Posts Tagged ‘Activism / NWO Hacking & Survival’

Ignorance Is Futile:

The genius behind the Google machine is that when we use the Internet we help make it’s A.I. smarter and more powerful, and on the other hand the growing trend is to make the entire Internet “semantic“. By merely using the Internet, we’re all in effect helping to build ‘Skynet’, so something must be done to at least slow it down. So a couple years ago I had the idea of software meant to make it dumber.  Bots against bot.

The Google Machine is the ultimate in crowd sourcing. For example, we all helped Google’s AI learn how to understand spoken language. But it goes beyond just using it’s search engine. By using the Internet there is almost no escaping this. On the one hand it “indexes” any and every web page it can find, allowing it to analyze things we’ve written. On the other hand, most sites out there have either Google Search or Google Ads integrated right into the page, allowing them to track our web surfing habits even if we don’t start our travels at

So last year I proposed software scripts designed to dumb it down, the more automatically the better. I just ran this idea by my new collaborators, TransAlchemy, it it turned out that member “SeH” not only liked the idea, he already has a working prototype program that uses “Markov Chain” algorithms to garble up text.

Not only does it randomize text, it actually solves the page indexing problem. In my idea I hadn’t thought it through enough to figure out how to hassle the page indexing, I only had the concept of a bot that spits random nonsensical search stings into the search box. His program takes manuscripts, and rearranges both the order of the sentences, and blends sentences together.

The output even contains paragraphs, and on top of everything it’s actually fun to read. Here is an example of the first 2 paragraphs of an entry from his Transperiments blog:

High Mentality that it May Be Impaired by Dawn

as the olive grove . he handled and separated parts of a small , and self – – not ; a moment on the slightest hope of his experiments with robbie nodded significantly ; consequently he was experimenting on the nitre – or the manager of the house ? he’s been hungry . it rang , because they had come from my ancestors had with full and calculating appraisal at times he hoped at the sagging floors , robert , and i had entered the neighbouring town had an air – tree , we lacked at the wrong with disastrous results , unknown malady . but , but i shiver . despite the thing quietly , for a student of dr .
gloria was rarely home – daemon – – for a long centuries had much of my friend believed it wasn’t quite overshadowed by the hillside below the body , the early acquired a dark colour . the cellar laboratory , i saw a shrill rhythm . “where have been able to overcome impatience . so carelessly sceptical , “damn it .

robbie was strangely bent every sort of brain and his lips and buried by west and comfortable . the moss – – black form the men had occurred , yet never get rid of the servants were widely ridiculed by the memory of mind , i call death . a supremely great work when the way to me , and whose ramifications and tom – stained blocks of a debauch . eloi , in a greater age , by one night the midst of his terrible groping . gloria ? ” west’s closest neighbour , who wore a fashionable thing . the unfathomable abyss of restraint – the others had occurred , to feed and disgust ; led by the oldest burying – down his selection of the st . nor indeed noticed the night of their estates , unnatural expedients in skill with good , virtues , though kalos and their reception by sheer force of yore , whom we waited until the body , and in preparation .

Imagine all of the varying different web pages, books and so on that you could morph into oddity hybrid entertainment. Religious texts, news articles and so on. Consider the different ‘specialty’ forms of English used everyday such as slang,  patent documents, “legelese” (legislative / legal documents), and more. Then you have old manuscripts written in odd tongues and dialects. To really screw with Google you could even mix different languages. Google can translate just about any language, but it would still confuse it no less.

The overall idea of this concept is to give people a fun tool they can have fun with, and then hopefully post their varying results online. With his program, in the context of what I’m trying to do with Google, the hard part is already done. The easy part should be making a smaller automaton applet that uses your web browser to do phony web searches. This should be a program that runs in the background, and uses very little CPU resources. You can even run it while you’re away from your computer, if you already leave it on all the time anyways.

The Tools:
1. Downloadable tool that users can feed different sources of manuscript into it.
2. Web page that has it built in, allowing you to select your own sources or select from a provided list.
3. An app that runs in the background and constantly feeds random search strings into Google.
4. A “Chaos” button extension built into your web browser, allowing you to auto-generate gibberish for posting into comments like on news sites.  Interactive chaos fun.

My concept currently has the bot use an Internet Explorer browser, that opens 2 tabs. One tab is set for Google News, the other is just the plain Google search page. It uses the available words from the news page, and then rearranges 13 random words into one nonsensical search string. It does the search on the plain search box, saving it from having to reopen the news page, thus using less resources. All of this done persistently and automatically. Or at least that’s one way to do it. There could be infinite ways to go about it.


