The CCarter Magna Carta
A social hacker is one that knows how to influence a given situation or social group. The influence can come in several forms positive or negative. The message can be direct or indirect. That is my definition of a social hacker.
Michael_, may his username rest in peace, got it very correct here - (
http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/172850-thoughts-linkbaiting-how-troll-like-pro.html).
The social hacker doesn't necessarily want to be the center of attention, rather on the outskirts or in the shadows making actions happen in order to get a predicted re-action - which is usually the first goal - but not the end goal.
You see social hackers known there is no "If A happens then B is the reaction". Influencing a community, society, nation is difficult at any level. It's like trying to start a hurricane by flapping your arms in the ocean. What you want to do is create waves. It's not aways possible to control those waves, but you can steer them. And remember, waves can capsize your own boat too, so create waves when necessary.
Change - that's the hardest thing to create. Humans don't like it, so what you have to do is disguise change in non-change. Let's say we all know a certain method is not the best way to get things done. It's pretty dark and dirty, and looked down upon. But someone has to do it. By exposing the dark, dirty deeds to the public, it'll horrify them. They will feel insecure and then the social hacker will come from behind them, and say "In order not to have the dark, we must look to the light". In the mist of hysteria no one questions the direction the social hacker is leading the public to since all they want to do is get away from the dark and dirty. Some might question it, but they're either too naive or are scapegoats for other social hackers that use them as martyrs. You never want to be the guy in front of the mob trying to stop and reason with it… Not a good idea.
Look at how the USA got into IRAQ… through 9/11, which even George W. admitted it had nothing to do with the attacks. But in the mist of all the confusion, somehow some way, it happened. It's easier to look in hindsight and see the wool that was pulled over the people, but that's not the only case of social hackers using their influence to create agendas.
We see it everyday all around us. What really happened doesn't matter, it's the end result, the conclusion, the social standing and outcome that does. Sometimes a boat gets capsized in the waves, sometimes that was the goal of the captain of the boat, maybe to be a martyr.
Some social hackers talk really loud over and over with the same message creating influence. They become an authority in their field, so when they start talking their words become more powerful. They can't keep talking, since eventually people will get tired. That's when they have to take a break, and be gone from the scene. Create a sense of longing for their expertise.
At other times social hackers have been know to say nothing at all, creating an aura of power and mystery through silence. Especially when a scandal erupts that involves them or someone in their circle. The social ladder is chaos… chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods… illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is. But they'll never know this. Not until it's too late.
What's the quote when people tell you when climbing up, "Never look down…". There is a powerful metaphor in it, never attack down either. Never respond downward. You rarely see Zeus coming down to talk to mere mortals. And if he does, he appears in disguise for a reason. For who are you to talk to a god? Unless you have godly powers. See the power of transference? When a God talks to you, you instantly become a God to the on-lookers. So as you grow your social standing, you'll notice more and more influential people gravitating towards you. While this is happening, gravitate away from the lessers, the commons, the peasants… and never respond to direct attacks from below - otherwise the power switches from you to them. It's the law of arguing…
Someone looking to get recognition always attacks upward on the ladder,. The person getting attacked can ignore and seem "holyer", but if their standing in society is NOT that high, the person attacking instantly comes to that level. It's important to pick your battles and know when to fight and when not to. Never attack downward, unless you have a 100% assurance they will respond and look foolish. Even then, you can't keep attacking lowers, since it'll appear that you are bullying them.
The Art of War
1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. [REDACTED]
5. [REDACTED]
6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.
7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.
8. It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two.
9. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.
10. Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.
11. [REDACTED]
12. There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army:--
13. [REDACTED]
14. [REDACTED]
15. [REDACTED]
16. [REDACTED]
17. Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
What is so ridiculous, it's all a mind game in the end… a fucking waste of time if you ask me… I'd rather profit above all else…
Now, if you bothered to look up the redacted parts… you've been hacked… But you know you can't resist… You have to know… no matter how much you fight it… Just give in…
The power of story telling...
