades of being a news junkie of sorts. I believe I am however reasonably well informed. I never knew how Piers Morgan looked or spoke till just now. I knew he was editor of a scummy newspaper run by Rupert Murdoch so the working assumption was money and profile are more important to him than professional journalism.

When I learned that Piers was going to work for CNN, I assumed he would be continuing the tradition of Vaudeville theatre news after taking Larry "Kiss Ass" King's spot. We would ridicule Larry's faux newsroom beat-wardrobe of braces and Watergate style Bob Woodward glasses (I just made that last bit up about Woodward) but stay with me. King was every thing that was wrong with the news business and we were outraged that most viewers had no idea his news offering being served up was more damaging than helpful. I was often convinced that King was just as programmed as his viewers, though many know full well what can and cant be discussed. They are like school prefects with a tazer for  truth telling.

Larry King's questioning style was no more challenging than what coffee a guest preferred (one lump or two) and at the end of it all, he'd ask 'but how did it feel'. No matter what was in the news Larry wanted to know how it felt so that the viewers could resonate with the events of the day, which by and large had nothing to do with the real events taking place in the 20th century. Gulf of Tonkin for example.

I wondered if Piers Morgan could do it different but instead it's evident from this interview with Jesse Ventura that he is incapable of entertaining a single view point that isn't toeing the govcorp line. There is no way that Piers Morgan is going to break a single important story at CNN other than those he is given as favours for services provided. 

How anyone can invite Jesse Ventura to his show and then say something so insulting as "surely you can't believe all this" is only equalled by his ignorance of the military weapon  HAARP while interviewing the most respected and high profile conspiracy theorist in the country. It's like inviting the Pope over and saying surely you don't believe in all this religion malarkey. What a douchebag. A corporate toady. A first class weasel. Ill informed. intellectually pedestrian, historically illiterate and unable to say anything that will ever rock the boat. A CNN special. Made for each other.

Next Generation

Next Generation Media Quarterly By Aegis. Nice little useful presso with sticky numbers that should help the plannerati. By Dan Calladine

Marshal McLuhan

I always embrace any discussion of McLuhan if only because it validates the work of a man who wasn't even around to see his post Gutenberg vision of the media landscape manifest itself so fully, so accurately and arguably even quicker then McLuhan would ever have anticipated. It's completely fair if one wishes to split hairs that the medium isn't quite the message. But only in so much as it's equally fair to assert that it's probably larger than the message typified by the noses of children in the 1950's pressed up against the new fangled TV screen to a story such as Avatar which is solely reliant on the movie medium to create it's unique impact. Straight to DVD speaks for itself but my favourite playful discussion  asks that if the medium is the message wouldn't logic point towards the message is the medium? OK I'm kidding but you get what I'm saying I'm sure. The room usually goes quiet when I lob that one in but I've always been fond of a bit mischief.

It's arguable that the movie surpasses the message, for without the movie, the message is diminished by it's own narrative constraints (around a campfire, straight to DVD etc) or it is as it is depending on what your interpretation of is, is. A deliberate confluence of both McLuhan and Clinton. My point being that McLuhan as Joyce scholar was very much a stylistic thing as was the comeback kid's legalese.

It is however clear that McLuhan would have had a lot to say about our existing digital topography and where it points. Pity he died in 1980 and that his mystical like status dissolved pretty much overnight, till resurfacing of late as at least a more thoughtful media analysis of where we were rather than we're at (tempus fugit). 


Does anybody really know?


One thing I do is that Digital loves a free ride doesn't it? It would have been great to hear an analysis of this in the context of what McLuhan really excelled at which was as a Medievalist. Essentially it's helpful to get a fix on how long language has been around. Let's call it 30 000 years or so because like the dreams which are so lucidly remembered when we awake, they and their mystical meaning so often evaporate in the short few steps to our morning ablutions and we're so unclear about our communications legacy if it wasn't carved in stone. There's a reason for the dream references, but here's not the place to nip back into talk of pineal glands and the traces of Dimethyltryptamine it both creates and breaks the law at the same time. I find that fascinating.

