Cyberfascism
is my idea. I claim sole responsibility for
inventing it. It is the product of my ego and of an urge to
create something genuinely nasty. Already, as with the process of
creating anything new, there are already some less creative douchebags
throwing the term around, because it has good mouthfeel, but they are
unable to inflate it to universal magnitude using a Shivaic
ingenuity. Like amoebas, they append it to a couple of reviled
commonplace practices so that they may have a label to cringe from and
a direction from which to ooze. Thus it appears in its
proto-defined multiple states as either "acts of traditional or fringe
fascism hosted online" or "draconian restrictions of internet
usage." Eventually Wikipedia will have its own asinine definition
of it with its alternate consensus reality version of its origin.
Thus, the
time is right for the birth of this word Cyberfascism.
It only recently appears in keyword search engine queries, and there is
no cyberfascism website at the time of this writing. But the true
definition of this word, which I alone have invented and given full
majesty refers to a "state of superiority over humans using cybernetic
devices." Anywhere that advantage exists or can be seized using
kybernetes, (that is the science of mechanical-electrical automatic
communication and control theory) is not only valid, but preferable.
I write this as I squat
within the Nietzschean identity. Cyberfascism
satisfies a Dionysian instinct to unleash something drunken and bloody
upon humanity. Humans are a juicy bloody apple to be eaten.
They are a wine sac to be squeezed and sucked and drunk to the tune of
lutes and mad violins. They are breasts to be grabbed, rams to be
raped by eagles.
In a
less classical sense, Cyberfascism is Liberty from Liberty,
Quality beyond Equality, a Fraternity above Fraternity. I am
descended from Frenchmen, but I put forth a posture of mockery and
violent jest against the French Social archetype. I champion
Chauvinism, Napoleanism, Prussianism, even Hitlerism in delightful
antagonism of Communism or Communitarianism or Consensualism.
Cyberfascism
is comfortable with the recurring and the tempestuous
where it is faced with the eternal and the rational organic.
Cyberfascism is not
ethical. It is massively parallel. It is alternately or
concurrently nationalistic, bedouin, global, militaristic,
non-committal, obsessive, singularitarian, authoritarian,
anarcho-elitist, primal, anthropocentric, dehumanizing, planned,
impromptu, Fordean, idiosyncratic, subjectivist, suprematist,
ancient-romanticist, futurist, realpolitical, self-deceptive. It
seems anti-social, but is really supersocial. Metasystemic.
Transitional. Power-oriented. Reductionist.
Most human
primates cannot think beyond Hegelian Year Zeroes
Cyberfascism is not Nazism. Rather, Nazism did not acheive
Cyberfascism. Nazism fell short. Some of the finer points
of Nazism were: feigning peace while aggressively rearming for war,
constructing win-win scenarios where reconstruction or devastation
served the war effort, making war a prerequisite for peace, treating
humans like stock to be traded, bred, slaughtered, or modified,
codification of human control systems, cybernetic feedback loops in
technological production, industrial forwardness, jets, missiles,
highways, social regimentation, nice uniforms.
Disappointing to all sorts
of decadents, Cyberfascism is not only destructive of moral
imperatives, but it is also amoral, so it does not erect any
longstanding rival moralities in place of the ones it destroys. Axioms
in place of morals. Can in place of should. Frustratingly nihilistic to
utopians and to the seekers of logical
purity, it is cadent, but the song's falling inflections raise the
baser instincts skyward and drag down the loftier imaginaries of
Platonic, Anselmic, and Shopenhauerian moral necessity.
What's the
difference
between Cyberfascism as an economic engine and the other popular
nonconformist fringe strategies? Let's consider a few:
Vs
Libertarianism: Cyberfascism
is not Austrian Jewish anti-Marxism as related by pot smoking College
Republicans. It is not Emma Goldman in a cheap suit driving a
Porsche. It does reject labor theory of value. Value is
determined by Willingness, in essence,
how
desperately a person wants
to obtain or be rid of a certain commodity. Put otherwise, Value
is a quasi objective rule of fluctuation between two subjective
transactors. Thus it is automatic and therefore
controllable.
In Cyberfascism, rather
than merely controlling
prices, one controls the degree of desperation in the
transactors. There is no moral imperative against initiation of
force, and no criterion of financial immorality. Yet it is not a
universal utopian financial paradise.
Vs. Larouchianism Cyberfascism
is not crackpot megatrendism bolstered by fancy geometric
diagrams. Nor is it diet-socialism, personality cultism, or
street team microfascism. It does endorse databasing and
intelligence aggregation, as these are methods of information
control. It would endorse MK ULTRA, not posit MI5 conspiracy
theories about the Beatles. There is nothing wrong with the
Beatles except their mortality.