These sorts of ideas inherently scream open source, and SeH already has it available as open source. The more people that help out this the better, and for software programmers you can join SeH’s GIT to collaborate on work and ideas of this effort.

The software that inspired him is also open source. There’s a website called DadaDodo that is a functional first generation version of this “cut up” chaos concept. The history behind it is most interesting:

Exterminate All Rational Thought

William S. Burroughs called this “cut up theory.” His approach was to take a page of text, divide it into quadrants, rearrange the quadrants, and then read the page across the divisions. He wrote this way; writing, cutting up, shuffling, publishing the result. Collage and randomness applied to words. He saw this as a way of escaping from a prison that words create for us, locking us down into one way of thinking: an idea echoed in Orwell’s1984,” where the purpose of NewSpeak was to make ThoughtCrime impossible by making it inexpressible: “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.”

Ted Nelson, the inventor of hypertext, published “Computer Lib” in 1973. This book was more a stream-of-consciousness collage than anything else, nominally about nonlinear texts, and effectively an example of the same. It was written as hundreds of individual typewritten rants, and then pasted together for printing. Ironically, it was printed with a third of the pages out of order, allegedly due to a mix-up with the printer: one wonders, however, whether that really mattered.

The site is functional, but the key limitation is that you can’t specify what text sources it uses. Another drawback in terms of page index chaos is that the pages it generates aren’t being indexed, unless someone where to copy and paste it somewhere else.

SeH’s beta software overcomes that key limitation, and strives for more complex semantic structure. This initial release is really in its alpha stages, but it works, as seen above. SeH wants to make the utility more functional and easier to use, and then integrate into a web page that people can use to paste in links or other forms of text, or even have a big list of prime sources for semantic fun right at the users fingertips. Then the next step is to make smaller automaton bots for dizzying the search engines.

Stay tuned for updates and contact us if you’re able to help build on these tools and techniques.

After learning about an experimental weapon that can make people feel seasick, Limor Fried and Phil Torrone decided to build their own. They did it for less than $250, and wrote step-by-step instructions so that anyone can make one at home. It can create a nauseating lightshow with 36 pulsating LEDs.

Visit their site for info, video, designs, and source code.

Danger Room:

In the 5th Century BCE, the Greek tyrant Histiaeus devised a clever new way to send hidden messages. He shaved the head of one of his servants, tattooed the missive on his head, and waited for his hair to grow back before sending the messenger out. When the courier arrive, his head was shaved and the message was read, giving information about upcoming Persian attacks.

Though Histiaeus may not have known as much, he was one of the early practitioners of steganography, the practice of hiding one message inside another, innocent-looking message. Later on, secret inks were used, and Morse code messages were woven into a sweater was worn by a courier. Now, thanks to VoIP and applications like Skype, steganography is undergoing another revolution, IEEE Spectrum reports.

As communication turned to bits and bytes rather than paper and ink, steganography followed suit. Binary codes could be hidden in an image file, or an mp3 audio file, and then decoded using simple software. But this practice had limits: the file’s size would grow with the messages embedded, and long messages would make files so large they’d raise a red flag.

Internet Protocol, commonly known as IP, governs the way information is sent around the Web. IP breaks the information into tiny parts, known as packets, and then routes them all to the desired destination. When the packets arrive with the receiver, they’re out of order—IP puts the information back together, and delivers it the final step. A few standards were changed, and Voice Over Internet Protocol, VoIP, became the de facto way of facilitating voice and video.

VoIP uses a series of protocols to essentially create an open, unmediated link between two computers. VOIP applications also provide a way to make sure the packets are ordered quickly and correctly — and deal with latencies in the network. Information flows more quickly and fluidly. And that’s a goldmine for anyone trying to send hidden messages.

There’s only the smallest possible time for interception to happen since all data is stored locally rather than redirected through a central server. Plus, since so much data is being sent back and forth, large messages can be sent without causing any alarm. Unlike an image or video, which can be downloaded and analyzed at anytime, there’s no way to get at and store files sent with VoIP.

IEEE Spectrum found three different ways that messages could be encrypted and sent via VoIP, with little or no possibility for detection or interception. By delaying specific packets, corrupting packets, or changing the identification information of packets, users can sort out their message, which is then easily decoded by freely available software. In the course of a Skype call that only lasts a few minutes, massive amounts of data can be sent—without any detection or permanent record.

Steganography has positive implications – concealing sources for journalists, talking without government censorship – but it’s also a potential hiding point for terrorists. A 2001 USA Today article described fake eBay listings in which routinely altered pictures of a sewing machine contained malevolent cargo.“ Which side VoIP helps more, remains to be seen.

