Kiddie Pool Counter Intelligence

One thing I'm certain that most of my readers who have children know is this:
Little children LOVE to hear/read/see the same stories or cartoons over and over again.

One of the great joys of my two little ones is to climb up into my lap and ask for a song or a cartoon.  Yes, they absolutely love to watch or listen to these on YouTube while asking lots of questions (cue the 3 year old's recursive 'why'.  The fare they prefer tends towards 1930s-1960s cartoons and music from the  either the 1970s and 1980s or from classical sources.

Just as a way of amusing myself, I decided to play around a bit with the comments, likes, and comment up/down system on said site.  It turns out that likes are several order of magnitudes smaller than views, and that comment ratings are several orders of magnitude smaller still.  It also turns out that the 'top comments' are sitting there right in the bottom field of view of the typical watcher.
It is also true that a lot of these videos on youtube have not hundreds, or thousands of hits, but rather millions and tens of millions.

What's more, the top comments are pathetically easy to hijack.  There's not even an implied social convention against non sequitur.   You can toss a 'Free Zimmerman!' into the middle of, say, a comment section on a Pat Benatar video and if people agree/like it, they'll upvote it.  There doesn't appear to be a self-appointed policing force regarding staying 'on topic' at all.
In addition, there appears to be an aging policy on the top comments---they aren't determined solely by the highest number of upvotes minus downvotes (only the result shows, not the number of negatives and positives, so 'discourse poisoning' a la Occidental Dissent isn't even obvious).  So you can often dethrone a top comment with way more upvotes than yours.  It is also true that there are very few 'Chicago Safeguards' in the voting algorithm, so you can vote early and often--I suspect some sort of session cookie is being used.  If you downvote everything above you and get 3-4 positive net upvotes that are fresh votes, you can take control of a billboard viewed by millions.

Why is this important?  Well, people see the top comments and assume that they reflect the feelings of lots of people like themselves.  They then slot them into their brain as potential norms that they can conform towards.  There's no reason that the Left should have a monopoly on this sort of manipulation.   If you like, you can even make the comments somewhat relevant, for instance, on an old 1970s or 80s video from a live performance, you can comment on how much thinner and more attractive the prole women of that era were, and make an implied connection to how diversity has spoiled that.  Of course this tactic won't work forever, but it is just that, a tactic, and a useful one at that.

How to: Who...Whom in the Jury Room

I've talked at some length about the use of Who..Whom in Jury Nullification before, which I'd like to expand on more.

Specifically, how does one actually carry this out?
Unlike FIJA, which is a fine organization, I'm not advocating openly attempting to nullify.  Instead, I'm advocating a backhanded and passive aggressive nullification strategy, one that is far harder to fight against, by, say, the judge removing you from the jury.  Conflict requires both in your face and slippery strategies---one enables the other just like rushing sets up passing opportunities in American football.

The first rule is you never breathe a word about jury nullification anywhere near the courtroom and certainly not in the jury deliberations.   You don't even hint at it with things like---oh I don't think it's right to send him to jail for so long for X or I'd rather use the prison space for guys like Y.  No, instead what you do is expand the area of fuzziness that you are given into obscene proportions.  That fuzzy area is 'reasonable doubt'.  What does reasonable doubt mean?  Does it mean being 99% sure?  99.9%?  as sure as a Christian with 4 aces?

The key is it means precisely what you want it to mean.  So take a leaf from Public health guys making 'studies' about gun control.  Start with your desired conclusion and set your parameters to whatever they need to be to 'justify' it.  Remember, if you torture the data enough, it'll confess to whatever you want it to.  Of course you go who...whom, under the same circumstances as the FIJA-style nullifier, you just aren't open about such.

The first phase from your perspective (I'm assuming you're not a grand juror---I've been called for jury duty several times but never for a grand jury) is jury selection.   Both the prosecutor and the defense are looking to shop for the most favorable jury they can get.  What you want to do is betray as little information to them as you can short of obvious perjury.  They're looking for information out of the verbal band as well as what you actually say.  For instance, the more words you say, the better their estimate of how smart you are is going to be.  If they're actually good at their craft (fortunately, an AWFUL lot of them are horrible at it, I can normally infer a person's political positions and cultural alignment within a minute or so of hearing them speak on matters that are not explicitly political, it is a matter of word choice and inflection and a willingness to combine signals that are only in the range of 80% or so accurate into a reasonably accurate prediction, stereotypes are damnably useful things) the more you say the more likely your game is up.  Plus particularly smart people are prone to be more verbose and to want to cover their answer completely and with the desired nuance.  Try not to present that image.  Last time I was in jury selection I knew one of the sides was going to smoke a peremptory challenge on me when the defense attorney asked me what standards of evidence I was familiar with employing, and I answered him with the two that he knew (preponderance of evidence and 'reasonable doubt') and another that he didn't know (clear and convincing, typically an administrative law standard midway between the other two).  But I had negative interest in being on that jury.  So remember, short answers that betray no bias towards defense or prosecution, even though if you're going to go Who...Whom, you are the most biased defense juror imaginable.

