ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +

JUNE 2011


Data is the name used here as a catchall for any information transfer between people.  The technology for transmission of data started with the development of speech, then evolved through handwriting, printing presses, radio, movies, television and the internet.  Each of these advances produced a geometric increase in the ratio of originator nodes to receptors and a corresponding decrease in the absolute importance of any new "star" originators.  In the sense that Socrates, Shakespeare, Chaplin & Gandhi are "stars".

There is a new evolution.  Sarah Palin has made us notice.  Barak used it, but nobody in the media really commented, so nobody over 35 noticed.  I read lots of media and connect with electronic media.  Mostly I read Murdoch press and listen to shock jocks and watch "Sunrise" on 7 and download Drudge.  I follow those media because I grew up with that type of media.  I follow those flavors because they seem to have the least amount of editorial interference with the reporting of facts.

I find Facebook mildly annoying, and have never attempted to connect with Twitter.  Mostly because I don't want to be a twit, which was an extremely derogatory term when I was young.

Anyhow, back to Palin.  She is touring and totally avoiding "The Media" to the point that first grade journalists have the greatest difficulty even finding her.  When they did after much diligent detective work manage to track her down they were extremely disparaging of her campaign calling it "disorganized" and similar.  It got me to thinking.  Murdoch noticed it five years ago when he complained that "nobody over 30 reads newspapers".  The star system is falling apart.  The liberal bias instilled by the boomers is sticking in everyone's craw.  The new paradigm is what we are labeling "viral".

Our culture has metamorphosed.

This is the sign of the collapse of capitalism.

Maybe you think that is extreme?  Consider.  In the new world, what can you not buy with money?  The answer is control of data flows.  That is why the power elite is so frightened by Julian Assange. 

"Dataism" is the new economic paradigm.  Dataism is an economic system based where those who have the power to collect, organise, analyse, generate and deliver data are the wealthy.  That is what Twitter, Facebook and Google do.

It is a cultural progression.  First was control of land by sword.  We called it Feudalism.   Then came control of gold which came to be called Capitalism.   Military power could not control wealth generation, which is why commercial nations prevailed over feudal nations. 
The new wealth is data flows and those that liberate data flows will prevail over commercial nations.  It is the next step to a laissez faire economy.

One of the driving forces of the new revolution is high level abuse of data control.  Recent examples are the Serbian Ratvan, (who, due to ambitious World Court prosecutors  has already been found guilty by the classical media) the FIFA World Cup going to Qatar (even before the recent scandal it was obviously determined by bribery).


The "Big Ideas" forum at Sydney university had a talk recently on spreading health messages "virally".  When the first speaker defined "virally" I realized that he was describing a meme.  When the second speaker talked about the Autism-Inoculation alarmists, I felt like pointing out that these alarmists are identical to the global warming alarmists and save the whales alarmists etc. etc.  They are examples of an old meme (the "alarmist" meme) that has a new & more vigorous life due to social media.

The "alarmist meme" is the infection of naive minds with an alarming situation.
Wesley used it (The fear of Hell).  Hitler used it (Need for Lebensraum).

Lenin and McCarthy used it.

There is always an underlying truth.  Carbon Dioxide probably does increase global temperature.  Inoculations may well produce increased autism.

However the damage that would be done to mankind if we followed the "alarmists" prescriptions would
in total be far greater than the damage that would be done if we followed the advice put by the so called "deniers".  Are the thousands saved from Autism worth the millions dead of Measles?  Are the tens of thousands saved from the heat death, or forced to abandon their waterfront homes worth more than the millions of children in third world countries who would die of starvation to provide ethanol for transport, or because carbon taxes mean fertilizers can no longer be applied for food production?

The real experts, not the Economists and Paleontologists, but the Doctors and Engineers who protect mankind's health and keep our technological civilization operating know this.  Unfortunately the alarmist meme easily overwhelms the stodgy "parental" meme of those who know.

The only way to fight the alarmist meme is with a stronger meme, such as that described here.  It is why Tony Abbott is making progress. Unfortunately, it is not a meme that is likely to find favour with any of the political class.


Kristinn Hraffnsson of Wikileaks spoke to a largely hostile audience of what mostly seemed to be Liberal journalists at Sydney University on 17th June.  Most of the audience seemed to think that journalists were in a special relationship with governments and had a right and duty to keep secrets from the public.  This was apparent from the jeers when Kristinn quoted Rupert Murdoch to the effect that truth wins out over secrecy.  The audience seemed to think that he was being ironic.

Chair was the brass (Editor?) from SMH.

On that day Matt Drudge cited UCLA Professor Tim Groseclose as stating that Washington correspondents vote 97% Democratic, and that Drudgereport is 53% liberal.  Rupert Murdoch has been quoted that "nobody under 30 reads newspapers".

I am not surprised by either statistic.  Murdoch's Australian is less biased than the SMH.  That is easily proven.  The Australian usually carries nearly three times as many news items as appear in the Herald.  About one third of it's content is mostly what the SMH also publishes, the other two thirds is "non liberal" news that the SMH apparently did not think was newsworthy.

So that is why I do not buy SMH.  It is too selective in what it prints.  And having heard their boss's views on what should not be published, I now also know why.

MAIL comments