x2 W1w1OK FOR PUBLICATIONw0W0 Distribute and Upload at Your Discretion Some day I may write a formal paper on propaganda, but for now I think this information best kept just among us in 000000000000000000000 I will assume familiarity with "black," "white," and "gray" propaganda; what I claim is original with me is the explicit identification of what I call "Kandy-Apple Red Metal-Flake" propaganda: stuff that is so entertaining that recipients show it to others and/or reproduce it at their own expense! Get it? Von Neumannism comes to propaganda! Think of a few of the commonly-recognized uses of propaganda: * "Preaching to the choir" -- invigorating and reinforcing the beliefs of those who already agree. * Persuading those who are basically neutral or undecided. * Convincing the opposition to change their minds. * Confusing the opposition by disinformation, or "mind-fucking." * Making the writer of the propaganda personally feel good. This list does not claim necessarily to be exhaustive. What's key and crucial is this: Applied Von Neumannism (creating propaganda which REPRODUCES ITSELF) clearly enhances the performance of EACH OF THESE OBJECTIVES! The recipient who passes along (or, better, who MAKES COPIES of) a piece of propaganda has become a co-perpetrator in the propagandizing process! For free! And it gets better: If your trusted friend or co-worker hands you a piece of propaganda (which he may not even KNOW to be intended as such) with the admonition, "Jesus, Joe, you gotta read this--it's the craziest thing I've ever seen!" you are going to give it a MUCH more sympathetic reception than if you receive identical material from a random stranger, say, from the "Fair Play for Haiti Committee." So as the propaganda gets passed along from one recipient to the next, the benefits are not merely quantitative (more copies in circulation--at other people's expense) but QUALITATIVE (each copy more likely to influence the recipient)! My hook has been humor; if the stuff is funny enough, people will circulate it EVEN IF IT OFFENDS SOME OF THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES! I call this the "Doonesbury phenomenon": I think Trudeau is brilliant, incisive and insightful, especially when he is pillorying my ideological enemies, but EVEN WHEN HE IS SKEWERING SOME OF THE IDEALS I MOST HIGHLY REVERE (which is frequently, since I consider Uncle Duke a sort of role model.) Specifically, some of his vicious, unfair, devastating assaults on the Second Amendment have been so deliciously, darkly, wicked that I've shown them to other gun collectors, who have groaned and winced their amusement. Notice that the afterword to "A New Lo" specifically encourages and reinforces this tendency: It is mentioned that "various respectable, honorable and noble memes find themselves inextricably interwoven with disturbing, scandalous, and subversive ones," and the reader is assured that this is a good thing, so just lie back and enjoy it. Notice also that it is never specifically alleged just WHICH memes are honorable and WHICH are subversive, so that the reader can make his own decisions in this area. The idea is that the reader--feeling, rightly, that the good far outweighs the bad --might just as well reproduce the whole thing. * * * * Normally in chess or checkers the game pieces 4stay the same color5 throughout the game. A piece that's yours can be counted on to always remain yours. Not so when playing against my own Extraterrestrial Geniushood. Consider my continuing game of "good cop/bad cop" with 000000 Aircraft. First notice that I've hyped both roles to the max: The "good cop" offered to immediately stop my tantrum, shut my mouth, and work for 000000 for minimum wage plus perks. The "bad cop" threatened to 0000000000000000000000 00000 with a shocking story of 000000000000000000000 and wrongful termination. (Perhaps the metaphor should more appropriately be "savior cop/terrorist cop.") OK, they know they can always have me back by just apologizing, eating crow, and admitting that those two fuckin' lizards 00000000 and Mary Jane set 000000 up to get STOMPED LIKE A NARC AT A BIKER RALLY! (My offer was, of course, made not out of any altruism, but, rather, to give them an incentive not to have me killed.) They might be inclined to think of that offer as their "ace-in-the-hole," a "worst-case scenario bug-out plan," if you will. One of THEIR game assets. But now think about WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT GAME PIECE AS IT AGES! For a couple of years, everything goes sort of OK: A disgruntled ex-employee is having a little fun at the expense of the assholes who libeled him as being "average" on his performance review and therefore got him laid off. OK, fine. EVENTUALLY, however, the following is going to dawn: This guy they fucked over is EXTREMELY clever at finding ways to make them bleed (metaphorically, of course, as he will be punctilious about not violating any federal, state or local law). What if, after