🇰 🇷 🇾 🇵 🇹 🇮 🇽's avatar
🇰 🇷 🇾 🇵 🇹 🇮 🇽
kriptix2@iris.to
npub1f2gk...jky4
Cogito ergo... Running BIP110
image # **The Weaponization of Confusion: Living in an “Alice in Wonderland” Media Age** In the early 1960s, the CIA’s *KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual* described a curious method called the “Alice in Wonderland” technique. Its premise was simple: overwhelm a subject with contradiction and absurdity until their sense of logic eroded. Once disoriented, they became easier to influence. Sixty years later, we no longer need interrogation rooms for that effect. We have social media feeds. What the CIA once used deliberately, modern information systems now replicate by default. The confusion technique thrives wherever logic, order, and coherence are replaced by noise. Online, we scroll through contradictory claims, half-truths, and emotionally charged headlines, each competing for attention. The goal isn’t necessarily to persuade — it’s to exhaust. When everything feels uncertain, anything can be believed. The mechanics are the same. The KUBARK manual advised interrogators to “confound expectations.” Today’s algorithms do precisely that. They serve up endless surprises — shock, outrage, contradiction — because unpredictability keeps us engaged. In this way, confusion has become not just a side effect of digital media but its most valuable product. Governments and political actors have recognized the power of this environment. RAND researchers describe the “firehose of falsehood” model: flooding the public with rapid, inconsistent messages until truth loses its footing. It’s not persuasion but paralysis — an assault on attention itself. The result is a citizenry too overwhelmed to discern what’s real, retreating instead into cynicism or tribal certainty. Mainstream media, under pressure to compete for clicks, often amplifies the chaos rather than counters it. Speed trumps verification; controversy eclipses context. The constant churn of breaking news and social reaction mirrors the logic of the interrogation room: never give the subject — or the viewer — time to think. The danger isn’t simply misinformation. It’s disorientation. When people no longer trust what they read, they stop believing anything — or believe everything. That collapse of confidence is the ultimate prize for anyone who benefits from confusion, whether state propagandists or profit-driven platforms. Escaping this “Alice in Wonderland” dynamic requires deliberate effort. Slowing down is an act of resistance. Checking sources, cross-reading, and recognizing when emotion is being exploited are modern civic skills. Platforms, too, must confront the incentives that reward chaos and punish clarity. The original CIA technique sought to break an individual’s defenses. Our current media ecosystem risks breaking society’s collective sense of reality. Unless we demand coherence — from our news, our networks, and ourselves — we’ll remain lost in the maze, mistaking confusion for information. In *Alice in Wonderland*, the Mad Hatter tells Alice, “We’re all mad here.” The line feels less whimsical now. It sounds uncomfortably like prophecy. #confusion #algo #cia #tech #nostr #bitcoin #palestine
image spam-driven congestion favors large, well-funded miners and service providers who can afford high fees and bigger infrastructure, while pushing out small node operators. That concentration of resources reinforces centralization in both mining and network participation. #spam #bitcoinknots🪢 #bitcoin #nostr #anarchyⒶ #decentralisation #freedomtech #blockchain #freepalestine 🇵🇸
image Removing the OP_RETURN limit = more power to those with fat servers and deeper pockets — centralization disguised as freedom. #op_return #nostr #bitcoin #bitcoinknots🪢 #palestine #freepalestine 🇵🇸
image The Long Descent: From Enlightenment Ideals to Dark Accelerationism in Post-Postmodern Thought 🧩 1. Modernism (≈ Enlightenment → early 20th century) Core values: Rationality, progress, universal reason, humanism, democracy, equality, science. The world is understandable and improvable through knowledge. Philosophical icons: Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Comte, Mill. Motto: “Through reason and science, humanity will improve.” 🌀 2. Postmodernism (≈ 1960s–1990s) Reaction: Doubt the grand narratives of Modernism — no universal truths, just stories. Reality becomes discourse: language, power, identity, simulation. Core themes: Relativism (“truth” is social construction). Anti-essentialism (no stable human nature). Irony, fragmentation, self-referentiality. Critique of capitalism and totalizing ideologies. Thinkers: Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Deleuze & Guattari. Motto: “There is no truth — only interpretation.” ⚙️ 3. Accelerationism (≈ 1990s–2010s) Mutation: Instead of resisting capitalism and technology, accelerate them to reach a post-human or post-capitalist singularity. Two main streams: Left Accelerationism: Use technology to transcend capitalism and liberate humanity (Nick Srnicek, Alex Williams). Right Accelerationism (Nick Land): Let techno-capital evolve beyond human control — accept hierarchy, intelligence, and speed as ultimate values. Motto: “Ride the machine — don’t fight it.” 