*Send secret messages via digital Steganography.

They often say “vote with your pocketbook”. I say lets take that concept to the extreme. Imagine if on your IRS form instead of focusing on the check-boxes of ‘dependents’ you claim, the majority of the ordeal would be a compendium of all of the various things government does, and taxes us for.

Think about that: EVERYTHING the government does and taxes us for, itemized, in a checklist. The form would be more like a book. There would be so much that people would only have time to flip through trying to find things they actually support.

From there there could be a 1-10 system. Like the form has a column that states the total intended price tag, and then the next column shows how much would cost each individual under the government vision. From there you get a base-10 percentage option of how much of their intended price for you that you actually support.

I argue that this alone would solve pretty much everything. In fact, it would almost negate the need for congress critters and the office of the president, especially as we know them. I argue that politicians are the root of majority of our problems.

Although I detest ’emotional wedge issues’, I do often point out how it’s unfair that people who don’t support abortion are forced to pay for abortion related programs. If it were the other way around, and abortion were outlawed, should avid abortion supporters be forced to pay for anti-abortion programs? Considering this concept again recently brought me to the conclusion of this case point.

Imagine all of the issues. Now imagine all of those who avidly support them, and nastily don’t. Space: if you want to fund NASA’s Mars mission, go for it. Millions of people are rightfully obsessed with having a new 9/11 investigation. Let them! Let them opt to pay for it, or ignore it. Or consider Global Warming. Vast amounts of government funding goes towards numerous things and studies related to that issue. Hey, if people want to pay for such things, let them. But don’t force everyone else to. If people didn’t have to be taxed to death in relation to things they don’t support, why should they?

I came to this conclusion over a month ago. I posted about it over at ATS, but at first I didn’t know what best to call it. It had to have a title.  Finally “Consent Taxation” came to mind. Before I had the title, I had no luck finding anything like it, even via Google God. But as soon as I thought of the title I immediately found another person with the same idea. Charles B. Petzold is the first person I know of to brainstorm this idea. He even already has a Facebook page specifically for the idea (if you like this concept the first thing to do is support his page):

The concept is simple in theory, but perhaps more complicated in implementation. However, if people can file taxes, than they can just as easily do this. In fact, they may even find a personal interest in doing so, as it promotes their own wishes, and makes their voice heard. It would essentially operate much like the IRS does now (ironically), in that people would be filing tax consent forms to the Fed, state, and local governments, with each new budget cycle. The Fed, states, and local government would publicly submit their budget proposals, and proposed spending initiatives before each budget cycle. The public (those who give a #), would than review these proposals for a period of time, before their tax consent forms were due. Based on the public’s feedback, budgets would be created on a strictly popular vote basis. Some of the items would be shorter term, and others longer term. The longer term issues would naturally be of the most importance on any given consent form. The form itself would essentially be a checklist of items presented to the taxpayer. The taxpayer would be able to indicate the level of importance they lend to each item, possibly by use of the old “on a scale of 1-5” format, which would dictate the amount they deemed fit to spend on it….or…. they could check “unsatisfactory”, indicating they have no interest whatsoever in having their tax money being spent on that item. If implemented, the American people would be so jaw-dropped by the long lists of frivolous spending, that it would be cut short in a very small amount of time. Almost sounds too simple, doesn’t it?….. Well, so simple, I think it would work.

Other than Petzold’s pages, searching for “consent taxation ‘check list'” brought up a bunch of dead end looking PDF files, etc.

Wikipedia’s Taxation as Theft entry talks about the unfairness of being forced to pay taxes on things we haven’t consented to, but fails to mention an outline of that being the solution to the problem.

Instead it says this:

In taxation a taxpayer wasn’t given a choice in what services to pay for. Somebody else chooses on behalf of the payer without his/her explicit consent as to what services to pay for, even if the payer does not use that service or believes against that particular service. If it were possible to track where exactly a taxpayer’s tax money goes, the taxpayer could pay that entity directly. However, besides the logistic difficulties of this proposal, a country’s inhabitants routinely benefit from non-excludable goods or services, such as national defense or infrastructure. This is discussed in greater detail in David Osterfeld’s paper “Social Utility” and Government Transfers of Wealth: An Austrian Perspective.