Anything more popular than Jesus Christ has Cyberfascist
merit. The originator of Cyberfascism, like Lyndon Larouche,
hails from a family with post-industrial Massachusetts shoe industry
connections, and grew up in an environment saturated by Northeastern
New England manufacturing technology. Cyberfascism is not
associated with Quakers, who are
considered
either as stereotypes of
Richard Nixon or the contientious objector movement. It is not
Marxist. It is antithetical to the Socialist Workers Party of
Lynn, MA. It does concern itself with the use of computers to
maximize efficiency and speed up production. It clearly shares
the interest of cybernetics, and sees the sole merits of Lyndon
Larouche as a criminal mind.
But his philosophy is utter b.s. made only for
the consumption of his hopeless, helpless street teams, which mainly
consist of
economically retarded boilermakers and ugly female math students.
Cyberfascism
is not a Revolutionary Tendency. It does not hold
political catastrophism to be true. That is, it does not
envision, as do Mansonians or Jehovah's Witnesses, that an
environmental, political, or geological apocalypse will necessitate an
atavistic reversion to small tribal luddism or a morally guided Golden
Age of Spiritual Technology. Cyberfacism is furiously
anti-Spartacist. Cyberfascists hunt and disrupt Sparticist
Leagues out of sheer sport, and out of views antithetical to Rosa
Luxemburg. A typical work of Cyberfascism was the pamphlet
"Spartacus Shrugged," which is a plagiaro-parody of the Spartacus
manifesto. Other groups sport-targetted by Cyberfascists include
the Larouchian ex-girlfriends, Students for a Democratic Society,
Weather Underground, and New Left Labor, as manifested in groups like
SEIU. Cyberfascism opposes Labor parties. It holds the
Schiller Group to be mumbo jumbo. The Verdi Tuning Initiative is
supported, however, because Cyberfascism was originated by a producer
of detuned (screwed to -4 pitch) music and because Wittgenstein, MUZAK,
and The RZA from Wu Tang Clan have demonstrated the real effects of
pitch
modulation on human musical response.
The only
element of Larouchianism actually held by Cyberfascists is the
one of telling people what they want to hear in amplified form in
exchange for servitude and money. This powerful form of
con is one of said axioms which replaces morality.
Vs Junkers Cyberfascists
are like the Junkers of Prussia, in that they believe that owning
information and technological prowess, whether earned or inherited,
constitutes them as a class of aristocrats exhibiting military,
political, economic, and social control. Cyberfascists delight in
the technological divide, or even in arming their minions with enough
of these to do their bidding. Cyberdemocracy movements are in
many ways disgusting to cyberfascists, who use their own ingenuity and
resources to steer digital social movements in a direction that serves
their more unitary and super-social interests. Cyberfascists do
not automatically jock the Richard Stallman GNU movement, or
automatically resent the autocracy of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
Historically in any industry or technology, a Pharaoh, a Daimyo, a
Farbenfuhrer or other super-producer has asserted control over a key
grain or
component. Shit happens. Additionally, it respects
no RIAA, MPAA, or other board based gateway to technology or its
prohibition. It gets what it can get, keeps what it can keep, and
gives what it feels like giving. Cyberfascists operate as if all
digital information on the planet is GNU licensed, but will not
hesitate to file patents, trademarks, or use the law to suppress
dissemination of information claimed as proprietary. "Gimme your
shit," and "Hey, that's my shit" equally apply.
Vs Greens Cyberfascists
view the environment as a variable space with variable contents, both
biological and technological. Whatever a Cyberfascist wants or
does not want in his actual, virtual, or stolen "environment" and can
add or remove using his technological prowess is The Cyberfascist
Environment. This may or may not include trees and oxygen.
Not everybody likes trees and oxygen. Cyberfascists may endorse
terraforming, strip mining, WalMart, or they may endorse greenspace,
pristine forests,
and
wildlife. The originator of Cyberfascism
enjoys persecuting ALF-ELF activists, and does not have hangups about
snitching them to Homeland Security. Fuck them. They spray
people with green spraypaint, smash cars, and light arsons. They
are fair game. Cyberfascists do not suppress the hunter instinct,
or strive for a better world. They engage in sport.
Cyberfascists conceived of
decentralization as a posture against global
centralization. This was adapted from Sun Tzu.
Decentralization of cities was conceived of by Robert Heinlein, who is
one of the cyberfascist godfathers. Conceiving of
decentralization does not necessitate adhering to it.
Cyberfascists are capricious in the choice of binaries. The
anti-WTO world faction uses the internet to stage transnational
decentralized protests. Cyberfascists do not have an immediate
stake against the WTO, and do infiltrate and disrupt or narc out black
blocs, anarcho-socialists and eco-terrorists. Cyberfascist's
position are more World-Federal than World-Confederal or World
Antifederal, but this World Federalism is of a super-state
nature. E.g. U.S. Prussian Super-State World
Federal and not
Trilateral Fabian World Federal. Cyberfascists would support
Anti-Maastricht Nationalists such as Le Pen if G-State Autonomy in a
particular situation conferred greater power and control against Fabian
Consensualism.