🕳️ 4. The Dark Enlightenment (≈ 2010s) Reaction to postmodern liberalism: Nick Land and the neoreactionaries reject democracy, egalitarianism, and moral universalism. They embrace: Hierarchy as natural. Technocapitalism as a quasi-autonomous force. Exit (creating enclaves, private orders) over reform. Realism over humanist illusion. Thinkers / Currents: Nick Land, Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), “NRx” subculture. Motto: “The Enlightenment was a mistake.” 🧠 5. Post-Postmodernism (≈ 2020s → now) Emerging from the exhaustion of irony and relativism. A new phase that accepts the collapse of modern liberalism and asks: “What comes after the end of meaning?” Key tendencies: Meta-irony: playing beyond irony; sincere and cynical at once. AI realism: machines as agents, non-human intelligence as central. Techno-nihilism: meaning collapses, only systems persist. Synthetic metaphysics: new attempts at meaning (e.g., hyperstition, simulation theology). Neo-traditionalism / Neo-reaction: reasserting order and hierarchy in digital age. Representative vibes: Nick Land (late phase), online “rational reactionaries,” AI-aligned thinkers, post-accelerationist theorists. Motto: “We’ve gone beyond irony — into system realism.” #nostr #bitcoin #bitcoinknots🪢
Jack Dorsey JUST Guaranteed 4 MILLION NEW Bitcoiners w/ Market Analyst Joe Consorti #bitcoinknots🪢 #bitcoin #nostr #anarchyⒶ #decentralisation #freedomtech #blockchain #freepalestine 🇵🇸
image 🧵: OP_RETURN v30 vs Knots – the reckoning** 1/ a dev thinks expanding OP_RETURN is “progress.” Knots supporters are “purists.” Let’s see who’s actually thinking about Bitcoin. 2/ OP_RETURN = tiny, safe data. Core v30 = “dump all the bytes you want!” the dev: 😎 “What could go wrong?” 3/ What could go wrong: node bloat, hobbyist exile, spam everywhere, miner incentives centralizing. Spoiler: a lot. 4/ Knots = not gatekeepers. Knots = survivalists. Bitcoin is a ledger, not a Dropbox. 5/ the dev: “Other chains survived, just flip the config.” Translation: “Good luck, small node operators.” 6/ Defaults govern the network. Permissive defaults = forced risk. That’s not progress; that’s stealth governance. 7/ Mocking Knots = ignoring real problems. Node cost, legal exposure, incentive misalignment, future integrity. 8/ “Useful data” = playground for VC experiments. Bitcoin ≠ staging environment. 9/ Prunable OP_RETURN? Fine. Unrestricted default? Reckless. 10/ Cost isn’t abstract. Every byte = bandwidth, storage, processing, archival. Ignoring it = negligence. 11/ Bigger payloads = miners + centralized services win. Lopp calls it “innovation.” We call it centralization by stealth. 12/ Defaults are governance. Flipping a config is no fix. Adoption pressure = systemic risk. 13/ the dev mocks “purists” while dismantling every precaution Knots maintains. Irony = delicious. 14/ Other chains ≠ Bitcoin. Copy-paste thinking = recipe for disaster. 15/ Innovation ≠ reckless defaults. Anchoring proofs ≠ bloating the blockchain. 16/ Knots = minimal, resilient, principled. OP_RETURN expansion = bloat, centralization, debt. 17/ Cheering v30 while mocking dissent = ideology over engineering. 18/ Bitcoin isn’t about your VC experiment. It’s about *all nodes*. 19/ OP_RETURN v30: “fun for some, pain for everyone else.” Knots: “Bitcoin survives.” 20/ Bottom line: Hubris ≠ progress. Knots ≈ prudence. Choose wisely. #bitcoinknots🪢 #bitcoin #nostr #anarchyⒶ #decentralisation #freedomtech #blockchain #freepalestine 🇵🇸
image # The Quiet Counter‑Revolution: How Tech, Money and Philosophy Are Rethinking Democracy A precise, cold current is running beneath contemporary politics: a fusion of accelerationist philosophy, technocratic contempt for majority rule, and a managerial dream of governance by engineers, not voters. It is not, mostly, a mass movement. It is an elite mood—funded, literate, patient—and it will not announce itself by storming the citadel. It will arrive by contract, code, platform and precedent. **What I mean by ‘dark’ and ‘acceleration’** The Dark Enlightenment (often called NRx) began as an intellectual provocation—then metastasized into a program. It rejects the foundational post‑Enlightenment bargain: that popular sovereignty, universal rights and egalitarianism are the only legitimate sources of political order. Its moods range from nostalgic monarchism through corporate cameralism to full techno‑feudalism. Think of it as a family of arguments that treat democracy as an inefficient brake on technological and hierarchical ‘progress.’ Accelerationism supplies the motor. Where left‑accelerationists once argued for harnessing technology to democratize the future, a rightward variant treats acceleration itself as the means—speed up markets, data, automation and social disintegration until old institutions can no longer hold. The aim is not broadly egalitarian; it is to let systems evolve into configurations that favor the capable, the wealthy and the machinic orders they control. **Who teaches this and who pays attention** The intellectual architects are uneven and eccentric. Nick Land wrote and popularized a ruthless accelerationist vision that treats techno‑capital as a self‑mediating engine. Curtis Yarvin—under the handle Mencius Moldbug—crafted a counter‑liberal program that bluntly proposes corporate‑style sovereigns, formalized hierarchies, and the dismantling of the democratic cathedral. These are not merely blog hobbies. Their ideas have been circulated in software projects, private investment networks and donor portfolios. Code, infrastructure and capital are the practical arms of the theory: projects promising ‘exit’ and private sovereignty, alternative internets, and corporate structures that look a lot like miniature states. image **How ideas become institutions** There are three practical vectors by which these theories leave the keyboard and enter governance. 1. **Infrastructure capture.** Private code and corporate platforms act like new administrative states. When social coordination, identity and financial rails live inside proprietary systems, governance migrates to those who build and own them. 2. **Philanthropic and venture patronage.** Wealthy patrons fund projects whose architecture embodies a political preference for private rule, sovereignty exits (literal and fiscal), and algorithmic order. That funding seeds platforms, standards and top‑tier talent. 3. **Policy translation through networks.** Ideas travel via technologists who move between start‑ups, think tanks, advisory roles and governmental offices. When the appeal is framed as efficiency and expertise, the pitch becomes palatable to reformers who disdain ‘red tape.’ **The real dangers—concrete, not rhetorical** This is not an abstract intellectual quarrel. It threatens four concrete regimes: * **Democratic accountability.** Corporate or algorithmic governance substitutes private optimization problems for public debate. That creates entanglements where rights are implemented as product features and removed by product updates. * **Concentration of power and extraction.** The more infrastructure controlled by single platforms and private jurisdictions, the more political power accumulates off‑balance sheet—beyond elections, audits and judicial process. * **Algorithmic legitimacy, racialized science and techno‑elitism.** When selection criteria are encoded in models, when intelligence is treated as a bureaucratic metric and when ‘fitness’ language migrates back into governance, unequal outcomes become framed as neutral data artifacts—easier to defend and harder to contest. * **Acceleration as catastrophe.** Pushing systems harder—automation, bio/AI racing, unregulated platformization—raises existential risk: brittle supply chains, runaway misaligned systems, ecological overshoot. Accelerationist logic often dismisses these as collateral to a ‘higher’ systemic transformation. **Why we should be blunt but not hysterical** The danger is real—because technocracy scales. But it is not total. The ideas are powerful precisely because they are diffuse and plausible: who, after all, argues publicly for incompetence? Efficiency sells. Hence the need to be precise in critique: identify the mechanisms where private governance supplants public ones, and attack those mechanisms without indulging theatrical demonization of distant philosophers. **What resistance looks like** If you don’t want the world reconfigured by invisible platforms and private constitutions, you must defend the plumbing: * Build public, interoperable infrastructure that cannot be gated by single investors. Open standards, public identity layers and national/international digital commons are defensive tools. * Enforce antitrust and structural separation where private platforms exercise quasi‑public power. * Insist on auditable governance—the right to inspect and contest algorithmic decisions with independent oversight and legal force. * Reclaim acceleration. There is a secular left‑accelerationist argument: use the same technologies to expand universal services, automate labor away from drudgery and democratize power. That’s a political alternative, not a capitulation. **Final note: the choice is political** The Dark Enlightenment offers a coherent package: despair of mass politics, a taste for hierarchy, and a plan to hand governance to capable managers—often to engineers, sometimes to CEOs. That package is attractive to people who have the capital, networks and technological faith to attempt it. Countering it is not merely moralizing; it is policy engineering: rebuild institutions that make democracy resilient to the seductions of efficiency and return technical expertise to an accountable public sphere. This is not a plea for nostalgia. It is a demand for clarity: if we accept code as law, how will we write democratic salvage clauses into it? If private sovereignty rises, who will be the public advocate for the people who cannot buy planets or private servers? The answers will decide whether the next phase of governance is a richer, more inclusive world—or a locked garden where exit is for the few and voice for none. #NRx #accelerationism #nostr #bitcoin #bitcoinknots🪢 #palestine #freepalestine 🇵🇸