So yeah language. When the male and female of our species emerged from two million years of a quasi arboreal lifestyle encompassing the dual roles of hunter & gatherer arguably cultivating the male traits of silence and stoicism while waiting for the herd to turn up at the drinking pool, alongside the pragmatically chattering advantages of the female of our species exploiting the value of knowing what berries, nuts and mushrooms to pick at what time of the year and where, it's probable that an animalistic version of communication on a level equal to, or more evolved than say dolphins, pigs, octopi  and such like, magically manifested itself to an unprecedent level of compelling complexity into the most potent meme system in the history of man. There is no more spreadable media than assigning words for objects and then assigning arbitrary codes such as uncountable nouns after prepositions and definitive articles. Evolved language was definitely a 'holy fucking shit' moment of such grautuitous common sense and spreadability that every ape worth his or her salt picked up on it like the iTablet fetishism of last nights tweetfest, though more durably.

Equally around this time the neo cortex exploded in size while the lower jaw retracted and so began the first experiment with lifestyle along with the crops that required cultivating, the storage thereof that mandated a security-complex along with arguably a paternalistic 'ownership' and monogamy lifestyle along with the usual suspects of religion, mead brewing and hierachical structures related to, but not quite evolved directly from the instinctive and often silently acquired ones earned as great apes. Politics if you will.

Moving forward (or backwards depending on how you read history) the next Bob Beamon Olympic long jump moment of the day was after the evolution of pictographs which aren't much more than an elaboration on cave paintings into the exciting idea of word languages condensed into an alphabet. It's at this moment that McLuhan steps in to guide us towards the next epiphany, the introduction of print and it's disruptive impact on Western society (excluding China's non-moveable type which kept the whole industry from taking off as the Guttenberg moment did). 


It's fairly important to appreciate that prior to print, a different set of cognitive skills were used to consume information. McLuhan highlights that the medieval practice of script consumption dictates a different set of skills from print. We have to LOOK at script as opposed to print (digital or otherwise) which requires READING. Once the first fifty types of say the letter E or e have been understood, we then no longer have to look at the letter and switch into a condensed and linear mode of media consumption that is so far removed from the looking demanded of script writing that it's difficult to comprehend unless we take into account such ideas as the notion of a public, which didn't exist prior to the Guttenberg press. 


That's because there was no public but as soon as leaflets and the bible became objects for consumption then the idea of manufacturers and consumers of information warranted the introduction of a public. Prior to that the Kings and the Clergy used to just do stuff unannounced and undiscussed (increase taxes, burn witches etc.) and we would marvel at their silent power. That's all changed now as the hoi polloi (that's me) dive in the creation pool too but it's important to remember that there was a time when the first person in history ever was identified as having the ability to read silently in their head before repeating it. Prior to that everybody just read aloud and so emerged the language of lectures in the academic or monastic environment.

I could go on but I think Faris has written a provocative piece covering McLuhan which admits that there is no discussion of the man without knowing that dance, Roman roads and lightbulbs are media. However, more interestingly the notion of a consumption platform is distilling/emerging (a context?) which is a good thing. In a previous life some might have called this a media type but it all starts to bleed in the digital world in such a gratuitous manner it simply is no longer helpful. How an eReader or iPad differ from a Nexus or a Netbook just complicates the hell out of things but it becomes evident that the size of screen and user interface says a lot, and that the surroundings in which the content can be consumed or more accurately HOW they can be consumed defines to a considerable extent what they are. So a phone under the meeting table for reasons of discretion in a boring meeting has just as many consumption variables on what is read and how it is read as say yesterday's trending topic of #thoughtsonthetoilet which arguably speak for themselves, though again, like in the past I urge that the context be fully explored to really help understand what is going on. By context I totally mean the environment in which media variables are created or consumed because otherwise we're back to the Nexus is different from the iPad which points suspiciously towards "The medium is the message". Which was always a more stylistic assertion on McLuhan's part, than a set in stone media law despite it's heavy counter intuitive logic defying truthiness. Or as Wittgenstein would say. It's true enough!