Local
Autonomy to a Cyberfascist means individual subjective autarkeia,
and freedom to steal and invent, such as in reverse engineering
communities, early Silicon Valley, and fictional cyberpunk communities
envisioned by William Gibson in books such as Neuromancer. Thus
cyberpunk fiction and technical manuals are a mainstay of Cyberfascist
libraries. This differs from The Greens in that global villagism
is not a main concern. Zero Population Growth, and other Al Gore
related jingoisms are seen as masking World Socialist Armand
Hammerism. The originator of Cyberfascism disrupts the
Springfield and Boston Massachusetts Green Party, its candidates, and
its affiliates in Socialist Alternative. Cyberfascists frown upon
Ted Kaczynski, and other polish eco-terrorist luddite wonks coming out
of Harvard University. Ted Kaczynski was actually driven to
madness by Dyadic (Third Degree/Star Chamber) persecution under a
Cyberfascist experiment by the CIA.
Cyberfascists
do not endorse the non-hierarchical imperative to
democratic political organization. Hierarchy is an a priori
condition of the animal and mineral kingdoms. Irrevocable.
Cyberfascists would use technology to build up or reduce hierarchy
relative to self-interest, and for no reason deliberately tied to
vegetable environmentalism.
Thus ends
this preliminary excursion into Cyberfascism.
CYBERFASCISM
GROWS:
As of
September, 2007 Cyberfascism has grown a small colony of
entries on the internet. And the search engines indicate that ten
years ago some college Marxists once did attempt to frame their fears
of the internet as "Cyberfascism."
In April,
1997, a group calling itself Revolutionary Marxist Collective
U/Buffalo blabber on about Adorno and Horkheimer, waving the word
"praxis" around as Marxists are inclined to do. They begin
compiling a reactive (ressentiment) definition of Cyberfascism based on
what they call Cybercapitalism, the theory being that Cyberfascism is
the force arm of Cybercapitalism. This is of course the facile
definition of Cyberfascism as a "that" instead of a "this." They assign
to Doug Henwood (!)
of Left Business Observer
the title "the supreme idealogue of
cyberfascism."
Here is a
quote from the letter "Panic
Left 5: Cyberfascism"
(paragraph
breaks are mine). In this email, Brian Ganter borrows authority
from a writer for the Marxist International based in a college in
Virginia:
This
“revolutionary”
person's notion of a “good society” is not a society beyond class
contradictions but a society of beautiful sentences. This is exemplary
of a “cultural” solution to class contradiction.This (not guns, etc.)
is the core of cyberfascism:
the attack on intellectuals, on the academy, the celebration of the
aesthetics, etc. are all aimed at providing a pedagogy of narcosis — a
mode of understanding the world that displaces the conceptual with the
aesthetic and numbs the consciousness.
The goal of cyberfascism
is to put forward well-written sentences as the condition of a “good
society”, to divert attention from THINKING to FEELING... to get rid of
“false consciousness” as a concept. This is why Doug Henwood's brand of
fascism on the one hand fights pomo and at the same time naturalizes
what pomo has always done — the aestheticization of the everyday.
Henwood's brand of fascism turns the disturbance of business-as-usual
brought about through class conflicts (at the level of theory and on
the net) into an aesthetic experience: FLAME WARS. FLAME WARS is the
master trope of cyberfascism,
one that (as in Proyect's deployment in his recent post) both
aestheticizes the conceptually difficult and simultaneously hints at
the need for increased “authority” from above, in this case, more
“moderation” as a result of FLAME WARS that have gotten out of hand.
This is cyberfascism:
throwing people off of the list (the Dumain/Proyect/Henwood clique) all
under the guise of an attack on Stalinism and the exclusion of persons
who have a different set of understandings... these are the weapons of
the cyberfascist.
As you see,
the definition of cyberfascism moaned and wailed into
existence by Brian M. Ganter is the reactive ressentiment sort, largely
a grievous complaint against anti-Stalinists within a Marxist
collective, e.g. run of the mill indy-fundamentalist blathering.
There is nothing worse to a subversive organization than being itself
contaminated with subversives. It is the reactive-ressentiment
backlash within the commune or net-soviet which produces the accusation
of "fascist" to which "cyber" is appended because it takes place
online. Alas, Panic Left 5 / Revolutionary Marxist Collective
(RMC UBuffalo) are fumbling in the dark.
There is
however something to be learned from Ganter's banter.
RMC-UBuffalo and their modern equivalents strive for the old absurd
cliche of a class free society
and loathe any well formed rhetoric not placed in the service of
their collective. The red flag rises in the mind of the
collectivist who then levels the accusation: "Hypocrite!" Since the
collectivist thinks reciprocally (according to an objectivist/Kantian
judeo-christian kibbutz imperative) and not like a Godellian, he must
now discharge himself of the charge of being an "enemy of the
intellect." He preempts his straw opponent by transeferring the
charge of "hate of intellect" onto the accused "fascist" by accusing
him of making facile and ornate (e.g. aesthetically counterfeit)
statements.
