Is Kirking a Tool in all Generations of War?

command-and-control style legal system

Do you mean, in democratic states or despotic states or all states, when you use this description?

I think this is a very important post, ties in with the Wikipedia discussion over at Soob; but want to wait until others have responded before I respond further. I’ve already given a broad outline to my thoughts on this, at tdaxp.

Do you mean, in democratic states or despotic states or all states, when you use this description?

Both. The law-courts attempt to stop the marketplace through the imposition of violence.

I catch the Soob references too. In fact, I was re-reading what Soob wrote when all this broke…

Hmm. I think it depends on the nature of the “Kirking.” Is it collective (swarm) mentality of many small elements coalescing to attack a larger foe each with the same goal/intent in mind?

In other words if Dan, Curtis and I convince every blog on our blogrolls to post disparaging comments regarding some “foe” at the same time I think we’re seeing the swarm effect Curtis sees.

Going on the assumption that Mrs. Coble didn’t have such a detailed premeditated plan in mind I think her intentions were unconciously 5GW (influence and focus her large readership against the offending JLK as each saw themselves as a potential “victim” of callous profit chasing) but the effect was unintentional 4GW as other bloggers effectively (and unwittingly) Kirked Kirk off the top of major search engines.

As far as lawsuits they’re generally not a collective effort and so I’m not sure they can be analogous to GW. Unless of course you consider class action lawsuits.

“A party may purposefully file a petty lawsuit, provoking a lawsuit that actually plays into some deeper plan”

This is how terrorism works.

The terrorists commit violence hoping to provoke a re-action (over re-action). The reaction of others to that (over)re-action is th egoal of the terrorist.

Hmmm…Lawfare as a form of non-kinetic terrorism?

As stated at Curtis’s comment at TDAXP, I have been thinking about Lawfare in a 5GW context. I think I worked out a bit of it on the train during my vacation. I will post after the other 5GW post get published.

“The terrorists commit violence hoping to provoke a re-action (over re-action). The reaction of others to that (over)re-action is th egoal of the terrorist.”

This also holds true in counterinsurgency warfare, where the insurgent aims to engineer a backlash that can ignite popular anger against the stronger power.

I’ve wanted to comment in more detail, but at the time do not have…er, the time.

Given, however, the question of Kinetics and Violence, I’ve lately been rethinking the following terms:

• “blogospheric autoimmunity” used here




• auto-borking

The significant assumption behind these ideas is this: That the swarming measures are not committed by individuals with decision-making powers, but by droids. In each case, the initial attacker is seen as being entirely culpable for the entire system of activity. Being entirely culpable means, having the full responsibility for what happens. And, in reference to a several comments I’ve left on TDAXP, while adding an update to those thoughts: accepting responsibility is accepting power and control — meaning, that the wish to be “free from responsibility” is indeed a wish to be “free to be enslaved.”

Perversely, the “autoimmune droids” feel as if they have some sort of power and control over the situation. Well, to the extent that they have chosen to add their voices to a Group Voice, perhaps; but this would mean that they share in the culpability for what has happened, and so the immune response is not auto and no one can really “auto-Bork” himself.

This does approach a consideration of 5GW, in which the 5GW Effectors are responsible for getting others to do the work for them; these others will feel as if they have the control and power, when in fact they are enslaved to the 5GW operations without knowing it.

From a 4GW perspective, the targets know it — that they are enslaved — or at least suspect/fear it, and such a feeling of powerlessness is the goal of a 4GW operation. This reminds me of a thought in my post on “EBO is Everything in War — Almost”:

Too often when reading theory of 4GW, 5GW, and EBO, I detect a belief — or, call it a faith — that we may directly affect an enemy’s abstract processes. For instance, when we talk of moral and morale manipulation as methods used by a 4GW fighter, some mystical direct link is implied: “4GW insurgents sap our will to fight.” That is putting it too simply, however, and risks devastating illusion by putting too much faith in that illusion of a direct link, or of a direct operation on our own abstract processes by the enemy. This is not to say that our morale cannot be sapped, but it is giving the enemy too much credit for that effect.

I’m also reminded of an old thought from Phatic Communion concerning the War on Terror:

For each terrorist, there is at least one American standing in opposition. Actually, there are many Americans to oppose each terrorist. Why give terrorists the upper hand? Such terror of the actions of each terrorist, or of each group of terrorists, bespeaks a devaluation of each American. What terrorists can do, we can do better; or, we can do better than what they have done.

From an OODA perspective, terror and powerlessness are in the minds of those who feel those things. The 4GWarrior knows this as well as the 5GWarrior, but one would claim responsibility while the other wants to remain unseen. Given the fact that most people can only wield a one-sided sword, they are more likely to blame themselves for their successes — see internal strength — while blaming others for their failures — remain blind to internal weaknesses. Thus the openly acting bogey-man accepts the blame for creating fear in his opponent (sees this strength as being his) who is willing to give him that credit (not wishing to see that fear is an internal weakness.) The hidden bogey-man is not a bogey-man, strictly speaking, and doesn’t attempt to create a feeling of powerlessness in his target: No, he wants his target to feel entirely in control of the situation, strong.

That last para probably points toward the peculiar strength that a 5GW force has against a 4GW force…but this comment is already longer than intended!

Curtis,

“That the swarming measures are not committed by individuals with decision-making powers, but by droids. In each case, the initial attacker is seen as being entirely culpable for the entire system of activity”

Not at all. The rational agency of components of a system has little do do with whether a system has an automatic immune system. This is a logical jump that I’m surprised you make.

“From an OODA perspective, terror and powerlessness are in the minds of those who feel those things.”

Perhaps… but one recall that there is a difference between conscious and automatic congition. One can have reflexes which imply automatic cognitive perception of powerlessness while having a conscious belief of powerfulness.

Not at all. The rational agency of components of a system has little do do with whether a system has an automatic immune system. This is a logical jump that I’m surprised you make.

Dan, I’m afraid you are jumping to a different rhythm, and I’m not sure why you would (in this case.)

Did JLK “auto-Bork” itself? That is as much as saying that JLK had full control over everything that happened, full control over the blowback. In fact, every single blogger who decided to spread the meme, “JLK are asswipes/cons/scam artists” did not need to decide to do so. They could have sided with JLK; or, if not that, then merely kept silent on the matter. By suggesting that JLK had full responsibility over the Borking/Kirking, one would need to believe that those bloggers are nothing but droids programmed to react the way they did.

Well, given the effect of each OODA: perhaps they were programmed; perhaps not. I think it’s a little like having the gut or penis too close to the brain: I can’t help eating! I couldn’t help raping him, Judge! Sure, alright.

Conscious/subconscious/unconscious: I generally place them all in the framework of “brain”; from there, we might consider them to be part of “mind”. Depends. In any case, whatever terrors or powerlessness we feel need not be allowed to operate on “automatic” — if that’s what they really do. But I have called segments of the Blogosphere “infantile” and infants just bawl when they are feeling fright.

Curtis, how does your most recent comment defend your position that, in order for an immune system for be function, it must be composed of automatons?

Dan,

I think we should be careful when we use the metaphor “immune system.”

So this dance is merely from an aversion to metaphors?

Dan,

What dance? Seriously. Ask your question directly, and the oracle will try to answer! :P