It’s well known that our society is infected by concepts which make us unhappy, damage our communities and endanger the biological world. These concepts infect us, we become contagious, then we infect those around us.
We know the sort of concepts they are. They look like this:
–You need more
–Take, don’t give
–Winner takes all
–Greed is good
–Appearances matter
–Those in power deserve their power
–Those with wealth deserve their wealth
–It’s your fault you’re poor
Some of these concepts simply misinterpret Darwinism. Some are demographic falsehoods. Some are empirically false. All lead us to a dangerous outcome for our species.
I consider them viruses–contagious & malign concepts which are part of a mind plague that’s harming us all.
3/44
When we take on – are infected by – concepts like these we become the sort of people who harm ourselves, who harm others, and who harm the environment on which we all depend.
You’ll find people like this everywhere you look: on tube trains, on billboards, haranguing you on social media, patronising you from the news channels.
Sometimes you’ll even find them looking back at you from the mirror.
So how do we address viruses of this type – viruses which infect and influence human cognition? How can we reduce the ‘r’ rate – the speed at which they spread, their degree of infectivity?
Well, we deal with pandemics like these – ‘mind plagues’ – in the same way we deal with their biological cousins. A program of mass vaccination is required, while in parallel we develop cures for the infected.
The vaccine is available. It’s easily produced & universally accessible. Developer kits can be found in earlier threads in this series. There’s no patent/copyright/licence.
No corporation, unaccountable international court or legal system can stop you applying this vaccine.
9/44
The vaccine is freely accessed, freely assimilated and protects the cognitive freedom of your mind.
It comes in two parts:
–A shield of values
–A wall of truth
Take these two jabs and you’re pretty much immune.
We need cognitive weapons that can attack the virus on its own terms, in the public and social realms, in the cognosphere where disinformation and fake news begin. The infected need their cure.
We’ve looked at one antiviral already: the Socrates Bomb. It brings the Socratic Method into play in the areas of Evidence, Logic, Language, Motivation and Morality. The ribonucleic strands of the virus are disrupted as the Socrates Bomb explodes.
Kate is a friend of mine. Or, perhaps I should say, she was.
Kate was vital and passionate and clever. She was passionate about life, music, friendship… and she encouraged those around her to be passionate too.
But she’s been dead a while now.
She died far too young.
15/44
“I’m sorry… That’s really sad…”
It’s more than sad – but being sad is the last thing Kate would have wanted. I think that’s true of all good people when they die.
Kate used to talk to me about trust. It’s one of the ten thousand things she was passionate about, but it’s one we talked about near the end of her life: how trust is broken in our society, and how it needs to be rebuilt.
After all, who trusts anyone or anything anymore? Trust is broken, all across the world.
Politicians? Experts? Journalists?
They’re only in it for themselves, aren’t they? – Lining their pockets while the rest of us struggle to get by…
A world without trust is a bad place to be.
It leaves us atomised & divided. It destroys our effectiveness as individuals & as communities. It undermines our sustainability as a species.
And, on top of all that, it makes us easy prey for the power hungry and the corrupt.
22/44
Divided, untrusting, isolated, we’re easy to manipulate and rule.
The truth-twisters want to ensure we distrust the wrong people and the wrong ideas – people and ideas that count against them, people and ideas which ask us to think for ourselves, which make us harder to control.
Kate wanted to find a way to work out who & what to trust – so we could put aside those that don’t deserve our trust & raise up those that do. She wanted to rebuild trust in our communities, re-establish trust in our broken world, rediscover how to trust & be trusted.
26/44
“She had ambition, then.”
Yes, it was no small challenge… and she had too little time.
“It’s a shame.”
It is....
“She’d want to be remembered for a garrotte? I’m not sure I would…”
I think she’d be okay with it. As well as being vital and passionate and clever, she was also pretty tough. I don't think she'd have been squeamish about squeezing the life out of lies.
29/44
Here’s how it's made…
The wire
Only trust a concept or proposal if it encourages you to be moral.
Left handle
If you don’t trust a concept or proposal, don’t trust its source.
Right handle
If a person or source isn’t moral, distrust everything they propose or claim.
30/44
That’s it.
You’ve got your garrotte.
Now pull it tight.
Go to your cognitive armoury. Select Kate’s Garrotte…
…and watch as the sinews strain and the pips squeak until at last what can be trusted, what might be true, trickles from the husk of the lies and disinformation that we’re fed, day in, day out.
You say, “I like it, even though it sounds a little harsh. But haven’t you just postponed the difficult bit? Kate’s Garrotte seems to be saying, ‘Only trust a person or a claim if they’re moral’–but doesn’t that assume you know what moral is?”
But we do.
“Do we?”
Don’t we?