Thus the college Marxist collectivist is firmly in the
domain of Geoff Waite's anti-Nietzschean Marxism, blaring the mangled
German-Jewish Communist
semiotics and the klezmerized Kantian and Shopenhauerian cover tunes by
Adorno, Althusser, Horkheimer, et.al. We hear the howls of
abstract,
cerebral and therefore virtual/immaterialistic nature of today's
emasculated atonal Marxist outrage shouted out along dissonant chords
of
reactive posturing. We see the thwarted utopian anger and the waving of
imaginary thought weapons. We read the angry letters written to
an imaginary Caesar. These are the Justin Martyrs of
Marxism.
Ganter is
correct that Flame Wars are a useful element of cyberfascism,
but that is because they are evangelical disruptors. It is a fact
that a Marxist collectivist ego cannot survive the humiliation of a
reductionist and hierarhical word exchange. Thus Marxists form
the neo-Luddite, neo-Amish, neo-Anderthal posture, and try their best
to shun the unbeliever.
THE
DEFINITIVE CONVERSATION
ON CYBERFASCISM:
Cyberfascism
has been circulating on the internet long before marxist
college students in Virginia and New York were shitting their pants
about it. And I designed it knowing full well the defensive
posturings of online Marxists, having engaged them since 1997. I
have originated, posted and circulated Cyberfascism as "something to
do," rather than "something to fight" for quite a
while. Here is the definitive discussion of what was previously a
series of e-published manifestos and anecdotes by persons who are
<i>not</i> late coming reactive Marxists:
Received
8/28/07:
Chris Franceschini <sowieso@comcast.net>
________________________________________________________
To whom it may concern:
I would be very much interested in further discussion on the topic of
cyberfascism and what it is exactly that you wish to achieve via its
practice. From the article, the bulk of what I could gather from the
highfalutin statements and seemingly Hitleresque vituperations, is that
cyberfascism is essentially a function of the modern electronic
paradigm.
Please explain further, as my own conceptualisation of cyberfascism is
one of where government and industry collaborate on new, idyllic ways
of screwing over the masses.
We have in common that we have both studied domestic or foreign
linguistics and/or semiotics. Your email name "sowieso" means "anyway"
in German. You hail from Rutgers which is as notable for its work on
government research contracts as it is for churning out social
scientists. We also have in common having once railed vitriolically
against university mulching boondoggles. We have both also used or
abused our university newspapers, perhaps learning the benefits of
having a William Loeb pulpit from which to badger our adversaries.
You hit the mark when you say that in bulk Cyberfascism is "highfalutin
statements and seemingly Hitleresque vituperations, [which are] a
function of the modern electronic paradigm." Aesthetically, these are
the trappings I have chosen for this "ism" which I have constructed as
a shoe to wear when I come down from the egocentric mountain perch and
deign to do business as a serious rhetorician. It is about as serious
as the "Church of the Subgenius" and periodically I guild and embroider
it as a workable philosophy.
On a semiotic level, I desire Cyberfascism to be a fence. That is, that
it has two sides and resistive permeability, and that some people will
be stuck outside the fence and others will be stuck inside it, while
still others will walk its ridge or point down to it from a position of
humorous intellectual superiority.
The thing-in-itself which is Cyberfascism is an irreducible complex
consisting of these observations: 1) He who authors has authority
(auctoritas). 2) He who constructs and then pilots or governs
information flow networks has cybernetics (kybernetes). 3) He who uses
his strength to gain advantage has fascism. (stringere/to bind, fasci/a
band).
Thus, authority flows from the author who uses his strength in
constructing information flow networks to gain advantage by binding
others or by unbinding the bonds of others and rebinding them to his
own chariot. This is measured in links nodes hubs, and where one sits
in the feedback loop.
The mechanics of cyberfascism are link, hub, node, and signal. It is an
"agent and object embedded network" oriented concept. There is no moral
imperative involved in cyberfasism, only a personal preference for
suprematism, and a belief that one is always justified to prevail or
self-maximize.
Cyberfascism permits that he who has authority, cybernetics, and the
fasces (in this case, ability conferred by mechanized ingenuity, not by
caesar) is justified in his activities in accordance with their yield.
It also means that whoever authors content has in fact assumed
authority, and whoever deprives another of this power is the new
authority.
Certainly this does not prohibit a dystopia where government and
industry collaborate on "new idyllic ways to screw over the masses."
Mass was meant to be moved in accordance with physics. Yet the details
and schematics of these collaborations invariably find their way into
my hands.
Thanks. It's not much of a political philosophy, but it does answer
some questions. It seems you embrace cyberspace as the only world in
which an individual can really gain power independently, and so you
exempt it from binding moral principles, in much the same way a
die-hard capitalist (such as myself) values competitive benefit over
ethical behavior in the realm of free trade. Except instead of amassing
money, you amass information.