Assuming you make it onto the jury, what you need to start doing as the trial progresses is make lots of notes (if they allow you, many don't), or mental notes (if you have to), on anything and everything that is plausibly painted as weak in the prosecution's case.  Imagine what the five star defense attorneys would question.  Question that and remember it for the jury deliberation.  It's actually better if the defense doesn't actually question it, because then the prosecutor would have a chance to defend against that line of argument.  But guess what, neither lawyer gets to go anywhere near the jury room.  You do.  Think 'motivated skeptic'.  Emulate whatever group you consider to be 'immune to reason' that 'uses its high intelligence to deny what is nearly certainly true'.

Here's the bottom line.  Simply by staying the course, you can almost certainly force a mistrial, since the jury won't reach a decision.  But you can play for more than a mere tactical victory.  You've got things on your side, notably that you're likely way more committed (imagine this is, say, a case against some redneck for having a shotgun that is 1/4 of an inch too short) than are the other jurors.  They know this (and you should NOT explicitly remind them of this, that is likely to backfire)---they get to leave only once a mistrial is declared or a decision is made unanimously.  One way to get there is to surrender to your who...whom and return a not guilty verdict.  In addition, by spinning scenarios that are admittedly of low probability, you will make them seem more real to the other jurors, and hence higher probability in their minds. Drip, drip, drip--exploit those cognitive biases.  Try to seem reasonable and extremely 'fair minded'---it helps if you betray a lot of cultural markers of disliking the class/group from which the defendant is drawn, this will make your scenarios wherein the defendant isn't actually guilty seem more credible, as in an admission against interest.  But if you can't swing the other 11, no biggie, a mistrial is usually nearly as good as an acquittal.  Done in reasonable numbers, this procedure would result in making nearly any law without an overwhelming consensus behind it practically unenforceable.  The only defense against it is trying to take away the right of a trial by jury, which, by the way, was one of the big grievances motivating the 1st American revolution.

Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt

Ridicule and mockery are among the most powerful weapons available to us.  Here are some good examples of it: http://www.taxcheatstamps.com

This site sells stamps to replace Tim Geithner with 'Tax Cheat' on currency. I wholeheartedly approve, as this is like defacing an altar of the Cathedral. Music is another way to propagate ridicule. Reactionaries and conservatives really need to get on the stick in this regard. Helicopter Ben, for instance, is eminently mockable. My little ones really love the silly stories I spin with their toy helicopters and little people about 'Helicopter Ben' tossing bags of money to starving bankers on Wall Street.  They especially love it when 'Farmer Jed' appropriates Ben's helicopter and drops bags of manure instead of money on said bankers.

Here's some decent ridicule set to music via youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqTLTHEJEI8

Yes, I won't claim their song is for the ages, but songs in this genre don't need to be. Anything that reduces the prestige of the Cathedral is a good thing, because in hard times prestige is what allows the center to hold.

Taqiyya, a gift from Mohammed for the neurotypical

Sometimes I find myself incredibly backlogged in my writing.  This post is nearly a year overdue--I said it was coming soon in November of last year.  But, since it is a gift from well over a thousand years ago, I suppose a year is a small matter.
Obviously my purpose in this writing isn't to make you followers of Mohammed.  But our profound theological differences should not blind us to the weapons that he can gift us.

Taqiyya, loosely translated, means holy deceit.  In practice what it means is that as a follower of Islam, it is acceptable and often religiously praiseworthy to deceive the infidel as a stratagem in the 'House of War' (i.e., anywhere that Islam isn't in control).  This really isn't that surprising a concept after some reflection.  I mean, if you're at war, obviously the use of ruse, flanking, et al are all perfectly acceptable.  All warfare is made by means of deceit after all.  If you are strong, appear weak, if weak, appear strong.  The innovation of Islam is the application of this to the cultural battlespace.

