Subject: Chat with David G.
From: "David G." <kawphy@gmail.com>
To: barriticus@gmail.com

David: So what's the latest? I've kinda been out of the game for a couple weeks... I saw Greenwald on Colbert, and noticed more and more press accurately reporting about the rise of the Anonymous phenomenon...
David: (I feel a bit like everything's gotten much bigger than me, and journalists like you have filled in any role I might have played back in '08...)
me: well
me: http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201109/6905/Anonymous-plans-defense-for-Bradley-Manning-promises-a-media-war
me: http://piratenpad.de/master
David: Yeah, I saw that. I like the idea. taking on the US Gov't will be tough... for them to relent would be a tacit endorsement for their people to violate their promise of confidentiality
David: I really respect Manning, consider him a hero with bigger balls than anyone I know, and it's a shame how he's being treated. Criminal, really. And winning that battle would basically win the information war.
David: basically, here, we're just saying 'Anonymous is a spotlight; try to behave in a manner that doesn't draw attention. Attention is drawn to gross injustice and unwarranted self-importance.'
David: which might be the simplest explanation I've ever heard for anonymous.
David: how closely are you working with Greenwald on the manning thing?
me: not very
me: we talk a bit
me: once in a while
me: I feed him things
David: there's a thread in SA's D&D forum about Greenwald's stuff on Manning. There's a thread at WWP about your work. I'd love to help co-ordinated action between you, greenwald, the WWP forums and the SA forums. I'm not in any official leadership position with any of 'em, but I have the ability to force issues...
David: I'm just not sure exactly what action I should be taking. I'd like to talk through some ideas if you're game...
David: (I can also bend gregg's ear as needed, but I don't think I hold all that much pull at present. If an idea is strong enough, though, his crew will listen)
me: actually
me: I would love that
me: I have some SA connex
me: but would like you better
me: do you know Dunkman?
me: he hangs on random
me: friend of my gf
me: saw him last night
me: plus some others
David: don't know 'em, but feel free to tell any of 'em to message me
me: I've never really dealt with any of them before recently
David: SA is basically the original source for anonymous. We used to do the ddos shit from the forums, back around '99
David: then the forums went legit
David: 4chan was founded by a goon
David: and the rest is history
David: but, like...
David: All Your Base began at SA.
David: one of the very first, most successful internet memes
David: and the admins decided to delete the thread and deny any involvement
David: and ban people that brought it up
David: so there's been this culture on SA for years that refuses to acknowledge it's 'little brother' 4 chan
David: the result is a highly educated, technically sophisticated, and very large community - that is cycnial and uninvolved
David: and I'm trying to break that groupthink, because I think they could serve as a sort of 'cavalry'
David: and I've had quite a bit of success, using the various news stories (wikileaks, internetk ill switch, hbgary, etc) along with my understanding of and history of involvement in chanology to make the case for an overarching narrative
David: a narrative of an information war that must reach a consensus or risk becoming a hot war.
David: basically, as I see it, you've got the ex-cold war people and the military industrial complex up against transparency/free speech fetishists
David: and newest generation - people in college today - are on the transparency side.
David: the 'digital natives'
David: and the war is playing out from there.
David: globally.
David: I see the digital divide as significant, as I expect the 'connected class' to replace the 'ruling class' within our lifetimes. But governments and corporations have to figure out how to tap into the 'cognitive surplus' for that to happen
David: Anonymous is the cognitive surplus begging to be involved in policy-making.
David: yeah... It's kind've a rambling, all-inclusive narrative. And yet, I can't turn on the TV or read a news article without seeing that narrative staring me in the face.
David: and most people just don't see it.
me: I can tell you
me: that you are entirely correct
me: and this will become more evident soon
me: note that the process, though
me: will require more along the lines of marblecake
David: yeah. But we need a strategy before anything....
David: the means is proven
me: well
David: the end-goal (and means of adjusting it as things progress) must be defined
me: it's sort of forming itself
David: yeah, that's what's so amazing.
me: by which I mean the cerebral cortex
David: yes :)
David: I've been pushing the consciousness analogy since '08. My background is philosophy of mind, psychology, and cog sci
David: I have a neuroscientists and a philosopher (specializing in consciousness) that I found on SA working with me as a team
David: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Internet-Prophet/104989272889993
me: you should e-mail me robinsonchicago@gmail.com
me: tell him a bit about yourself
me: he will send you documents
me: then I'll get back to regarding the virtual republic
me: and the Tunisian framework
me: brb cig
David: awesome.