I wouldn't call you a cyberfascist, though. You actually seem to be
quite the opposite; perhaps a cyberwarlord or anarchist. If you were
really a cyberfascist, you would want an external authority to assert
total control of the Internet, and I don't think you do want that. An
ambitious man might use the market to gain so much wealth and influence
that he has significant control over the economy, but that doesn't make
him a socialist or a communist. He is a ruthless capitalist, since he
gained his power over the commercial realm within the realm itself. In
the same way, you see cyberspace as nothing more than a giant, abstract
playing field, where everyone competes both within respective games and
for control of the field itself.
Am I close? Do you really think the cyberfascist label fits you, or do
you just call yourself that because it sounds more intimidating than
"cyber-anarchist" and "cyber-warlord"?
I think you are on the mark with the idea that I am exaggerating the
laissez faire nature of the internet and extending it to cover a whole
spectrum of human activity online. But I also see the nature of
these networks as being prone to hierarchy and of course some degree of
mastery, as evidenced by milnet, search engines, Slate.com, Indymedia,
and the medical community websites. I don't personally believe in
the prohibition against initiation or amplification of force.
Thats what makes me not call myself anarchist or libertarian. I
am always impressed by some new restriction or new evasion developed on
the internet, and even moreso by the semantic web, search functions,
and above all: first tier provider status, which is the scottish rite
of internet access. First tier provider status I would say is
administered cyberfascistically by an oligarchy.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Alexander Hankins:
Sure, but are you advocating that one individual or a small group of
people should control the Internet without actually gaining the power
to do so online? If your answer is no, then you are not a fascist, or
you are arbitrarily redefining the word. Earned power and power
acquired through even the fiercest of competition have more merit than
power bestowed by deceptive popularity.
One thing in particular in your response intrigued me:
"I am always impressed by some new restriction or new evasion developed
on the internet"
"developed on the internet" is they key phrase there. You greatly
prefer restrictions developed within the cybernetic realm over those
developed in the legal realm don't you? I find that to be another
indication that you are not a cyberfascist.
_______________________________________________________________________________
FLIPSIDE
Power taken sure feels better than power given, but power used is my
favorite. On the other point, I do cherish cybernetic advances over
organic advances because they are usually faster and more direct. I
hope that in the spirit of Erich Fromm, we might be able to develop a
cybernetic reflex arc which exceeds the efficiency and span of the
human reflex arc. Incidentally, I prefer the human reflex arc (short
circuit) to the human reasoning process (long, deliberative circuit).
Both are necessary, but through a bad comparison to fast and slow twich
musculature, I still think electromechanical prostheses hold the
promise of greater advantage in pursued or applied personal
enhancement. To push this meme along the ideas of Heraclitus, the
cybernetic prosthetic reflex would be stronger (eg more like a fasces)
and yet more supple (like a strand in the fasces) creating the
palintonos, or cantelevered tension. In many ways the fascistic element
is merely aesthetic or futurist.
But I must also confess that as designer of cyberfascism, I am usually
not a cyberfascist.
RELATED
ARTICLES:
The above conversation is the one wherein I synthesize and reduce and
explain the
observations of the articles: "Cybernetic
Nietzcheans," "Egoism Over
Altruism," and "Toward a
Better Use of Human Excrement" into a basis for modelling
net-leftist organizations which also appear in the Haters Magazine
articles list.
These authorings are genuine, as you see the lack of the tone of voice
describing "Cyberfascism" as an evil other, or altruus, but rather as a
manifestation of self or suus.
Bearing this
observation in mind, the writing passed on by RMC-UBuffalo
conforms to the pseudo-definitive
reactive counterposture to
Cyberfascism, and has been Pwned. To use the terminology of
Geoff Waite, RMC-UBuffalo is on the wrong side of the slashmark.
1. [...] your
post on "cyberfascism" eerily approximates the wreckless use of the
term by post/hypermodernists. You appear to want to appropriate the
language for your polemics, but then feign sarcasm when this style is
revealed.
2. [...] Maybe you ought to focus your contributions on cyberhypocrisy
(you make some good points in this regard).
3. [...] Brian, it is important that you understand two things. First,
Doug Henwood and others on this list are not "cyberfascists." Whether
Henwood is right or wrong about your texts, or about anything at all,
it only delegitimates your argument to use such terminology so
wrecklessly. Second, screw critiques of your writing style, etc.--your
theoretical understanding of political forms is very weak. You need to
understand more fully what fascism is and what political forms are not
fascist.
4. [...] You have in your analysis, however, nailed one point that
needs to be brought out explicitly. In your characterization of Louis
Proyect as somebody who raises up the "FLAME WAR aesthetic" and then
uses its existence as justification for more authoritarianism from the
top, more "moderation" in democracy and freedom of expression, you have
hit the nail right on the head.
This
illustrates a few things. First, Doug Henwood is not "the supreme
idealogue of cyberfascism." I am. Second, the term
Cyberfascism was coined independently and jealously curated separately
from my own coining and elaboration. Thus it is a form of
convergent evolution, and rejecting the possibility of subliminal
advertising, I readily concede co-authorship.