OSTENTATIOUSLY SIGNING ON WITH ANOTHER EMPLOYER, or EMIGRATING TO HOLLAND, he uses his right to speak at a shareholder's meeting about how 000000 not only butt-fucked him, but refused to make it right and hire him back even for minimum wage? What if he quite seriously RENTS THE MELKWEG FOR A PRESS CONFERENCE and solicits job offers from any and all Western democracies? And says that it's "all Hughes' fault." And what if he of course has no intention of 4really5 doing any of these things, but only hints at their possiblilty in order to MAKE 000000 REAL JUMPY? So things are not always what they seem. And sometimes what appear to be YOUR assets can be TURNED IN PLACE when you ain't payin' attention. * * * * The O. Henry story "Gift of the Magi" points out a unique situation in Game Theory which I call the "altruist's dilemma"; I'll make the title clearer a bit later. Recapping, for those who've never come across it, this particular Christmas story involves a couple who are very, very much in love, but also very, very poor. Her great pride is her flowing locks of hair; his is a valuable antique heirloom watch. Lest I be erroneously accused of Philistinism by the rather emotionless dissection of their behavior from a game-theoretic standpoint, let me acknowledge beforehand that the important nub of the story concerns of course not the 4material objects5 given and received as Christmas presents, but, rather, the obvious revelation of the depth of their love--which happens to be 4demonstrated5 by those presents. OK. Fine. Having identified that significant component, we are now free to intellectually isolate ourselves from it, and consider ONLY the real-world, material consequences of their actions. Those who are familiar with the story are already ahead of me here. To buy him a handsome fob for his treasured watch, she sells her hair to a wigmaker. He sells the watch to buy a set of lovely combs for her hair. This convinces both of the depth of each other's love, and, quite properly, they recognize that this is the best Christmas present of all. Again, fine. Powerful message that the "real meaning of Christmas" is not about presents. But return now just to game-theoretic material consequences. What has happened is the WORST POSSIBLE FUCK-UP ACHIEVABLE! If EITHER of them had done ANYTHING DIFFERENT AT ALL, the situation would have been UNAMBIGUOUSLY BETTER FOR BOTH OF THEM! Ponder that for a moment. If she had given him nothing but 4a fuckin' card,5 and he had still sold the watch to buy her present, then she would have retained her hair, and 4both5 would have at least had the pleasure of seeing her hair adorned with the combs. Similarly, if he had stiffed her but she had sold her hair, then 4both5 could take 4some5 pleasure in admiring his watch and new fob. Finally, if both of them had just exchanged cards, each would have at least 4retained rather than renounced5 a treasured possession. Notice further that the game system is perfectly symmetrical. Neither party can be "blamed" any more than the other for fucking up both their lives. Each party gave up something of 4known5 high value to him/herself, from a desire to give a thing of 4conjectured5 high value to his/her partner. Both got symmetrically screwed, and, again, if EITHER party had rejected altruism, such a choice would have BEEN BETTER FOR BOTH! This should not be terribly surprising, when you think about it, since many people have enough trouble trying to figure out what will make 4themselves5 happy, much less someone else. Bear this in mind at election time, when the altruists are out in force, Sometimes we libertarians and conservatives decry various "welfare" schemes as simple vote-buying with taxpayers' money. Sometimes, of course, there's truth to this, but the spooky thing is that even if the altruists spending your taxes are 4every bit as sincere as the altruists in "Gift of the Magi,"5 their legacy can be 4every bit as materially destructive!5 I am not so paranoid as to suggest that the "welfare state" was 4really specifically designed5 to "dumb down" the human race as a whole, across every racial, religious, and ethnic group--but this is what it has 4done5. Maybe 4every fuckin' politician since Lyndon Johnson5 truly and sincerely believed the propaganda: that 4everyone5 would live in a "better world" if the government forcibly takes money from those who can earn it to give to those who cannot. Maybe you bought it as well: your tax dollars legitimately taken from you at government gunpoint as your duty to "help the needy." Well, the Magi 4fucked you both over5! The "non-self-supporting" underclass has ballooned in size--not surprising when you consider they have been 4bribed to reproduce5--yet their lives remain more or less wretched. LBJ's subsidized babies have 4themselves5 become breeders, and those who got 4really5 early starts may now have a third- generation granddaughter--doubtless awaiting the day when a missed period means she is no longer just a "13-year-old girl" but now a "mother": entitled to a place of her own and a monthly check that grows larger with each of 4her5 kids. Are we clear on this? 4More5 people leading wretched lives, costing 4more5 gunpoint-collected taxes to support in wretchedness. EVERYBODY FUCKIN' LOSES! Note how the very word "entitlement" has come to replace, say, "charity" to describe the welfare system. Used to be, giving to the needy was practicing a virtue. No more, apparently. If they're "entitled" to it, they must have some kind of a right to it. So now we talk of "punishing" the poor by not giving them handouts of forcibly-seized tax money. Fraudulent use of language, clearly, as best illustrated by asking you whether you improperly "punish" a street panhandler when you give him less money than he would have preferred, or (gasp!) maybe no money at all. We've gotten a little off the game-theoretic aspects here, but let's return to one key observation: The "altruist's dilemma" is at least ONE FUCK-UP SCENARIO that could NEVER ARISE between self-interested players. ONLY those who attempt to place others' happiness over their own are succeptible to it. One more reason why altruism is fundamentally untenable as a "moral compass." * * * * We have already encountered the "win-win" concept before. That is, it is frequently in ONE'S OWN SELF-INTEREST to work out a solution where in some sense "everybody wins," if only because this option is THE BEST DEAL FOR ME THAT I CAN REASONABLY EXPECT TO CUT. In other circumstances, however, one might attempt another strategy that could also be called "win-win [for me!]"; this refers to a different set of circumstances, namely, WHATEVER MY OPPONENT DOES, I STILL WIN! Powerful concept, 4n'est-ce pas?5 We'll call this the "Heads-I-win-tails- you-lose" principle to distinguish it from the already described "win-win." A good example comes from chess: --------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | | | | | | --------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | * | | | | --------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | | --------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | N | | | | | --------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --------------------------------- The "N" is my knight, and the $-signs are essentially any two of YOUR high-value pieces (e.g., R,Q,K). I'm coming from a reasonable way off, and gonna JUMP FOR THE ASTERISK "*" which, by hypothesis, is NOT attacked by you. At this time, you are SCREWED: You can only save ONE, and I take the other. There may (or may not) be other subtleties operating. The "$" squares may be attacked. Even so, you've lost a piece worth MORE THAN THE KNIGHT you take. Non-chess-players should consider that they are "X" in the below tic-tac-toe game, and that it is their move: X | O | ----------- | X | ----------- | | O Turns out that EITHER of the available left-hand boxes is a guaranteed win, as you will have TWO sets of "two-X's-in-a-row" and of course your opponent can only block ONE of them in his next move, leaving you a sure win on YOUR next move. Do you see the relevance to "The Greatest Hoax Ever Told?" Assume for the sake of argument that "7th Seal," "Letter to Janet Reno" and "Epistle to the Hebrews" are REALLY GOOD STUFF. (If you don't concur here, then perform the "thought experiment" of considering that someone HAD WRITTEN REALLY GOOD STUFF in an attempt to perpetrate the "resurrected Koresh" hoax.) Somebody gets a letter with a whole bunch of printed paper and/or a floppy disk. (The disk is a good touch intrinsically, because it is a "thing of value" rather than just a "piece of propaganda paper.") Also, it is not only cheaper to mail than the same volume of printed paper, but it is easier and cheaper to COPY as well, whether to another floppy, a hard disk, or a BBS upload. The cover letter is fuckin' 4astonishing5, and doesn't ask for their money, their vote, or for them to do anything at all except maybe pray. (One of the few changes in the cover letter was to make "ask for your help" into "ask for your advice." Christ forbid they throw it away after the first paragraph thinking that Dave is tryin' to hit 'em up for money.) The letter is addressed to them personally where possible. Dramatic postage stamps (holograms, moon landing) are often used. Result: The recipient MUST assume that either (1) Koresh is indeed alive, or (2) Somebody awful damn smart, who ain't particularly worried about money, is trying to perpetrate the HOAX that he is. EITHER WAY, the recipient very likely will freak. Actually, the worst part may be that some of the writings seem SO FUCKIN' SPACY that another dichotomy beckons: Either (1) Koresh was MUCH weirder than we have heard so far, and is still alive, or (2) the hoaxer trying to fake his resurrection is WAY WEIRDER THAN KORESH HIMSELF! Almost hard to say which is the most mind-fucking, 4n'est-ce pas?5 W1w1OK FOR PUBLICATIONw0W0 Distribute and Upload at Your Discretion