Weaver ([email protected])
      February 13, 1999 (10:30)

      Leaving aside for the moment the film critique, you managed in that long
      rant to touch on some pretty good points. Here's some things that I've
      noticed in 'modern' films. Make of this what you will, and comments are
      mandatory:

      1. Technology is always evil. Oh sure, sometimes it comes in handy. But
      take the movie 'disturbing behavior' for example. They don't even try to
      reverse the effects of the evil mind control, they just kill all thier friends
      who've been gotten...

      2. People who are smart are evil. Only slackers and dope-smokers are
      trustworthy. Never try to get good grades, because then you will
      suddenly try to take over the world. Watch MTV instead. It's better this
      way.

      3. Money is evil. People who want money, or who make a large
      amount of money, are evil. They want to take all of your money away
      from you. Instead, they should give all thier ill-gotten gains to the
      government, who will be responsible with it. Unless of course they
      happen to be part of the Conspiracy.

      4. Government is evil. But only the intelligence community and military.
      Anyone who wears a uniform or a suit/tie is evil and is trying to make
      deals with the aliens so that they can take over the world. You should
      only trust the Social Security people or the street bums, because only
      they know the truth.

      5. Wall street is evil. See number three. This is a place filled with people
      that want money. It should be destroyed as an example.

      6. Underachievement is the way to go. Never try to exceed your limits,
      and if you do try your peers will shun you.

      7. It is better to be pretty than smart. To be smart leads to situation 1.
      or 2. Pretty people can do no wrong, unless they are smart as well -
      then they must be destroyed as an example of 'wrong thinking'.

      These are just some of the things I have noticed in a quick run through
      of just some of today's 'popular' culture. Technocracy Propaganda or
      just normal society? Comments? Questions?

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

 Technocracy films: The technos do not send those messages, their films
 would have smart people who trust technology, government, and have money
 fighting evil, stupid, underachievers. I.E. Techno's like batman and MacGuyver
 type films.

 ChAoS

 Their's nothing wrong with your brain, it's safe in my jar.
 really .... you can trust me.

      That's the whole point Mr.Chaos - there is an obvious anti-tech bias out
      there on the left coast. Well, come to think of it, we have one here on
      the east coast too. It's just a little more obvious when it comes from
      hollywierd.

      I mean, really - how many times have you seen a show, read a story, or
      seen a movie that had an evil villian that was a computer programmer,
      or physicist, or wall street financer? Not to mention the 'computer nerd'
      sterotype. You know, the one where everyone who owns a computer,
      or does something with it other than download pornography, is really a
      secret member of THE CONSPIRACY. geez, the technophobia is
      getting tiresome...

      White Wolf paints the Technocratic Union as the big bad guys in Mage,
      the Weaver is insane (and the cause of the Wyrm's insanity) in
      Werewolf. Vampire is at least more even, in terms of good/evil
      sterotypes. In vampire, everyone is evil - equality of a sort at least....In
      the Wild West game, white guys and technology are evil, and even in
      sorcerers's crusade the Order of Reason dosen't get a fair deal. They
      get blamed for all of the 'modern' ills.

      I don't blame white wolf for exploiting sterotypes that existed long
      before they did, but it would have been nice to see the other point of
      view for once.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Peregrine Gray ([email protected])
      February 14, 1999 (21:58)

      So I thought to myself: "Hmmm again... maybe since both these topics
      are interesting, we could start a new thread on the Anti-Tech bias?"

      The anti-tech complaint brought up on the "imprinting annie" thread
      surprises me a little bit. That may be because I don't really watch TV
      except the occasional X-Files and Simpsons, and PBS -- and none of
      those really get into any sort of bias like that. And I never seem to have
      the money to go see movies, and I don't rent them as much as I could
      (Except I just saw "Pi", which was AWESOME). Anyway, maybe I
      just haven't picked up on it. The main question I had to ask, after all that
      rambling, was: have any of you posters -- esp. Weaver and other
      avowed technos -- read anything by Neil Postman? Look his stuff up,
      I'd be interested in discussing it with anyone who can maintain a rational
      and non-biased perspective. Which I'm sure is most of you, right?
      *grin*

      Here we go...

      Stansilov Lem has great technology friendly sci-fi books. In one book
      of short stories, all the main characters are robots. Science Fiction
      writing in general seems to treat both sides of the coin fairly evenly.
      Most of them focus on the psycological aspects rather than the
      technology itself.

      I do think bashing does go on in both the movies and television. But
      even there, they are portraying people abusing technology, and only
      rarely have technology itself as evil. The exceptions to this are movies
      like "The Terminator" which have technology spun out of control, and
      which focus on the dehumanizing aspects of technology.

      -- Earlmyer

      Hmm..

      Well, since I did raise the topic, I suppose I should comment. Yes, I
      have read Neil Postman's Technopoly. I found it to be a very good
      book, but I was left with the question: 'ok, and the bad thing about this
      is.........'