Third, Ganter's hysterical counterposturing is an example of the functionality of
cyberfascism and the hilarious fight or flight response of apodiction
and censorship it stimulates in Marxists. This is the same one
found across Indymedia and Riseup communities. Fourth, an
allegation (with little textual or ISBN support) exists of misuse of
the term "cyberfascism" by Hypermodernists.
Wikipedia sayeth:
Hypermodernism refers to a
cultural,
artistic, literary and architectural movement distinguished from
Modernism
and Postmodernism
chiefly by its extreme and antithetical approach. Although the term is
sometimes erroneously used to describe modernists such as Le
Corbusier,
it has come to have some aspects of modernism filtered through the
latest technological materials and approaches to design or composition.
References to magic and an underlying flexible self-identity often
coupled with a strong irony of statement categorize the movement. Some
theorists view hypermodernism as a form of resistance to standard
modernism; others see it as late romanticism
in modernist trappings.
The writers section of that entry points to
William Gibson. The Bibliography points to Paul Virilio: From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond.
I readily cop to consuming artifacts and ideas by Gibson, Virilio, and
Corbusier. At this point in either Cyberfascism or this writing,
there is no detailed enumeration or rebuttal of the criticism that
Hypermodernists misuse the term Cyberfascism. I hope to do so in
the future, taking into consideration also Hypermodernism
in Chess, calculated openings, projection of force, and rope a dope
strategies.
Regarding appropriation, misappropriation and truth in labelling, Just
this morning on Essembly when Volker Lughofer asked me if Richard Kulisz is a
cyberfascist, I said:
No. Richard Kulisz is a
cyber-communist. He is caught in the
collectivist issues matrix. "Trying to make people think." That implies
that thinking is by nature beneficial. He has not reconciled the
prohibition against being a force initiator with the
thought/logic/reason imperative. He is part Kantian (Lutheran)
extistentialist and part socialist.
A true cyber-fascist is one who makes the
analyses of Paul Virilio but
shuts off the feelings of utopia and social justice. From here, going
down the Nietzschean pathway and not the Geoff Waite pathway.
My above comments
about Kulisz are justified by this brief quote:
"Going on, freedom (redefined as power), democracy (plutocracy),
patriotism (fascism), liberty (egotism), free speech (apathy), human
rights (civil rights). That last is an interesting one. As everyone
should know, and a few people do know, the USA is one of a very small
number of nations on this planet that refuses to even so much as
recognize human rights." http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/
"I would execute the landed gentry, their existence demoralizes the
workers who are the foundation of my empire"
Can anyone be a
cyberfascist? If not, then who best simulates a cyberfacist? Stay
tuned. This article, like its author, is still under construction.
THE CYBERFASCIST VIEW OF
RELIGION
The first three premises Cyberfascism
makes regarding religion are these:
1) The Pythagorean reductionist method of reducing religion to
number is correct.
2) Theism is only valid as a markup language. 3)
Theism is a side effect of humans' cognitive ability to signify.
1)
The Pythagorean reductionist method of reducing religion to number is
correct.
All is number.
All statements are polynomial equations of an order of predicate
calculus. In short, any statement of a religious (or
metaphysical) nature which has a positive (+, 1) logical positivity is
representable as a symbolic and numeric logic statement and assessed a
truth value, also positive or negative under conditions of constraint
which also have positive or negative values. The various values
are epistemologically tiered series of binary valued statements.
Thus any of these statements may be sliced as if they were containers
being volumetrically measured by infinite shearing, perhaps even logic
mapped in three dimensional space as holographic "ideas" graphically
represented by volume rendering.
Any statement which does not have a (+) logical positive value can be
checked to see if it is an eigenvalue or an imaginary. If as a
linear string, it appears as a violation of Aristotle's Rule of
Excluded Middle, that is to say it is contradictory, or has
simultaneous + and -, 0 and 1 values, then it can be sigmoidally parsed
using a fuzzy logic gate, or sliced into a meta-statement / statement
pair such as described by Ardeshir Mehta.
Thus can all religious statements, including St. Anselm's "conceivable
inconceivable," which resurfaced as Kant's Moral Imperative, be
identified as imaginary, irrational, eigenvalue, or temporally or
other-vectorally constrained statements, and assigned truth values
under a spread of constraints. Thus, even the most inane
religious statement can be rendered numerically.
2) Theism is only valid as
a markup language.
Consider that theism requires at least one believer, that is one agent
holding a specific set of beliefs.
The belief
set includes belief in another agent -- a meta-agent --
which caused the agent who holds the belief. The object oriented
language describing this is a subset of the natural language of the
agent. This subset is described as "statements about meta-agents,"
which, of course, must be constrained in comparison to "statements
about agents."
When you
have one agent using an object oriented meta-language or
language with constrained options referring to super or sub-agents,
what you have is a markup language such as XML inside of HTML. Thus do
the statements have an internal validity if and only if they adhere to
the rules of the language. All theistic statements are belief
statements by humans, and all moral statements are programming
statements originating like vectors from those primary statements.
