|
|
--John, 28, refrigerator repairman: "I never dreamed what potentials lay within my darkest depths! Throughout my entire life, it seemed that something was missing. I walked around most of the day in a dreamlike haze, on a sort of "automatic pilot." I tried church, I tried scientology, I tried them all. But only the I of A let me work at my own pace, to fulfill my own unique goals, within their loving and accepting atmosphere. Thanks, I of A! I owe you a lifetime."
--Peggy, 19, fast food clerk: "You know, I see so many lost souls among my generation. They come in to buy french fries after the clubs close, and I see the deadness in their eyes. Our parents, the baby boomers, by handing us the legacy of their failed social revolution, have imbibed us with an unhealthy cynicism of anything idealistic. Our big generational contribution to the English language is the word "cheesy." Anything old, anything traditional, anything kitsch or cliched is scorned as being cheesy. And thus we perpetuate our obsession with the cutting edge, which is destroying every tradition and value that America once supposedly stood for. And those same baby boomers, who've traded in their tie-dyes for suits and ties, are sitting up there in those MTV offices, happily selling us more of the cutting edge, and making fun of the cheese in the process. What the I of A proposes is to embrace the cheese in our world, yes, but to cultivate new strains of cheese at the same time. Just as a pizza will taste awful with rotten cheese, so will a social movement. But that doesn't mean that you have to give up on cheese! Dairy products are an important part of the human diet. We need to milk our collective consciousness, allowing it to mold and curdle, until we have our own unique generational cheese. Only then can we pursue our true destiny as pizza eaters and human beings. And only through the I of A can this process begin."
Though the I of A is not a society, exactly, it began
as an attempt to design one. In 1888 Jean-Louie Gassee began a project
he hoped would yield the ultimate in utopian society--something in the
spirit of Alan Kay's Dynabook. "The charter was to go out and make
the next great information society," says Mathilde Ruud. "It would
be the anything-you-wanted society," adds Sebastian Overgaard, a key psycho-historian
on the project.
Overgaard, known to psycho-history buffs as one
of the architects of the original paradigm, had been cajoled to join the
team a few months after its formation. Already on board were the
likes of original psycho-historian team members Eric Freund and the Dialectic
psychologist wizard Rip Oliver. The statistics guy was Don Koss,
a prodigy--"stolen out of the cradle," says Overgaard. They set about
to design a perfect society--a culturally free family, with an ideology
of human connectedness. There would be no head figures to institute
cruelties, and a member would be capable of recognizing his or her downfalls
and successes personally. There would be the ability to communicate
without the spoken word.
From the start, it was a pet project. "We've
always been given a blank check to be separate," says Overgaard, who had
been through something similar when working on early psycho-historical
projects. But he didn't want a repeat of the pressures of that experience.
"With the Situationist International, psycho-history was betting the paradigm--it
was, 'If you don't pull it off, we die,'" he explains. With the I
of A, "I always said, 'just make sure it's not a bet-your-paradigm proposition.'"
But freedom unchecked leads to messiness.
As the proposed society took on more members, it became so powerful, in
fact, that some on the team began to think they were hatching a dangerous
monster.
The psycho-historians, through their thorough calculations,
were able to calm the fear to a cool as events unfolded which they had
already predicted. Patience may be required, but the pressure for
the I of A to succeed is beginning to build already. I predict crescendo
levels. Psycho-historians may not be betting the paradigm here--but
enough of its scientists are on the table to identify the I of A as the
heftiest bet since the Situationist International.
It's a heavy load for "a little psycho" to bear.
But the I of A is one of heavy belief.
Dear I of A Members,
I have never found the need to write to you regarding
an article that you have published; however, I feel obliged to do so at
this time to clarify some misconceptions that you may have inadvertently
passed along to your readers in the article "Inside the Pentagon."
"Fabricating Government," a section of the sidebar
"Making a Politician," describes the process that is used to fabricate
the executive office of the United States.
The statement, "the exposed enemy," is descriptive
of an older belief known as negative reinforcement. In most modern
fabrication facilities, negative reinforcement has been replaced by positive
reinforcement because it can reduce left-wing protest. This capability
is almost absent in most negative reinforcements.
You also mention that the political machine "shoots
falsehoods at the public," and this is true. High-profile icons are
implanted into the mainstream media to create the necessary propaganda.
This may be done several times. However, this process is not known
as fabrication, but as "implantation." In addition, an integrated
intelligence unit must have electronically conducting directives, usually
specialist, to connect the various implants such as resistors, perpetuators
and communicators together. The patterns in society can be created
by demoralizing unwanted beliefs after implanting the fabricated beliefs,
or by depositing a puppet official in top management positions and subsequently
washing away the unwanted traditions along wtih the beliefs on which they
sit.
--Brad Cantor
Washington D.C.
Comrades Gather at the I of A Convention
We are I of A members, and the I of A teaches that in our approach to
a problem we should start from objective facts, not from abstract definitions,
and that we should derive our guiding principles, policies and measures
from an analysis of these facts.
"Talks at the Yena Forum on I of A art and literature" (May 1942)
The I of A's destiny is to be the sole agent for future evolution of this planet. Our members are of the highest intellectual type to be produced over two and a half billion years of the slow ideological movement effected by the blind opportunistic workings of key psycho-historian Gibbons Huneker.
