The First Global Cyber War: Centralization vs. Decentralization

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

WikiLeaks backlash: The first global cyber war has begun, claim hackers | Media | The Observer

In a lot of science fiction, there is, in the story's past, many decades or even centuries or millennia before its subjective present, some sort of conflict that destroys the old order, and from its ashes rise a new one. We usually think of post-apoaclyptic fiction, ala Fallout, but this is not always the case; BattleTech had its "Second Soviet Civil War" which helped spurred the creation of a world government, and that can hardly be considered post-apocalyptic fiction. (Maybe apocalyptic, in some eyes.) Star Trek had World War III--in fact, lots of fiction had some sort of World War III--Halo had various conflicts on Earth and its intrasystem colonies...although this is a rather sparse list of examples, you get the drill. (In order to not distract myself, I'm not opening any new tabs to look for more.)

I've always wondered if we would have such a conflict, or some sort of event, in real life, that would fundamentally alter our progression into the future. Some have looked to the War on Terror or the iPhone as such moments, and while they are no doubt significant and important, I've looked to something more radical, more revolutionary, more fundamentally drastic. And since we're still not going to have AI during my lifetime, no matter what Ray Kurzweil says, I'm looking to human actions for such a sign.

Reading the above article, I felt what I was looking for for so long. Granted, a lot of it is no doubt The Guardian's own overhyping of the situation; they are, after all, a left-wing newspaper, and the Assange/WikiLeaks situation is seen as something of a left-wing rallying point (at least from where I'm sitting.) But I have no reason to doubt that the underpinnings of this article are, in fact, true. And when you read phrases like "seemed to be the first sustained clash between the established order and the organic, grassroots culture of the net," and "No one seems certain where the febrile cyber conflict will lead, only that it has just begun," you can't help but think that "Wow, something really big is going on. Something radical. Something that will change all of human society, perhaps forever."

I've been saying for the past two years now, almost three, that what's going on with the global recession and our economic woes is really the beginnings of the downfall of the old order. We've seen central banks around the world, and particularly in America, scurrying to protect the finances of their commercial backers while debasing the public currency, while governments bail out their corporate friends at the citizenry's expense and establish more rules that prevent those from the underclass from ever realizing their full potential and getting a chance to challenge the old dogs on a level playing field. Yet for all of this, what have they gotten? Barely anything. Although they've staved off a worse collapse (jury's still out on that one, though), their "success" is only fleeting. Already holes are appearing in the "jobless recovery," self-evident just from its name. There is no certainty we're out of the woods, and it appears that our "leaders" are just careening from one crisis to another. Moreover, although they've engaged in plenty of media massaging (and no, that's not a typo, I really mean that they're massaging the media) in order to improve their PR, it hasn't really worked. Certainly a great number of people have bought their message, but an even greater number haven't, and are either just skeptical or outright opposed to it.

This article, for me at least, crystallized and helped me realized exactly what is going on here. This conflict is not between libertarians and socialists, doves and hawks, Democrats and Republicans, or any other two groups. It is between two forces: centralization vs. decentralization. The former is the old way of doing things, with massive corporations buying huge amounts of influence with a central government, that increasingly micromanages not only its subnational units but also its own citizenry, infecting all aspects of life that can be arranged from a central authority. The latter is the new way of doing things, and is best exemplified by the "dooacracy" of Burning Man, the open source movement, Wikis, micromanufacturing, peer-to-peer services (of all kinds, not just file downloading), and DIY methods to all sorts of problems. While the 20th century was a period of centralization, the 21st century appears to be a period of decentralization, not only politically, but also socially, economically, culturally, and maybe even spiritually (goodbye to the Catholic Church? At the risk of offending my more devout friends, I surely hope so!)

This is only natural; as information has been spread, it is impossible to keep it all contained in one location. We've seen this most in the media sphere; in the past, large news organizations acted as the gatekeepers to information; only what they wanted to print or broadcast ended up in the public discussion. Through various means, power holders and the "elite" could keep the public in the dark. But with the rise of blogs, cheap recording equipment, and citizen journalism, no longer can anyone keep anyone in the dark. Wikileaks is a prime example; the original attempt at shutting it down only made it more resilient, spreading its information out farther, and now, as the article notes, it is effectively immune to attack. Unless every government and major corporation unite in a flawless, coordinated "strike" against the Wikileaks data, it will survive, somewhere. And potentially even then.