There is no
other way in which Theism is currently exercised. It is DEFEASIBLY true
that no other
way can exist. Otherwise an entirely new bases for knowledge has to be
written which explains human knowledge as a subset of Theistic
premises, and this violates the Windows Rule.
Objections
to #2 which are not really Objections but sound observations:
a) No Comprendo -- by Volker
Lughofer: The objection is that #2 is unintelligible to certain
persons.
Resolution of a): Nonuniversal intelligibility confers an
advantage upon those who can understand or use the
information. Cyberfascism utilizes the
fundamental or accumulated inequality of human
intelligence.
b) Internal validity of irrational statements
-- by Benjamin Bonyhadi: " While [theistic] statements
do
indeed lack extracontextual validity, that
is, the are logically inapplicable/impermissible in general,
they do
maintain "internal validity." We must remain aware of what constitutes
"internal validity."
Validity of an impossible
statement is achievable
within a system that account for them. Theistic
statement constructs
are a markup language that serves, in part, specifically to provide an
environment
in which ordinarily
rule-breaking statements can maintain a
personal cohesion for the statement maker.
Resolution of b): This is actually not a true objection but rather a
favorable qualification of validity, e.g. special
validity,
internal validity, absolute validity. I would add to this BIBO Stable
statement validity within a
limited
environment. All of these can be used to measure the stability of
theistic statements.
c) Objection to reductionism -- by
Alexander Hankins: "Disingenuous. Markup language operates on
sets of rigid assumptions --
statements the
program treats as true within the given context, but all for a
specific purpose. The problem
is that truth in an automated, command-based,
specific goal-oriented
structure such as a program
that uses markup
language is meaningless, as is any human belief system
pinned down with
the same rules. You've effectively changed theism into something
completely
unrecognizable as a faith: a
hierarchical and entirely
mathematical operation that is totally dependent
upon the language we
teach it."
Resolution of c): Hankins believes that Markup Language operates on
sets of rigid assumptions, but that
Liturgical
Language does not. Let's just call assumptions and beliefs the same thing. The
current
ruling
paradigm on what constitutes belief is now cybernetic. AGM postulates,
and Belief Revision
theories
all cover this in a way superior to Organized Religion, which merely
programs beliefs and does
not
develop the science of agent belief. Psychoanalysis destroys
religion, and finally biochemistry and
cybernetics destroy psychoanalysis.
The
problem Hankins proposes, that "truth in an automated,
command-based,
specific goal-oriented
structure
such as a program that uses markup
language is meaningless" is well stated, but was put to
rest by
the mathematical technique of Formalized Transformations such as set
transforms and the
assignment of Godel Numbers,
in which it is necessary that
the elements of the transformation, the
symbols etc, are
meaningless. At the very most, for example, "Mere Christianity"
is only minimally
useful as
what C.S. Lewis calls it: a light by which he sees; a means, or a set
of stochastic heuristics.
Hankins
final objection, that #3 is a lie because it changes "theism into
something unrecognizable as
faith: a hierarchical and entirely
mathematical operation that is totally dependent upon the language we
teach it" has four
refutations: 1) The objection is merely aesthetic, the difference only
virtual.
2)
Scientology, a programming scam / cult passes the Turing Test as a
religion. 3) The works of Kant
and Hegel reduced
Judeo-Christianity to Categorical Imperatives and Dialectical
Materialism. Moses
Hess and Karl Marx reduced
Judeo-Christianity to economic theory (socialism) based roughly on the
foundation of Kant and
Hegel. Sassure, Althusser and the socialist semioticians further
reduce and
denude socialism
/ social gospel into abstractions based upon semiotics. Finally,
Geoff Waite and Brian
Ganter roll these into the first
significant objections to Cyberfascism: "Nietzsche's Corps/e" and the
"Panic Left 5"
Discourses. At every time, they are uttering a paean to the
fallen nature of man and the
Soviet
Union, arguing for collectivist altruism and trying to make a defunct
Semitic morality look like
Intelligent
Design. Thus, symbolic or numeric reductionism does not
transmogrify theoretical or
metaphysical statements into something wholly indistinguishable from
faith. 4) Math teachers frequently
accept the validity of
mathematics and the neo-Pythagorrean prohibition against dividing by
zero, or
they accept / reject Cantorian
Transfinites as a matter of faith,
and cannot answer basic questions of
wholesale as opposed to
equation-specific mathematical validity. Furthermore, the
contemplation of
Boundary
Equations and Nash Equilibrium tends to insanity, irrationality and the
big-radio-in-the-head
phenomenon. Math is, of
course, secular masturbation of the religious impulse. 3) Theism is a
side effect of humans' cognitive ability to signify.
Basic Heidegger: To
"exist" is to be
pointed to by a
human. Our ability
to point to things
exceeds the number
of things. Therefore, we may
point to "things
which do not exist"
ergo, imaginary
things, and refer to
them as if they
exist.
However, statements pointing to things that exist are different from
statements pointing to things that do not exist. Therefore the existence value
of the two objects is different. (Formation of differences and
hierarchies are a favored component of cyberfascism).