McLuhan was a Joyce Scholar, a convert to Catholicism and a person who turned the whole deconstruction lens of western thought in on the topic of media and arguably of itself, as itself and by itself. You just can't mess with that when it's done well. Nobody did it better than my main man McLuhan.

Is advertising dying?

 ithementalist 

I could quite easily both create or miss a million pound plus spent on advertising but stuff like this gets me thinking about how powerful a good idea using public space and then channeled into social media and shared with the right people can turn into something which frankly doesn't even needed to actually exist except as an idea.

It could be turned into a global media idea by a 14 year old student on a laptop, as George Parker highlights in Bob Garfield's Adage piece . You should read it because the parting shot is why we are "exquisitely, irretrievably fucked"

There is no commandment that thou shalt monetize media space. 

Although monetizing delivery is much much easier if we try and keep the mobile phone a pull not push media space. Keep an eye out for more of the above work going up on Flickr 

The future is looking awesome the sooner we let go of the past.

Say it again

When I see citizen created content like this I begin to feel that part of the job of an agency 2 point something is to find an innovative brand association rather than write a brief for content.

Why not write a brief for the media companies to use it in such a way that people connect with the authenticity and creativity that is sprouting up on Youtube and elsewhere? This is probably heresy to the creative community, but in my view this piece of content is better than 90% of advertising. A creative media association would be way more effective.

Via Angus who consistently digs up kick ass digital on the net.

Why Advertising Needs Its Head Examined

I was in Dubai earlier this week and had a terrific time. I'll be writing a post about it very shortly as there is a lot to share and a few assumptions that need clarification about this very cosmopolitan part of the world.

However, in the mean time it just struck me while departing through the airport that while it's all fine and good to have a decent monologue with customers beating our brand chests, the whole point about the 21st century marketing and Web 2.0/Digital dialogue is that if brands aren't able to shift into that dialogue mode when circumstances demand, then they end up losing so much of their effort.

Their credibility, their hard work, professionalism, vision and outlook. Everything is contextual (yes I know 'yawn') and if the only context that agencies can think of for their clients are rose coloured Ray Bans with duty free fragrance, then they are aggravating problems and pathologically avoiding the solution.

There is quite possibly nothing more patronising then seeing the output of 20th century marketing automatons delivering a monologue on the virtues of a brand when the reality is all too evident that agencies and marketing folk are a bunch of money grubbing air heads that don't know how to turn around a problem into an a golden opportunity.

As Rob says quite rightly, a customer complaint is a brilliant opportunity to create a brand advocate. I say a problem is when we really need to start talking to customers not just invading their social media/digital arena when it suits us.

All the time these poor folks were dealing with the reality of 3rd millennium air travel and the inevitable delays, a screen the size of three billiard tables above them was spouting forth the usual distorted advertising superlatives that are perfectly applicable when everything is ticketyboo (A Hindi expression "tikai babu," meaning "it's all right, sir.") but are a shameless example of why most marketing blows chunks big time, and why advertising specifically is seen as only slightly higher up the food chain than political rhetoric.

I absolutely love great advertising and I'm a great admirer of Emirates the airline, but if any brand or agency isn't talking about ways to open up a meaningful dialogue with their customers during the inevitable part of life when things don't go according to plan then very simply they are inevitably wasting money on advertising 1.0 and pissing off people with the sort of bad manners we reserve for bores at dinner parties that dominate the conversation with the sound of their own voice. I've got 20 ideas in my head how Emirates and Dubai could win over everyone of the carpet sleepers I saw that night but you can rest assured that filling that stadium screen with more chest beating 'hub of the world' content is way more important than getting some digital/web/advertising 2.0 solutions into the mix.

Making profits isn't as hard as it made out to be. Losing customer loyalty and the money that goes with it is even easier.