Lady Gaga has seemed to spring from nowhere, shooting right to the top. OTOH, I may be behind the times. She must be the love child of Madonna and Marylin Manson.
I really like this one though. Awesomely creative video.


--but that is beyond the scope of this stream.
How does one go about "updating" Clausewitz's description of politics/war? Besides the fact that a decision to transmute his so-called dictum may be presumptuous and idle or useless navel-gazing, actually doing so is not as easy as it might seem. Finding the adequate relationships between the nouns to describe 5GW requires a rethink of 5GW: war, continuation, politics, means. And then come the prepositions. In any case, my final paragraph in my latest look at Death Note, came back to me -- it was a forced paragraph, in the sense that a) I've had this nagging conflict with the theory of 5GW for some time and b) wanted to insert at least a beginning to the resolution of that conflict and c) Death Note as allegory provides ample examples of this conflict, itself.









I was living for a dream, | TOWN OF THE SOUND OF A TWIG BREAKING |

Intelligence and will are not enough; the actor must have or conspire to gain access to a "choke point" from which he can, in jujitsu fashion, leverage the connectivity of a complex system against itself.
(ZenPundit, "Who Would Declare War on the World: The Nature of Super Empowered Individuals", July 27, 2007)
Kaczynski demonstrated four characteristics that are likely to be shared with superempowered individuals:
a) “Lone Wolf” actor
b) Superior Intelligence
c) Opportunity for leveraging Complex Systems
d) Profound alienation, isolation or societal disconnection

- If the owner fails to consecutively write names of people to be killed within 13 days of each other, then the user will die.
- If you make this note unusable by tearing it up or burning it, all those who have touched the note up until then will die.
If Mr. Stack thought the right bomb, in the right place, at the right time could change the policies of the Treasury Department, why didn’t he fly that bomb into Mr. Geithner’s office?
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.--plus so much else within his last letter seemed to place both communism and capitalism into a negative category: that category used to describe systems within which wealth distribution occurs unfairly, accruing according to the wishes of the economically/politically powerful.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
In spite of the Treasury’s Department unjust actions here — actions so egregious they have provoked domestic terrorism — Tim Geithner has not called for the repeal of Section 1706, not said it will not be enforced — indeed, he has done nothing.This is not to say that Dan attacks capitalism as broadly as J. Stack has attacked it within his e-manifesto; but it is to say that the general thrust of Joe Stack's e-manifesto, that the powerful control the system of wealth distribution by controlling how wealth accrues, might have inspired Dan to see particular instances of this dynamic with respect to the Treasury Department and Tim Geithner.
We need a Secretary of the Treasury who is tough on terrorism [and] tough on the causes of terrorism — not an enabler of terrorism, like Tim Geithner.
But if we repeal Section 1706, the terrorists win!Here, J.J seems to be reacting from a sensitivity to past arguments; he is not very serious in that comment. Before him, "Tim" had more or less asked the same question of Dan, i.e. whether there is a difference between Joe Stack and Islamist terrorists, inferring that Dan would say there is a difference through a rhetorical question asking if Dan saw no difference. (Dan does, and soon after said so.)
Why are you trying to appease the terrorists?!
(Jeffrey James)
What I find fascinating (and depressing) is that some Americans view Joe Stack as an “American Patriot” or “hero”. Which is a straight-up endorsement of terrorism against the US Government, no different than endorsing the methods and madness of Islamic extremism.This comment confused me a little bit, because it seemed to suggest that Tim believes no one can be a patriot while not supporting the US Government; also, that the US Government is equivalent to the targets that Islamist terrorists attack, such as mosques, other nations' governments, etc. Of course, I was confused only a little bit.
(Tim)
THE FEAST
Almost at the end of the century
this is the time of the pain of the bears
their agony goes on at this moment
for the amusement of the wedding guests
though the bears are harder to find by now
in the mountain forests of Pakistan
they cost more than they used to which makes it
all the more lavish and once they are caught
their teeth are pulled out and their claws pulled out
and among the entertainments after
the wedding one of them is hauled in now
and chained to a post and the dogs let loose
to hang on its nose so that the guests laugh
at the way it waves and dances and those
old enough to have watched this many times
compare it with other performances
saying they can tell from the way the bear
screams something about the children to be
born of the couple sitting there smiling
you may not believe it but the bear does
--W. S. Merwin
OUTSIDER ART
Most of it’s too dreary
or too cherry red.
If it’s a chair, it’s
covered with things
the savior said
or should have said—
dense admonishments
in nail polish
too small to be read.
If it’s a picture,
the frame is either
burnt matches glued together
or a regular frame painted over
to extend the picture. There never
seems to be a surface equal
to the needs of these people.
Their purpose wraps
around the backs of things
and under arms;
they gouge and hatch
and glue on charms
till likable materials—
apple crates and canning funnels—
lose their rural ease. We are not
pleased the way we thought
we would be pleased.
-- Kay Ryan

