GRAPPLING OCTOPI and OCEAN GOING FISH
Lincoln’s Bible is a compelling resistance to corruption and stupidity through brief montages of videos who think they are prevailing. This quote is from Twitter:
@LincolnsBible
Aka: the Second Economy vs the Realm of the Light.
Always been locked together, but often in balance: “They use our light to move their shadows.” . . .The moment we’re living through is the darkness rising. The underworld’s treasure chest is flooding us.
Yet they have not touched on my own version of the “Second Economy vs. the Realm of the Light.” Maybe we’re not talking about the same thing, since I tend to reflect on what I learn from my two main sub-societies: a plains indigenous tribe across borders and an at-risk set of international teenaged boys. What I learn from them is the old admonishment that if one is in jail, one should spend one’s energy thinking about the spaces between the bars, not resenting the bars themselves. LB tends to attack the bars.
At the same time I remember the beginning of the John Birch Society in Montana and how the ideas were carried into the Scriver Studio by drummers, state legislators, and local swaggerers. They were heavily informed by military ideas and the Manichean legacy of Mediterranean religious dualism. They thought the bars protected them, that they were outside, not captives.
Two metaphors are wandering around in our talks. One was the idea of the Octopus and the Kraken, which is a sort of super-octopus that has tentacles everywhere, so that the horizontal and submerged forces of the illegitimate covert that seek to evade the rule of law can rise up and take us all by surprise.
The other metaphor is that of OCEAN which implies fish and bait. The word is an acronym for sorting what species of fish we are. The idea is identifying five human types as follows: “You might find it helpful to use the acronym OCEAN (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) when trying to remember the big five traits. CANOE (for conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion) is another commonly used acronym.” These traits are guides for merchandizing and gerrymandering, for weaponizing stigma, the “other”, and driving uncertainty into fear. They lend themselves to computer data of what people buy, wear, and listen to.
Sometimes the remarks on Twitter chime with my experience in the past, which is long. If one includes the stories of my father-in-law, they go back to his search for a future in 1900 while his brothers were made rich when Minneapolis was founded in the midst of their corn fields. Metaphorical ideas can jump me to more research.
Dave Troy is a good example. If you like Ted talks, go here: https://tedxbeaconstreet.com/videos/protecting-democracy-from-the-hazards-of-disruptive-change/
He’s on Twitter:
@davetroy Here’s a sample of his posts.
“Meta-thought of the day: society is trapped in a struggle between legitimate and criminal networks and the formation of social capital into each. Nations where criminal networks have primacy are not compatible with democracy, even as they may be less unruly.”
https://davetroy.medium.com At the moment he is posting in sequence a discussion of Jan. 6. It’s a 6 part series, both audible and print.
QUOTES FROM DAVID TROY
In 1989, William S. Lind formalized the principles of what he called “Fourth Generation Warfare.” Without getting too technical, fourth generation warfare is all about messing with the minds of your opponent, and getting ahead of their decision-making processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare
“Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians. The term was first used in 1980 by a team of United States analysts, including paleoconservative William S. Lind, to describe warfare’s return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor.”
My informing sub-groups are not violent (normally) but they are arrayed against militarized violence from nation-states who are really international corporations seeking wealth. They masquerade as police, and think they are expert at 4th generation strategy and propaganda. In contrast, feminists tend to go head-to-head — “my head is as good as your head.” BAM!!
Nation-state wealth-based actions are “ about creating reality and forcing others to react to it, placing opponents at a continuous strategic disadvantage.”
But my subsets, bitterly observant, know how to use these created “realities” against those who invent them. Being underestimated can be useful.
This kind of “created reality” thinking flourished during the Cold War. When the Colonies broke free from England’s empire, they learned subversion guerrilla tactics from the indigenous people who fought on the American side with them. Asians have always excelled at this kind of thinking in both games and martial arts.
Weaponizing sex both as attachment and arousal is common on both standard and “4th” kinds of war. The indigenous people and the at-risk boys are very much aware of this and suffer from it, even as they use it. They know what it is to attract people who hate them and obsess about them.
“In libertarianism, molestation describes the subversion of the will of another. If someone has a cookie, and someone else takes it, the taker is “molesting” the cookie’s owner.
“LeFevre and other hardline libertarian thinkers asserted that any “aggression” is inherently illegitimate, where “aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.
“To followers of this philosophy, taxation was a kind of aggression, as was any sort of intervention of any kind — to the point where government itself was seen as a violation of one’s individual rights.”
“This conflict has roots in the 20th century world wars, and in the US civil war. In history, themes ebb and flow, and some long-standing conflicts return repeatedly over time until a new consensus can be synthesized.
In this case, I believe the primary conflict can be traced back to the idea of “molestation,” and a deep-seated human obsession with the idea of “property.” For some, it is a primary concern. For others, it is secondary to the well-being of society as a whole. We may never fully resolve this. . .
The concept of “Russian meddling” was a bad frame. Rather, we are confronting a global network of ruthless aligned interests that is willing to use fascism and the banner of “anti-communism” to gain and retain power. And that network includes participants in the United States, Russia, UK, Europe and many other countries. Russia’s activity in the United States was a collaboration between peers — not an outside intervention. And we must also hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for its many gross human rights violations.
(Emphasis added by myself.)
Indigenous people have always embraced communal uses of resources, which is not the same thing as communism. Boys who are at risk because they have nothing, not even families, know a lot about ruthless-aligned interests. I listen to them and look for the spaces between bars. Both fishes and octopi can go between them.