David: (coo)
David: The thing people don't realize about this emerging consciousness is that it's only as smart (or moral) as the consensus position. And the consensus position is shaped by the participants. So people that leave Anonymous to the channers are sacrificing their future by refusing to get involved in shaping the outcome.
David: I have worked out anthropological 'rules' of Anonymous, working with Michael Wesch. It's a complete revolution in terms of what is regarded as 'right', 'just', 'polite', and 'obscene.' These terms themselves are being changed. And that's the 'culture war' aspect of the whole event.
David: (there's an 'information war' aspect, a 'culture war' aspect, and a 'class war' aspect. The solution isn't for any one side to 'win', it's for a consensus to be reached, a synthesis between thesis and antithesis)
me: I do agree, to some extent
me: but from where I sit
me: I see the process that will be required to create the group consciousness in which all have equal capabilities within the new process, the new Anon
me: we have intel
me: as such
me: we have secrets
me: as such
me: we have people with more "power" than others
me: this is a dangerous phase
me: and it must be finished with quickly
me: the solution, I think
me: or at least a partial remedy
me: will be software network akin to others
me: such as Project PM is creating
me: even then
me: there will still be centers of "power," I think
me: This is something that's very difficult
me: that we have to solve soon
me: we've just been busy
me: and ironically
me: it will have to be solved by the elite
me: luckily, our elite is trustworthy
me: it's a technocratic, ethical elite
David: I agree with that
David: how much background do you have in cog sci/consciousness studies/philosophy of mind?
me: I have no formal educational background after high school
me: I am mostly self-taught
me: still
David: cool
me: I have managed to absorb some of it
me: through some good books
David: I respect self-taught. I'm askin' for a self-evaluation, not credentials
me: and good contacts
me: well
me: thing is
David: which books, which contacts?
me: well
me: I read the Seven Mysteries of Life
me: a long time ago
me: a lot of books on the mind
me: I have several dealing with the nature of consciousness that I have meant to read
David: Pinker? Dennett?
me: basically
me: don't remember
David: okay
me: I believe I have a deficit in consciousness theory
me: I am more like McCluhan
David: (this is my area of expertise... largely self-taught myself, only have a BA)
me: I am more focused on the nature of media, information, heuristics
me: black swan, etc
me: that's why I'm so happy to destroy our institutions
David: information is absolutely key to the whole thing. That's what most philosophers of consciousness fail to see.
me: because they will destroy us
David: gives you a leg up on many.
me: I will admit to having a leg up on many, yes
me: but
me: note that I know no physics
me: or math
me: I do understand some math theory
me: like
me: well
David: I don't suppose you ever travel anywhere near chicago, do you?
me: I shouldn't go that far
me: I will be living in New York again soon
me: and Clark Robinson, my second-in-command
me: is in Chicago
me: the one you should e-mail for the docs
me: he's a retired lawyer
David: awesome. I'm halfway through composing my e-mail to clark.
me: very ethical
David: awesome
me: good
David: (I took the lsat once... scored 167... I can relate to lawyers)
me: I don't know how long I'll be a "free man," though
me: but if things work out, I will have lots of money soon
David: you think they're gunna come for you?
me: and will be happy to visit
me: during warm seasons, of course
me: well
me: we hear thing
David: I'd love to meet up sometime, I think I have information that could prove useful.
me: we have channels
David: if they bust you, what do you imagine they'd get you on?
me: you have to understand
me: that beyond Anon
me: and Project PM
me: I have an informal nameless network
me: any number of things
me: I was a common criminal
me: still have warrants
David: which is to say, you're from the oppressed class
me: they probably don't know I used to sell weed
me: but I hope they do
me: because I want them to getme on that
David: it's funny, I see the weed legalization issue as tying into this narrative in a very key way
David: most people still think that's distinct.
me: I also have things on this laptp
me: it;'s not
me: it's central
David: agreed.
me: it's a perfect symptom,even affliction, of the system
David: if I ever get busted, it's gunna be for possession. I don't sell though.