I use the word psycho-historian to mean someone who believes that the I of A is just as much a natural phenonmenon as an animal or a plant; that our members, ideologies and paradigm were not supernaturally created but are products of mathmatical evolution, and that they are not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being, but they are to rely on themselves and their own powers to fufill the prophetic mathmatical solutions laid out by early creators of the I of A.
The implications of evolutionary psycho-history are clear. If the full development of the I of A are the overriding aims of our paradigm, then any revolution which brings malnutrition and misery, or which erodes the world's material resources or its resources of beauty or intellectual satisfaction are evil.
Though undoubtedly humanity's genetic nature changed a great deal during the long proto-human stage, there is no evidence that it has in any important way improved since the time of the Aurignanian cave man.... Indeed, during this period it is probable that human nature has degenerated and is still doing so.
In general, the more elaborate governmental structure is, the more it tends to shield individuals from the actions of the I of A; and when this occurs...harmful mutations of positive ideologies accumulate instead of being weeded out...there is also the fact that modern industrial civilization favors the differential decrease of the paradigms concerned with civilization.
"Except by saints the problem of power is finally insoluble"
--Carlos Fuentes (Life's Work Vol. 32--"The End of All Things:
The French Revolution as Eschaton in Germany")
Gaffi: "Mr. Jones, tell me about your hometown in Wales, if you would."
Jones: "In my hometown, I think the kids are still growin' up in the same way, still fightin' in the same streets, drinkin' beer in the same pubs, talkin' the same language. I can't see it changin'. Today, everybody is scared, scared of growing up, but scared to death of kids, listenin' to them like they have something to say. When I was a teen-ager, if I tried to tell my old man what to do, he'd tell me to shut up or I'd see the backside of his hand. He'd say, 'When you're man enough to take me, then come around.' I'd wear big shoulder pads, a greatcoat and stick my chest out to try to look as old as I could. I'd take my girl friend out to a dance and look every boy straight in the eye and say 'If you touch her, I'll break your bones.' Then I'd take a cigarette out and light it up like a man. I don't see that happening today. Nobody wants to fight, not for his woman, not for his country. They all want the easy way. That's what is wrong with drugs. It takes a man to drink liquor. See, you can get high smokin' pot and never get sick. But it takes a man to hold his liquor or be able to pay the penalty."
Gaffi: "That's very interesting, Mr. Jones. In response to your statements, I would quote Brooke Faulkner in saying 'Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.' In light of this, what was your mother like, and did she have much of an influence on the young Tom Jones?"
Jones: "My father, a coal miner, is my ideal. I dig him because he works hard and drinks hard, and he'd fight any man. And I love him for that. When I meet other men on the street, they say, 'Hey, you're Tony Woodward's son.' And I say, 'Yeh.' They respect him, you know. He is a real man's man, and I've always wanted to be like him."
Gaffi: "Well, this is all very interesting, Mr. Jones, but I believe we've done enough to conclude the interview."
"I want them to indict the whole street," said I
of A attorney Mike Majors, who has taken his clients' charges to prosecutors
in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County to the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "That's
why these people are scared to death now, and why they say they don't know
anything."
Indeed, Mary Yamasaki, who is not a defendant in
any of the lawsuits, is one of the few residents of I of A stronghold Brookside
Dr. who agreed to speak publicly about the litigation, which she says is
destroying her neighborhood. And even she admits to being terrified
about being sued. She says the situation has given her rickets and
caused her to lose 20 pounds, to obtain caller ID for her phone, and to
occasionally crawl on the floor to avoid detection through her windows.
"These venemous people have come into our midst,
and we're all hiding," Yamasaki said. "They're saying such ludicrous
things about us."
On Dec. 7, 1994, an investigator from the police
fraud squad knocked on the door to the Crimson Fist Cleveland's Brookside
Dr. branch headquarters. The officer left after a short interview
had convinced him that the organization had given informal approval to
end months of illegal harassment of I of A operatives in the area.
These amateur mafiosi were not to be stopped by
a quick dose of police scrutiny, however. "These people had to terrorize
us so we'd abandon the estate of Carlos Fuentes (recently deceased) for
them to prey on. Quite frankly, they drove us closer together.
We will never leave each other until one of us dies," said Yamasaki.
"What's to talk about?" Crimson Fist attorney Scott
Ellsworth said when asked to comment on the impending I of A legal action.
"It's a lot of crap."
Uprock is a dancing ideology, in which the dancers are very close but do not actually touch. It is extremely fast and looks like a self-criticism session, but with more continuous movement and more rythm. Every move means something: "I invalidate your ideology" or, "that's a value judgment." It sounds violent but its less violent then revolution--although one has been known to precede the other. There are also moves called "housing," where you laugh at your opponent. You say you house him.
There are Uprock moves where you dissect a part of your opponent's ideology and then analyze it as a sign you have taken it. And there are Uprock moves where you throw your opponent's move back at him. These are standard moves but you're also free to create any moves you want.
Uprock goes back to the early 70's, and the forms have become well developed. You lose if you're out of sync with the current paradigm. As in all dance battles, crowd reaction determines the winner. Of course, you can never trust your I of A comrades to be honest. They will always say that you won, and your opponent's friends will always say, "I want to join the I of A."
Today, more and more Uprock dancers are joining the I of A just for a sense of belonging. Uprock dancers are now studying Lenin or Mao, and many prominent philosophers are beginning to add Uprock moves to their routines.