Light Yagami
For his own protection. Given
the restraints of his “power” (Death Note), he could not avoid
the utter destruction of his plans should he be cornered/captured. That is, because he needs to see a face and know a person's
true name, the Death Note would be more useless than a gun, etc.,
in a direct, face-to-face confrontation. He would be nothing more than a teenager surrounded by a horde of police.
For hiding the operation/existence of the Death Note. If the Death Note is the metaphorical 5GW, revelation that there is a 5GW occurring, and also how it is occurring, or its features, might improve his opponents' chances of stopping him. If they also know the rules of the game, they can subvert his game.
Light Yagami's Proxies. The appearance of a rogue proxy, along with the operation of chosen proxies, might threaten Light's discovery as well as the discovery of the Death Note(s). The discovery of the 5GW and how it is being conducted, through the capture of one of these proxies, defaults back to the preceding bullet point. Therefore, he must subdue and co-opt, or eliminate, any rogue proxies and choose his selected proxies with care.
Light's Opponents
Light's opponents must remain hidden to remain effective. All Light needs is an awareness of their images (faces) and their true names in order to kill them at a distance by merely writing their names in the Death Note.
Light's opponents also wish to keep their
own methods hidden from Light, in order to cause his discovery, by
tripping him up or drawing him into the open or otherwise
collecting data outside of Light's awareness. If Light is aware
of such data, he will take measures to eliminate or hide it -- the mysteriousness of Light's operation, combined with the fact that he has often so easily taken out anyone who remotely got close to him, encourages this desire for secrecy among his opponents.