In the case
where an object is signified but the object has
nonsingular or variable options in fulfilling the existence value it
is called an eigenvalue or
eigenobject. It is a variable in a
polynomial equation.
Clearly a
stone is different from an eigenvalue in which a stone could
be a Buick, or a Frito at the time in which it is cashed in. This
is especially true of oracular statements or statements by the Secretary of Defense.
Failure to
grasp this concept of objective value is a failure to grasp
the working principle of speculative currency. Money is an object, but
it is also an item of fluctuating value whose value is only realized at
the moment of exchange. Gold is a metallic object of which multiple
agents may differ in assessing value, but gold's conductivity is not
altered. Gold's physical value never fluctuates, but it's market value
does fluctuate.
Alternative
economists (i.e. Von Misists, Anarchists, Randians, Socialists,
Communists) should really get a grasp of the metaphysics of objects and
value. Cyberfascism holds that the descriptive economics of Georg Simmel, the
predominant and visionary economic / social network theorist, are
superior to other economic theories. In Philosophy of Money, Simmel
divided his book into a Freudian Conscious/Unconscious axis, and a
Kantian Synthetic/Analytic axis. Any economic school of thought
which rejects virtual or speculative values is an inferior form of
economic theory. Additionally, any prescriptive or proscriptive
economic theory must be seen as a morality, and the morality must be
seen as a vector of commands issuing forth from a religion. Since
cyberfascism is suprematist in its
aesthetic nature, to retain superiority it must treat as inferiors all inferior
economic theories, the holders of inferior economic theories, and the
national systems built on inferior economic theories, use them as
fodder, pilfer their reserves and circulate them through the superior
system irrespective of the will or best interests of their
adherents. This is justified by self-interest.
Objection
to #3 and it's Resolution:
1) Does Heidegger's definition of Dasein
include "pointing?" -- by Lucius Sorrentino: "
The German
word dasein, which Heidegger
used to denote the human being
has nothing to do, that I know of, with
pointing. Where did you find
this?
FLIPSIDE: He refers at some
point to an object's
existence being predicated upon its in the worldness,
namely as being
"there." I also read into it, however erroneously, that Dasein when
hyphenated is the
word "that" and the word
"one." Since that is not
explicit in Heidegger, I looked up the word "exist,"
which breaks down
to ex+estare, or out+stand, meaning that it stands out. If it stands
out, then it is
noticed, or capable of being
signified. Estare further
breaks down into "stand" which is a continuous
repetition of "is" or
"state."
Therefore, Given any Object or Case X, If at (T1, T2, T3...) is = 1,
then the object exists in a time
vector. If = 0, then the
object does
not exist. Since this is a spatio-temporal condition, nested belief
verified by checking in
vectoral space, which means pointing.
There is also the point of fact that existence being spatio-temporal
cane be represented on a spacetime
axis, and in space on an x,y,z
axis.
It's spatial trajectory and it's temporal trajectory are both refered
to
by points, or by transitions
of matter and energy along a series of
points.
Lucius Sorrentino:"In "Being and Time" dasein is
translated as "being-there" Heidegger
didn't want to
"personalize" or even
physicalize human existence,
merely discuss it in the abstract, that is, in terms of
'being'. In his
"Introduction to Metaphysics" he discusses the etymology of the term
existence as you
have and also the Greek term
physis (Latin, natura)
insofar as he interprets the Greeks as having
understood "being" as
presence, standing forth in the light, unfolding, uncovering,
dis-closure, etc..
I suspect that if economists studied metaphysics, they'd forget why
they were economists." GOODIES AND MORE GOODIES!
"The plan goes off without a hitch. The feds are sitting ducks, but
John
McClane is no quitter. With Farrell in tow and a pocketful of ammo,
McClane does his very best to unravel the conspiracy and save the world
from CYBERFASCISM."
-- Katherine Monk: Live Thrills for Diehard Action-Film Buffs,
The Ottawa Citizen 6/27/07
"Scientology
represents a new form of totalitarianism (technototalitarianism or CYBERFASCISM) that is based
on the notion of the biological individual (behaviorism,
cybernetics)." -- Bayerisches
Staatsministerium des Innern: What
is Scientology: The Making of the Human Machine in the Cybernetic
Learning Laboratory.
"The secular Jeremiads and Evangeliums
are everywhere and nowhere simultaneously in a suprahistorical
electronic reality which has the most tenuous link with the material world.
In ‘cyberfascism’
the zenith of metapoliticization coincides with the ultimate degree of
internationalization." -- Roger Griffin: Interregnum or
Endgame? Radical Right Thought in the ‘Post-fascist’ Era
"Going on, freedom (redefined as power), democracy (plutocracy), patriotism (fascism), liberty (egotism), free speech (apathy), human rights (civil rights). That last is an interesting one. As everyone should know, and a few people do know, the USA is one of a very small number of nations on this planet that refuses to even so much as recognize human rights."
http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/