RE: virus: Re: Anti-Virus Protection

Richard Brodie (
Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:28:53 -0800

I'm fascinated by the interaction between our belief systems and I hope
you'll hang in with us even as it is being attacked.

David Rosdeitcher wrote:

> One fundamental choice people have is to be honest or dishonest-to
>figure out
>reality or evade reality.

Interesting definition. I don't think it is a mainstream definition of
"honest" to equate it with figuring out or evading reality. For
instance, you could be an honest psychic and be completely out of touch
with reality but pay all your bills and be fair with your clients. Or
you could be a dishonest bookmaker and know probability and statistics
cold but cheat your clients and the government.

> No one can force anyone else to be honest or

Or to do anything, for that matter.

> For instance, when I showed why the ideology promoted by the Church
>of Virus is bogus, some people chose to ignore me.

We have an ideology? Cool! What is it? No, seriously, David, there are
few dogmatists in this group. I'm probably the worst, constantly harping
on my Level 3 crap. But I don't BELIEVE it!

> There's nothing I can do
>about that. However, just as a parasite is dependent on its host, the
>members of CoV are dependent on honest members being duped and confused
>by such
>dopey ideologies. For most of these dishonest members, the big payoff
>is a
>drug-like high of manipulating others.

This last part is an astute observation. My book GETTING PAST OK is
about finding constructive ways to get those "highs" consistently in
your life. However, I have to say this is about the least duped and
confused list I've ever seen. People challenge EVERYTHING here.

> However, for the few most cleverly
>dishonest members, the big payoff is financial-their *livelihood*
>depends on
>manipulating others.

I don't think ANYONE makes any money off this list. I invited you to
join this list because I was interested in what you had to say. Almost
all the members (whoops -- almost typed "memebers" =) have already read
my books, so I don't even get promotional value for my posts here. I
find it stimulating and that's why I'm here. But notice how, when
challenged, your memetic ecology starts fitting things together so they
make sense in the context of your strongly held beliefs. That's what
Level 2 is about.

By the way, if you are truly interested, the vast bulk of my livelihood
comes from my software business, not my writing. People have this
fantasy that authors make a lot of money from their books. Hah!

> How do we fight these human viruses? With Anti-Virus Protection! I
>am about
>to introduce a new concept that will make it possible to detect and
>all such human viruses. This new concept is called NEOCHEATING!

Ah, you're a closet Neotecher!

[snipped interesting discussion of Neocheating - but WHAT ARE those
poker techniques? I could use them.]

> Here is a formal definition of Neocheating as defined by Dr. Frank
>Wallace who discovered it:

Hey now! Appealing to external authority? That's (neo)cheating!

>Neocheating: 'The undetected usurpation of a livelihood-the
>stealing of money or values through clever manipulations of dishonest
>sequiturs and mystical notions. Neocheating means *new cheating* for
>values earned by others. Actually, shrewd, dishonest, lazy people have
>neocheating for 2000 years in hidden, unnoticeable ways. But, the
>techniques of
>neocheating were not specificallly identified until 1976.

Well...I guess if you don't count Socrates orations against the Sophists
and the whole school of rhetoric...

> Thus, neocheating is a
>new identification rather than a new technique. Before that
>identification, no
>one could define or even notice a neocheater, much less stop his or her
>neocheating. Now anyone can spot neocheaters and render them impotent.'

True statement. Before the distinction-meme is created, no one can use
it to label anyone. However, they could notice and label sophists,
pedants, demagogues, con men, ...

> Neocheaters are typically down-to-Earth ordinary looking people who
>play a
>role of "external authority" for other people and then manipulate those
>while pretending to benefit them. Examples of neocheaters include: all
>politicians, almost all clergymen, many psychotherapists who manipulate
>clients' emotions so that they feel dependent on therapy, various
>social science
>professors who poison students' minds by advocating bogus nihilistic
>(like notions of language creating reality), bankers who make money
>government frauds, lawyers who stir up cases where none should exist,
>journalists who use facts out of context.

...cult leaders who make up self-consistent and self-serving belief

> The act of identifying and eliminating neocheaters is a form of
>protection that has a different dynamic than, say, the philosophy of
>objectivism. Objectivism is protection from bad ideas, while
>neocheating is protection from destructive people. As a result,
>objectivism is
>like a passive vaccine that filters out nonsense. But identifying and
>eliminating neocheaters is an aggressive attack on certain individuals,
>in which
>neocheaters are publicly humiliated and then vanished.

Is it working well? You've had 20 years. Who have you publicly
humiliated and vanished so far?


> I wrote:
>>> When people interact in cyberspace, they are usually alone,
>>>independently, without the influence of a collective group.
> Richard wrote:
>>I completely disagree with this one. I've been traveling around the
>>country predicting that the Internet will speed up memetic evolution by
>>creating many more pockets of self-reinforcing conversation (such as
>>this one, by the way). I'm also a bit disturbed by your implicit
>>approval of thinking alone, without the influence of others. Does your
>>model of a supremely sane human being depict a life-long hermit?
> He's saying that his position has merit simply because people look
>up to him
>since he gives lectures all over the country. Does this make sense?

Actually, that's not what I said; that's your interpretation. Be honest!

> Then he distorts context. The context I was coming from was that
>forums discourage independent thinking, unlike cyber forums which
>encourage it.
>Does this have anything to do with being a life-long hermit?

Have you deliberately missed my point? If not, tell me and I'll be


> Tad made a good point that on the internet, people of like minds can
>each other. The Church of Virus is becoming divided into 2 different
>camps. And
>in case you don't know it, this is WAR!!!

Memewars! Great book title idea! Also good use of the crisis meme, but I
think the memebers are too inoculated for it to work...Tad?

Richard Brodie +1.206.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
Do you know what a "meme" is?