- It ought to be deeply impressed on the minds of all who have voices in this national deliberation, that no man can deserve a seat in parliament, who is not a patriot. No other man will protect our rights: no other man can merit our confidence.
A patriot is he whose publick conduct is regulated by one single motive, the love of his country; who, as an agent in parliament, has, for himself, neither hope nor fear, neither kindness nor resentment, but refers every thing to the common interest.
- Let us take a patriot, where we can meet him; and, that we may not flatter ourselves by false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive; for a man may have the external appearance of a patriot, without the constituent qualities; as false coins have often lustre, though they want weight.
- Some claim a place in the list of patriots, by an acrimonious and unremitting opposition to the court. This mark is by no means infallible. Patriotism is not necessarily included in rebellion. A man may hate his king, yet not love his country.
- The greater, far the greater number of those who rave and rail, and inquire and accuse, neither suspect nor fear, nor care for the publick; but hope to force their way to riches, by virulence and invective, and are vehement and clamorous, only that they may be sooner hired to be silent.
Of the two, I'll pick Dr. Johnson.
- A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation. This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion. The fallaciousness of this note of patriotism is particularly apparent, when the clamour continues after the evil is past.
The title of this post of course refers to another from the good doctor; I would include Boswell's account:
- Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
- April 7, 1775, p. 253
- Boswell's full mention of this statement reads:
Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest.
"Viewing the generations in a linear representation, in relationship to the Boom as Arherring has done, may offer insights to different styles of fighting which need not emerge solely as a uni-directional development of warfare. We might in fact contemplate particular strategies which have been employed throughout the history of humanity (which generally runs along with the history of warfare) and place these strategies either to the left of the Boom or to the right; are they, then, also “generations” of warfare? The question may be moot, if we are only to consider strategic dynamics as they relate to the Boom, or to kinetics, in the way Arherring has done. However, to postulate a generational model is to suggest a general uni-directional development through which different strategies emerge as a consequence of previous strategies which have been employed. A singular generational model need not be applied to the entire history of warfare in order to box certain styles of fighting into specific epochs, and only those epochs, within the history of humanity; rather, a generational model only need show that a given style of fighting has resulted as a consequence of another — and this will usually occur within a specific epoch, or a small time frame, simply because some overlap of generations, or competitive conflict, must occur in order for one style to develop as a consequence of another."In the later post, I made an argument against the sort of thing Peter has done with his "new framework" approach; such approaches, similar to Lind's -- and after all that seems to be his only model, ever -- are mere descriptive. This reduces such frameworks to near uselessness. To reduce his offering to absurdity, suppose I could do similarly by delineating the style of dress, uniform, or combat gear broken out for distinct periods of time. This could be done. It might actually describe epochs, at least vis-a-vis the apparel; or, it might actually describe certain niches or styles which have reappeared throughout history. But it's merely descriptive:
"In point of fact, Lind’s model has often caused dispute, particularly on the fourth tier, that is with regard to the prognostication of 4GW. Useful or not, the first three generations are descriptive of what has already occurred in our modern era and so are “pre-verified”. The fourth generation is a guess of what is to come, which has been partly verified by current conflicts but was left open enough to suggest all future conflicts. The fact that Lind’s GMW leaves “fourth generation warfare” open to becoming whatever happens in the future — the definition is vague and fluid enough — severely limits the usefulness of GMW. What are we to learn from GMW that will benefit us, whether as a state or as individuals engaged in conflict? By leaving no room for the development of a “fifth generation of warfare” that could defeat a “fourth generation warfare”, we are left no recourse in GMW except the ability to describe: Having described 1GW through 3GW, we come to “4GW” which we can use to tag all future events. What we are to do about those events doesn’t matter and is conspicuously absent from the GMW model. xGW, on the other hand, would seek to suggest a framework which would allow problem-solving. If we eject the word “generation” from the model and instead use something else, such as “grade” [2], and by so doing eject the most common connotations of “generation”, we can perhaps begin to postulate not merely the styles of conflict as they emerge exterior to us, one after another, but also the relationship of these styles to one another in a useful manner: i.e., we may postulate an interior activity, or a reflective and prospective activity which becomes problem-solving. One force sees its opponent’s activity, assesses itself, and seeks to develop a better method of fighting. For me, this is at heart the greatest strength of xGW."And if I may backtrack (which these recent postulations, here and there, seem to be), I would reintroduce from that first link the very same idea, or nearly the same, given by a commenter at one of Peter's threads: that we may view these G's as they appear within a specific culture, area, etc., without trying to lump all of human history, the world over, into a singular unidirectional progression:
"For our xGW, we only need to understand the possessive pronoun. Criticisms of the xGW theory that is currently propounded usually take the extreme position of pointing out that Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or some other historical figure or group also fought in an xGW manner or an x+1GW manner; and since the proponents of current xGW theory are assumed to be referring to the entire history of war when they discuss xGW, a theory which one assumes must fit a single uni-directional evolution of warfare spanning the entire history of humanity, those proponents are speaking gibberish. Well, some are; others concern themselves only with our xGW, limiting the theory to the period since the Peace of Westphalia or in some other way."I.e., this effort to create a Descriptive Model (tm) that must be able to describe all that has happened in the history of warfare, the world over, may be moot or distracting. What we have to do now is understand our own time (which extends backward somewhat, even to before our particular births, but not back to the dawn of humanity) and try to come to some valuable understanding of our time which we might apply to current needs. If we do see a useful somewhat-generational -- taking several meanings of that word - development in our time, using what we see does not require that we also find a way to lump other efforts, from thousands of years ago or from vanished societies, into our vision of our own time.
Recent Comments