34/44
You see, we’ve already used Kate’s Scythe to bring the lies to their knees.
“Kate’s Scythe? She’s got another weapon up her sleeve?”
I told you she was talented.
It’s a second algorithm.
Does a claim, proposal or alleged fact encourage you to be honest and consistent?
Does it encourage you to treat the needs of others as of equal significance and importance as your own?
Yes?
Then it’s moral.
No?
Then it’s not.
Is this person, organisation or source honest and consistent?
Do they consider your needs as of equal importance and significance to their own?
Yes?
Then they’re moral.
No?
Then they’re not.
38/44
That’s the ‘moral-person-or-source-checking’ algorithm: Kate’s Flail.
So now you can determine whether a person, a source or the data they present are moral. If not, step in close with Kate’s Garrotte.
Kate’s Scythe. Kate’s Flail. Kate’s Garrotte.
We need these weapons because we’re fighting a guerrilla war against an establishment programmed to civilisational self-destruct. It's an asymmetric comms war & we’re already behind enemy lines. We’ve almost no territory left.
40/44
There’s no alternative to guerrilla tactics: close contact, intimate, ruthless.
There's no alternative to brutal honesty, to using Kate’s scythe, flail & garrotte–the stakes are so high: the future of our children, the survival of our society, the sustainability of our world.
41/
Kate was a friend of mine.
She died heart-breakingly young.
She believed in trust.
Kate thought it was crucial we find a way to work out who and what to trust, and how to rebuild trust in our broken world.
The armoury I’ve described is a small part of her legacy.
It’s my gift to Kate, her gift to me.
Let’s talk about populism.
Populists pretend complex problems have simple answers.
They like things so simple they become stupid.
They adore binary choices.
They demand you ‘take sides’.
1/10 #populism#populists#propaganda#Johnson#woke#antiwoke
Populists like division.
They like an enemy.
If no enemy’s handy, they’ll make one.
They like to act the victim, no matter how rich, powerful or privileged they are.
But, by creating ‘an enemy’, victims are precisely what they tend to produce.
2/10 #populism#populist#division
Populism appeals to our worse instincts.
It appeals to emotions of hatred, resentment, a tribal ‘us’ and ‘them’.
In today's world we need our better instincts:
•Caring
•Cooperation
•Empathy
•Compassion
Populism doesn’t care about caring. Compassion isn’t on its agenda.
3/10
You may think some people are loud, angry & uneducated.
You may think it's because god or nature made them that way.
To the extent they ARE loud, angry & uneducated, it's not because of nature or god.
It's because of how we run our society.
It's because of stuff we can change.
The people with the least power over their lives in our society would like even just A LITTLE power over their lives....
Just the beginnings of power....
Just a taster of self-determination....
It's not much to ask, is it?
It's something the Brexiteer nationalist populist billionaires and toffs have promised ordinary people.
But they were lying, weren't they?
All they wanted was to monetise or gain power from what ordinary people deserve and never get.
Let’s talk about the Socrates Bomb.
“That sounds unpleasant.”
More than unpleasant. It’s lethal.
“Is ‘lethal’ moral?”
It’s not lethal for people.
It’s lethal for lies.
The Socrates Bomb is an anti-propaganda incendiary device for use in cognitive conflict. It’s a frontline armament in our battle against the 21st Century pandemic of lies. It’s a cluster munition for deployment against disinformation and deceit.
As the Socrates Bomb explodes it shatters into fragments of different shapes and sizes. It’s shrapnel includes:
– The evidence shard
– The logic sliver
– The language splinter
– The motivation particle
– The morality needle
UK is 60,000 haulage drivers short–as a direct result of drivers going home due to the pandemic & finding out conditions & pay are better in France & Germany, post Brexit.
Everyone’s trying to sell you something, or take something off you, or get you to do something.
Everyone’s out for themselves.
No one can be trusted.
People are greedy.
People are lazy.
It’s a dog-eat-dog world.
Our media is our enemy – and much of our schooling too.
We’re victims of cognitive imperialism – and the invading empire has established its outposts in the hinterlands of our minds.
“Violence,” you say, “is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
I can only agree. It’s a great saying. Whose is it?
“Isaac Asimov, I think. I’m not sure.”
The science fiction writer?
“Yes.”
I love the guy. He said a lot of great stuff. Have spacesuit. Will travel.
“No, that was Heinlein.”
Ah. Right-wing libertarian Heinlein. I loved a lot of his stuff, too. Starship Troopers. Stranger In A Strange Land. Shame he was a right-wing libertarian.
“He was probably ok with violence, too.”
Shifting back to the topic of violence….
“Shall we?”
Why not? I agree with you.
“With me or Isaac Asimov?”
Either. Both.