As for this war, I know not how long it shall last. It may be six weeks. It may be six months. It may even last six decades. But I do know, if it is not stopped in its infancy, our society will be changed irrevocably. With the power structures holding up the current regime already suffering structural integrity failure simply by how they're built, the application of some force will cause it to crumble into dust. It's possible that this First Global Cyber War will banish the state--or at least its heavily intrusive variant--into the annals of history for good, as people find new ways to work around the state and their corporate parasites shoving products into their faces 24/7. We're already seeing that those entities are not responding well to the hackers, as the shut down of Senate.gov, PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard's websites have shown. And if, god forbid, they gathered enough computers together and took down, say, the DoD network, we'll know who's won. (If the Chinese don't jump in.)

Looking at this, I can't help but feel that we're at a turning point. We're seeing the public itself, and its right to know, openly challenging the system of suppression and dominance we've been forced to live under for the past several decades. We're seeing the beginnings of an event that will forever change our history, and may one day be recorded in the history books paralleling the Battle of Marathon, the collapse of the Roman Empire, the invention of electricity, or the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe.

May we live in interesting times.

Comments

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

No, that would be silly. There is of course a negative connection between Christianity and assuming immanent apocalypse, canonized in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians where the local Christian community was chastised for such assumptions.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Funny how sometimes things said in the bible aren't actually followed huh.

I find it strange to jump on what you are confirmed to be jumping on though since I didn't make the claim that all or even most Christians believe that the endtimes is imminent, simply that there are Christians that exist who do.

But I still don't see any comparison between left-handed people and saying silly things. I mean generally a person is going to be Christian to believe in an Apocalypse. Nonchristians probably don't believe the biblical Apocalypse is coming, you know?

I do wonder if you consider Seventh Day Adventists to be True Scottsmen er, Christians though.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Funny how sometimes things said in the bible aren't actually followed huh."

Not particularly funny. More importantly: not particularly relevant.

"I find it strange to jump on what you are confirmed to be jumping on though since I didn't make the claim that all or even most Christians believe that the endtimes is imminent, simply that there are Christians that exist who do."

Sure, just like left-handed people go around looking like idiots. Seems like we're on the same page here, dunno what your problem is.

"But I still don't see any comparison between left-handed people and saying silly things."

Are you denying that left-handed people say silly things? Related question: are you left-handed? (A positive answer would make this very easy.)

"I mean generally a person is going to be Christian to believe [that the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime]."

No, generally they're not. Generally a Christian is not going to believe this, since it's a belief opposed by Christian teaching. Conversely it's a belief to be found in many non-Christian teachings.

"I mean generally a person is going to be Christian to believe in an Apocalypse. Nonchristians probably don't believe the biblical Apocalypse is coming, you know?"

You didn't talk about "[whether] the biblical Apocalypse is coming." Your comment was that "the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime." Since you seem to be interested in logical fallacies, the one you exhibit here is the fallacy of the moving goalposts.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Oh please. Do you get an honarary Christ-o-Sherrif's badge for this or something?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Do you get an honarary Christ-o-Sherrif's badge for this or something?"

I've never heard of anything like this, so probably not.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Don't worry too much about it, he has one of these Christotantrums any time he gets the idea someone someone might have possibly said something that might be perceived as negative about Christianity.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

This guy is sort of a nutter who believes that every Christian has read advanced theological tracts and completely understands all teachings and has memorized the Bible. I don't think he gets that most Christians don't really understand their own stuff.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

I believe that? Weird, I don't remember believing that.

Are you sure you're not just making shit up. I think you might be making shit up.

Yeah, you're making shit up.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

And you're a troll.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

The fact that you're making shit up in order to provoke people certainly has some relation to whether trolling is going on here.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

No, my statements are made from observations of your behavior, in this community and elsewhere.

Your behavior clearly points out that you're here to troll. But that's okay, really; you're at least amusing and not a true poo-flinger. You're tolerable, for now.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Your statements are false, I do not believe what you allege I believe. If you have evidence to the contrary, I encourage you to offer it. Otherwise, reason compels us to assent to the verdict that you are making shit up. Since you are making shit up to provoke people, evidently you are trolling.

I will remind you that trolling is against the rules. If you feel I have broken the rules, I encourage you to make this an official matter for moderation. Otherwise, I invite you to cease alleging that I have broken the rules in order to be provocative, which would in this case be merely another example of your own trolling, which is to say your own violation of the rules.

Which will it be?

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

There are two types of trolls. The first are Type A: they're ridiculously annoying, but not actually harmful. Then there are Type B: these ones are harmful to the community. So far, while you've been contradicting yourself, saying patently absurd and false things, and being head-slamming-against-wall annoying, nothing you've said has been actually inflammatory or shit-stirring. Ergo, you're Type A, which isn't against the rules, its just annoying.

So I'm not actually claiming you've broken the rules. I'm just saying you're annoying as hell and everything you've posted so far makes no sense, is contradictory, and is wrong, in a way that would be easily proven to be, so you have to know it's wrong. But again, not inflammatory.