me: that cannot be corrected through "reform"
David: yeah
me: or otherwise through the system itself
me: as I said the other day
me: Anonymous is a process at war with a system.
me: Even more so
me: the system arose in a different environment
me: it is not fit
me: in the evolutionary sense
me: and we are seeing that now
me: you and I and increasingly others
me: and good
me: because unless this system is destroyed
me: humanity could end
David: are you familiar with the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model?
me: it could end anyway
me: I am familiar with the concept in metaphysics and thus its expressions in theology and other manifestations of human nice-tries
me: but not really
me: not in the context you mean
me: or maybe I am
me: some things I know without knowing the terms for them
David: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis
David: think of thesis-antithesis pairs right now
David: collectivism and individualism
David: anonymous is the synthesis
David: america-is-awesome vs. america-is-the-great-satan
David: anonymous is the synthesis
David: transparency vs. privacy rights
me: hmmm
David: anonymous is the synthesis
me: you're right
me: anarcho-technocracy
me: could be the same
me: a more nuanced, evolved version of Anon
David: libertarianism vs. socialism - anon is the synthesis
David: yes
me: yes
me: I am supposed to talk to Radon soon
me: he's been in Dubai
me: I have recruited Barry Eisler for the project
me: and offered a role to Bruce Sterling
me: I had to get off opiates for past ten days
me: but can now move on this
me: expect more info on this within next few days
David: cool.
David: I just sent you a pic of me 'n my family over christmas break that I thought you'd find hilarious.
me: lol
me: just like the Masons
David: anyhow, I'm not a media guy, and I'm not technically sophisticated, and I don't have a blog. But I think you can see I have some skills, talents and knowledge that should be useful. I'm trying to find a way to make myself valuable... and if you can think of anything I'd be useful for, let me know.
me: I need you
me: for certain things
me: I need someone to work with me on a lot of these things
me: and to prepare to take some over in case I am incarcerated
me: and it has to be an Anon
me: and so you're perfect
David: good. Also, one warning (which shouldn't surprise you, coming from anon) - I will play devil's advocate. I will disagree and make as strong an argument against you as possible. I do so not to push my own agenda, but to make sure the consensus we reach is strong enough to survive and win.
me: absolutely
me: that's what I want
me: I have no yes-men
David: good. Me too.
David: yeah, marblecake's irc channel is a bit groupthinky for me.
David: rof, in particular, seems to be all about the class war.
me: I've never been there
me: are they the anti-Housh crew?
David: personally, I see the class war forming - and I'm totally on the side of the underclass - but I see the 'good' that Anon can accomplish is to prevent the class war.
me: yes
David: no, Housh is there.
me: the class war must be between the technocrats and those who are above us
me: it must not be poor versus rich
me: it must be erudite versus the mediocre powerful
me: that's my current take, anyway
me: remember that I do not have plans
me: but contingencies
me: based on events
me: I aim to be a process rather than an institution
me: just like Anon
David: I agree completely.
David: like I said... there's the ruling class and the underclass...
David: always has been, always will be
David: but the ruling class has gone through a series of expansions
me: you mean the creative class?
me: joining them?
me: and gaining soft power?
me: or something else?
David: from creating a parliament (undermining the monarch)
me: oic
David: to creating a 'middle class' (wealthy business class with influence)
David: it goes through expansions.
David: right now, the ruling class is not a cabal, it's not a massive conspiracy...
David: but it's still a small, insular group
David: and the task of ruling is too great for them
me: yes
David: there's in-fighting, and there's price fixing. there's competition, and there's cooperation (both overt and covert)
David: but they are ignoring the will of the people
me: they do not properly promote talent
David: and the two political parties have subverted things
David: (dem vs. rep - anon is the synthesis)
David: yes. It's not a meritocracy.
me: if the interior folks were of higher caliber
me: I would support them
David: meritocracy really only happens when building out of major depressions, I think
me: perhaps
me: hmm
David: we need a meritocracy, at least for a decade, to dig out of the mess that's been made
me: interesting hypothesiss
me: yes
David: and what this all boils down to
David: is tapping into the cognitive surplus
me: anarcho-meritocracy
David: (as described by Clay Shirky)
me: Anon has show it to work
David: right.
me: and we did so slapdash
me: imagine another Anon
David: but how, exactly, do corporations and governments tap into that massive pool of talent?
me: they don't do it with efficiency
David: trust is currency.