Here's why it is so important.  Neurotypical people generally require a mental narrative that explains their actions to themselves.  Let's say you've been required in a public place to say 30 Hail Obamas, and this is a frequent requirement in the area wherein you live, or you will face at minimum some social sanction.  The neurotypical mind gets ground down over time by this because the least uncomfortable narrative is that I say this because I really like Obama.  The alternative narrative is that I say it because I'm afraid of the sanctions involved.  People really don't like having to believe that.  Ever wonder why pledges of allegiance and the like are so popular as requirements?  Thank the customary wiring of the neurotypical.  People have spent a LONG time hacking that Human Operating System, and precious few patches have been delivered.

However Taqiyya offers an alternative narrative.  You're a spy on a holy mission.  For you it is perfectly acceptable to fool the infidel dogs, it merely stokes your contempt for them.   Your own brain ceases to be your adversary in maintaining your convictions and once again becomes your ally.

Copyrights--Can the Right Come to its Senses?

First let's clear something up. Copyright is NOT a natural right. It is a convention created by human law (or explicit social contract if you prefer). It is authorized in the US Constitution explicitly
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The first copyright laws in the US came about in 1790, and granted a 14 year copyright with a possible extension of a further 14 years if the author was still alive. Since then the length of copyright terms has only grown. This has created a number of problems---most notably the orphan works problem, but the problem as I see it is that this is a major revenue source for the enemies of reaction. I can understand why the Left would want to support the status quo, but why the Right is willing to put up with Disney owning US copyright law is beyond me. Is there any legitimate reason why copyrights should be longer than patents? Any reason why an author should never have to see what he sees as misuse of his invention whereas an engineer's inventions are fair game after a mere 20 years or so?

There's actually an opportunity for the Right to peel away some groups of support by supporting an initiative to shorten terms of copyright to a length of time approximating that of patents---perhaps just 30 years with no renewal whatsoever possible. One effect of this is it'll cut off revenue streams from your enemies. This, along with demographics, is the logistical phase of a war for hegemony. The second effect is that should the Left decide to give battle, it'll be really hard to paint it as anything other than the Right standing up for 'the little guy' and the consumer against big evil corporations. So frankly, you want them to fight about it. The final effect would be this:

Video editing software has gotten really damned good in recent years. Delisting pretty much everything from copyright protection before 1980 or so would open a massive amount of cultural output to reinterpretation and, as I'd put it, 'weaponization'. This would be a strong opportunity to apply the techniques I described in my recent cultural war post. You wouldn't have to do anything terribly noticeable at an overt level. Just apply the cultural markers you like to the alpha and high status characters and the reverse to low status characters. 95% of the population might not even notice the difference between the reinterpretation/remastering/reimagining and the original work.

Weapons of Reaction: Entryism Diversity and the Environment Part II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism
Entryism (or entrism or enterism) is a political tactic by which an organisation or state encourages its members or agents to infiltrate another organisation in an attempt to gain recruits, or take over entirely.

Suggested Target: The Sierra Club
http://www.sierraclub.org/

Why: Historically (i.e. before the 90s, the Sierra club has been against immigration in general, both legal and illegal. Among their favorite equations is Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology after all.
So there's no fundamental reason why it couldn't and shouldn't be restored to that track, which is congruent with the retention of demographic hegemony in the US for those of Euro extraction. When last put to a vote, the results were 60-40 percent against with a full-scale and legally questionable mobilization by the directors back around 2004. Control over the directors is a simple matter of votes. Record high turnout for said organization was around 22%, organizational size is around 1.4 million, so subversion is an achievable goal, particularly if executed rapidly before a counter mobilization can be made against it. And, membership is on sale right now, $15 instead of the usual $25. In addition, the organization appears to be pretty heavily demoralized right now, if you read between the lines on their website. Being able to consistently say that 'The Sierra Club' supports a moratorium on immigration and Operation Wetback II, the sequel, would give cover to a lot of people who are afraid of being painted as racists. This is why back in 2004 The Powers that Be were so terrified of the attempted internal coup at the Sierra Club elections. But said coup was just mobilizing people already inside who agreed with Tanton et al. Combine it with a hefty load of entryism and a second effort should succeed pretty easily. Ideally, the entryists would be very 'old school' conservative/reactionary environmentalists who'd maintain the brand.