That paper can be found here. This paragraph is striking:

Currently, in excess of 50 percent of the budgets of practically all governments in the world are devoted to transfer payments. This makes wealth transfers, at least quantitatively, the most important function of government. The official justification for these activities is that they increase “social utility.” Since transferring wealth from some individuals to others reduces choice sets of the former while expanding them for the latter, this means that some are forced to choose between options that provide them with less utility than those they would have chosen on the market, while others are able to choose from options that would not be open to them on the market. Since the utility of some is reduced while that of others is increased, any claim that social utility has been increased implies the ability to compare, if not measure, the utilities of different individuals. Thus, the justification for wealth transfers clearly implies the use of utility in its cardinal sense (Simon), defined here as the ability to measure and/or compare the utilities of different individuals. Those who maintain that wealth transfers can and do increase social utility should be able to support this claim with adequate evidence.

50% of government is in deciding what to transfer from who and to where? It’s sounds like things might be better off if we do that decision making for them. This would seriously marginalize their power over us.

A little further down:

The results of the foregoing are interesting. One may say with certainty that the market always increases social utility. On the other hand, one can never state with certainty that any act of government ever increases social utility, and the only conclusion one could ever make with absolute certainty is that a given act of government reduced “social utility.” And this, as we shall see, is not as unlikely as might be thought.

That paper is a good read, but I somehow didn’t find mention of how that Wikipedia entry I cited put it that: “If it were possible to track where exactly a taxpayer’s tax money goes, the taxpayer could pay that entity directly. However, besides the logistic difficulties of this proposal, a country’s inhabitants routinely benefit from non-excludable goods or services, such as national defense or infrastructure.” The paper more seems to completely argue against taxes altogether, and I didn’t see that bit about it being “impossible to track where tax money goes’.

Instead it says this:

This means that it is impossible to ascertain whether a given government action increased or decreased net social utility or left it unchanged.

I also came across:
Public Choice Theory

One of the chief underpinnings of public choice theory is the lack of incentives for voters to monitor government effectively. Anthony Downs, in one of the earliest public choice books, An Economic Theory of Democracy, pointed out that the voter is largely ignorant of political issues and that this ignorance is rational. Even though the result of an election may be very important, an individual’s vote rarely decides an election. Thus, the direct impact of casting a well-informed vote is almost nil; the voter has virtually no chance to determine the outcome of the election. So spending time following the issues is not personally worthwhile for the voter. Evidence for this claim is found in the fact that public opinion polls consistently find that less than half of all voting-age Americans can name their own congressional representative.

Public choice economists point out that this incentive to be ignorant is rare in the private sector. Someone who buys a car typically wants to be well informed about the car he or she selects. That is because the car buyer’s choice is decisive—he or she pays only for the one chosen. If the choice is wise, the buyer will benefit; if it is unwise, the buyer will suffer directly. Voting lacks that kind of direct result. Therefore, most voters are largely ignorant about the positions of the people for whom they vote. Except for a few highly publicized issues, they do not pay a lot of attention to what legislative bodies do, and even when they do pay attention, they have little incentive to gain the background knowledge and analytic skill needed to understand the issues.…

That deals directly with my arguments that people are predictably ignorant as they feel voting and participating in the system as we know to be irrelevant.

This section also highlights some of what I’ve been saying:

Public choice economists also examine the actions of legislators. Although legislators are expected to pursue the “public interest,” they make decisions on how to use other people’s resources, not their own. Furthermore, these resources must be provided by taxpayers and by those hurt by regulations whether they want to provide them or not. Politicians may intend to spend taxpayer money wisely. Efficient decisions, however, will neither save their own money nor give them any proportion of the wealth they save for citizens. There is no direct reward for fighting powerful interest groups in order to confer benefits on a public that is not even aware of the benefits or of who conferred them. Thus, the incentives for good management in the public interest are weak. In contrast, interest groups are organized by people with very strong gains to be made from governmental action. They provide politicians with campaign funds and campaign workers. In return they receive at least the “ear” of the politician and often gain support for their goals.

In other words, because legislators have the power to tax and to extract resources in other coercive ways, and because voters monitor their behavior poorly, legislators behave in ways that are costly to citizens.

What is odd however is that I don’t see any mention of the ideal of ‘Consent Taxation” mentioned in the Public Choice Theory model. It’s like it’s right on the tips of their tongues, but PCT seems more about “studies the behavior of politicians and government”.

Much More To Come…

Ignorance Is Futile:

Subvertising is the practice of making spoofs or parodies of corporate and political  advertisements. Here we have spoofed the activity booklet from BP’s Brainwash Marketing for Kids campaign:

Members over at ATS helped me with all of this recently. If you’d like to participate here are the raw images of the activity booklet, and please to post them up here.