David: that's the key to the solution.
David: skepticism fits in here
me: yes
me: exactly
David: as skeptics are significantly more trustworthy.
me: ebb and flow of relationships
me: as well
me: that is what it is, Anon
me: trust, respect
David: and the internet gives us so much information, skepticism is the only meaningful, useful means of using such a wealth of conflicting data.
David: yes. Criticizing and arguing with a person is a show of respect.
David: which is a value that runs directly contrary to the status quo
David: that's one more revolution
me: yes
me: I was telling NBC
me: Isikoff
me: same thing
me: when they came last week
David: awesome :)
David: I have read some of your stuff, I really dig it. Of all the writers I've read, I think you're the closest to seeing things as I do
me: "In Anonymous, we can go up to the people who run shit and tell them off"
me: "Can you do that at NBC, sweethearts?"
David: speaking truth to power :)
me: they dug it
me: they love us
David: yeah
me: just like the poster we did
David: which poster is that?
me: http://i.imgur.com/n0JSY.jpg
David: that is fantastic.
me: a certain sort of person
me: comes to us
me: another sort supports us
me: another sort is our enem
me: many are not smart enough to fear us, of course
David: are you familiar with the california f-scale (a personality psychology test)?
me: one only fears their superiors if they are wise enough to do so
me: nope
David: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/California_F_Scale
David: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control locus of control is significant here too.
me: well, I'm certainly familiar with the sort
David: we can actually evaluate the sorts of people that fit each of those categories you've described. THAT'S 'self-awareness'
me: yes
me: we now can especially
me: although we can also do so merely by observing
David: yeah.
me: it is easy to figure out who needs to be stripped of power and who must be elevated
me: if one is of the other type
David: I will say... I'm from a libertarian background, and still consider myself a libertarian (though I recognize my writing resembles marx more than rand)...
me: I'm from same
me: now anarchist
David: I'm not comfortable with the FCC 'solving' the net neutrality issue.
David: though I know it needs to be resolved.
me: neither am I
David: I'm an anarchist too... but I don't think people understand what I mean by it
David: it's not that I want there to be no government
me: I am only comfortable with pressure applied by a technocratic voluntary brigade
David: it's that the very concept of Legitimate Authority - that which you are morally obligated to obey - is bunk
David: no such thing exists
me: intended to prevent any initiation of force
David: so any government that claims Legitimate Authority is full of shit
me: of course
David: I'm an anarchist insofar as I reject LA
me: from where would such authority derive?
me: right
David: but I believe there can be legitimate (lower-case 'l') government (lower-case 'g').
me: sure
me: I don't mind a little government
me: or a little smack for that matter
David: basically... any sustainable organization of people that serve the needs of the people.
me: it's just hard to keep the habit down
David: yeah
me: and society has addictive genes
David: yeah
David: what would really win the war for us
David: would be comcast and at&t siding with anonymous, telling the MPAA and RIAA to fuck off, doing nothing to filter, block, monitor or throttle traffic
David: and if they want to charge varying tiers of service in terms of download speeds, more power to 'em (so far as I'm concerned)
me: well
me: we may have some aces
David: and if they explicitly state that they will not comply with any government requests to filter, block, monitor or throttle traffic, all teh better
me: think about how nice it would be for, say, Tunisia, to cooperate
David: (child porn being an issue to dealt with, which gets into another fundamental issue in society - our prudish refusal to acknowledge our own sexual nature, producing a lot of fucked up fetishes, some of which harm people)
me: yeah, child porn is the thin wedge
David: 'think of the children' killed socrates.
me: that will be used to censor internet further
me: of course
David: (the actual charge was 'corrupting the youth.' The current revolution is socrates' revenge.)
me: at this point
me: I feel sorry for the fucking politician who proposes any internet clampdown, however it's phrased
David: definitely.
David: Egypt did us a HUGE favor.
me: absolutely
me: read my last couple Skeptical Inquirer columns
me: it did me a pretty good favor too
me: oops, about to change locations
me: talk later
David: by pulling the plug on the 'net, then (the gov't) losing spectacularly (and, to a large extent, to peaceful protests), they killed the 'internet kill switch' effort
David: cool,. Look forward to talking more.