As for my "allegations," all I need to point to is the part where you say "Generally a Christian is not going to believe this, since it's a belief opposed by Christian teaching. Conversely it's a belief to be found in many non-Christian teachings." Considering that there are many Christians who believe the apocalypse will happen in their lifetime, and you're citing advanced theological tracts they will never have read, but according to you, they must have, in order to be a true Christian. These are not really allegations, this is a logical conclusion drawn from your own supplied comments. You gave us the rope to hang you with, metaphorically speaking.

Furthermore, you don't determine what is or is not an infraction of the rules. We on the mod staff do, and we're not nearly as rigid and inflexible as you think we are. Lots of stuff slides by without us getting pissed over it. We only step in if there's something serious going on that needs addressing. So before you get on your high horse and start declaring rules violations, maybe you should chill and actually let the mod staff do their job. We're the ones determining violations. Not you.

And on the last note, I don't have to give up any evidence. I have observed your actions in the past and have noted your behavior. That's all I need to do. End of discussion.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Can we stop talking about trolls and trolling and stick to the actual issue which is being discussed here? I tried to focus and follow the line of thought here but something constantly keeps distracting me. Wonder what it is? Oh yes - both of you talking about each other rather than the original subject itself.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Excuse me?

I was talking about the subject (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/823283.html?thread=61789427#t61789427). ghoststrider interjected (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/823283.html?thread=61796851#t61796851) to call me a nutter and lie about me. I responded (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/823283.html?thread=61798387#t61798387) to deny the false allegations. He responded by throwing around his moderator weight and calling me a troll (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/823283.html?thread=61799155#t61799155).

Keep in mind this started because he didn't like my impression of his OP (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/823283.html?thread=61742835#t61742835).

So let me get this straight. A mod here makes a post, he doesn't like my response, so he throws around his weight as a mod, then complains to you, and I get chastised for it.

Are you serious? This is the moderator response to this issue?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Its interesting to watch. I wonder if the person is an atheist, just very erudite.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

He's apparently a philosophy student. That's all I really know.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No need to get passive aggressive.

Generally a Christian is not going to believe this, since it's a belief opposed by Christian teaching

Apocalypse is a belief opposed by Christian teachings?

You didn't talk about "[whether] the biblical Apocalypse is coming."

I never said I did. I wasn't moving any goalposts. I was pointing out that I said 'christians' because they're the ones to believe in apocalypse. You really do take things personally.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"[that the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime] is a belief opposed by Christian teachings?"

Yes, There is of course a negative connection between Christianity and assuming immanent apocalypse, canonized in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians where the local Christian community was chastised for such assumptions.

"You really do take things personally."

My rule of thumb is that you can tell who takes things personally by who spends the majority of their comments engaging in personal commentary, but YMMV.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

There is of course a negative connection between Christianity and assuming immanent apocalypse

Apocalypse in general. Those Christians who believe in immanent apocalypse would have to be a subset of Christians who believe in Apocalypse.

As in 'those people who eat with forks' is a subset of 'people', though I wouldn't go attack someone claiming that there is a negative connection between people and eating with forks, I think that might be a little over the top.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Apocalypse in general."

Your comment wasn't about an apocalypse in general. Your comment was about the belief "that the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime." Since you seem to be interested in logical fallacies, the one you exhibit here is the fallacy of the moving goalposts.

Every major belief system in western thought since and including the Hellenistic period has generally endorsed the belief in an apocalypse in general.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing anymore.

I'm describing the reason I said 'christians' in my comment about those who believe apocalypse is eminent.

You're still attacking something nobody said, how's it going? You winning?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"I don't think we're talking about the same thing anymore."

No, we're not. I'm talking about your original comment. You're evading this via the fallacy of the moving goalposts.

"I'm describing the reason I said 'christians' in my comment about those who believe apocalypse is eminent."

And I'm pointing out why this was incorrect.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

You're evading this via the fallacy of the moving goalposts.

No I'm not. Point it out.

And I'm pointing out why this was incorrect.

No you're not. You're trying to claim that there's less christians than some other group that believe in eminent apocalypse.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"No I'm not [evading this via the fallacy of the moving goalposts]."

Yes, you are plainly are. Your initial comment concerned the belief "that the apocalypse is going to happen in their lifetime." When this comment was responded to, you moved the goalpost to being about an "Apocalypse in general." This was pointed out at the time and the comments are still there so anyone can confirm their content.

"You're trying to claim that there's less christians than some other group that believe in eminent apocalypse."

No, I'm not, I'm claiming that There is of course a negative connection between Christianity and assuming immanent apocalypse, canonized in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians where the local Christian community was chastised for such assumptions. This was pointed out repeatedly and the comments are still there so anyone can confirm their content.

Reading Rainbow.