      Sure, technology can be, has been, and will be put to evil use by evil
      men (and women, might as well be PC about it). However, this is not
      the new technologies fault. Nor is it the fault of the poor bastard who
      thought up the new gadget and let it get away from him.

      I'm just tired of seeing technology (mostly computers these days) being
      seen as the new tool of 'evil'. I can't remember the last time I saw, or
      heard, a positive thing about the computer industry in the press. It's
      unrelenting about how it's all going to be the programmers fault when
      Y2K causes the end of the world. Geez, what a bunch of
      technophobes.

      Now, some of this fear is understandable. After all, the complexities of
      programming and operations can be pretty daunting. And it is human
      nature to fear that which is not understood. But it's not acceptable.

      Hmm...well, that's enough of a rant for now. More later, after I re-read
      a few chapters in 'technopoly'.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      *Good* points, Weaver... that clears things up a bit for me as to what
      your position is. I basically agree, too.

      Interesting -- in re-reading your post, I found myself toward the end
      thinking, "And that's why you identify with the hacker-mages instead of
      the Union." I mean about saying it's not the fault of the technology of the
      guy who unleashed it... a kindof "info wants 2b free" perspective.
      What's interesting to me, though, is that it seems the Union would be the
      ones aligning themselves against technology in that sense -- I mean,
      that's why they have the Timetable. Ideally and idealogically, they're the
      kind of people who would say that it IS the fault of the poor bastard
      who unleashed a technology he was not ready for -- just as they would
      say about the mystick summoning up a spirit he was not ready for. They
      feel that it is their duty to "protect the Sleepers from themselves" and to
      prevent technologies from causing harm to the world in general. Thus
      the ever-increasing restrictions on internet use, the hysteria about MP3s
      and piracy, etc etc. So in a sense, strangely enough, maybe it's the
      technocracy that inspires or indirectly causes some of that anti-tech
      fear?

      I haven't  thought this through at all,
      just typed it as it flowed from my brainhole...

      I have read Technopoly too, and I'm afraid I do not get the same out of
      it as Weaver. I fail to see where Postman claims that technology is evil.
      Technopoly is an analysis of how technology has affected our way of
      thinking, and how our whole concept of reality have been formed by the
      technology used by modern society. Furthermore, Weaver has missed a
      very important part of Postman's conclusions.That is, The old myth that
      technology is neutral and only evil if used by evil men (or women).
      Postman tries to prove this to be a wrong assumption. Unfortuneatly, I
      can't recount the reasons here, but Postman do make a
      thoughtprovoking point.

      I do not consider myself technophobic, but I do see a lot of negative
      things about technology. Be careful that you do remain unbiased, as you
      seem to be somewhat biased towards the wonders of technology.

      -- Rafn

      I didn't miss Postman's point, I just didn't state my response very well...

      Postman is confusing, IMHO. He starts off the book seeming to say
      that, in the beginning, technology offered more than it threatened. This is
      when he is talking about technologies prior to the industrial revolution.
      then, when he gets into post industrial revolution technological advances
      he changes his point of view. Technology, in his view - not mine(!), is
      disruptive and uncaring of it's impact in society. In postman's view's
      mankind is a victim of it's own tools and incapable of keeping up with
      them and thier corrosive, disruptive impact.

      Baloney. I disagree with most of postman's conclusions but I found his
      observations to be right on the money. Confusing, I know....but he did a
      wonderful job of sounding the alarm about the impact that new
      technology has on modern society. However, we're smarter than
      computers (well, most of us anyway...)and we're not slaves to
      machines. There is a 'backlash' against hi-tech industries such as
      computers and the internet. there are a number of reasons for this.
      Some of them are as simple as pure economics. After all why would
      print and television media be supportive of a technology that is being
      used to take away thier jobs. It's far far easier for them to try to kill it in
      it's infancy....but it hasn't worked. So, now they're playing catchup and
      not doing too well....

      I'm still re-reading some of his chapters on technopoly, so this will make
      more sense as I continue to read.....

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      I haven't read Postman, but I'm familiar with the viewpoint.

      I'm not sure I agree that we're smarter than computers. Well, at this
      point we are, but many of us try not to be. After all, if a computer can't
      figure it out from the data presented, why should we bother? (I find this
      most prevelant in complete unwillingness to bend rules. After all, if rules
      weren't meant to be bent, why not have a computer in charge of
      everything?)

      Whether for better or worse--and at this point it could go either
      way--technology is here, and it will continue to advance. Those who
      feel technology is "evil" certainly won't get anywhere by hiding from it;
      they'll only leave the field to the gung-ho do-it-cause-we-can
      chummers, who see technology as entirely value-free. If you don't want
      to be a slave to technology, you must be its master, and that's all there is
      to it.

      Personally, I feel technology that some technology (i.e. nuclear bomb) is
      inherrantly evil, some (i.e. antibiotics) is inherrantly good, and most (i.e.
      computers) reflects the values of its user.

      -- Natoli
         ([email protected])

      I don't think that any form of technology can be inherantly good or evil.
      After all, there are good uses for nukes. getting rid of potential 'planet
      killer' asteroids, to use a recent cinematic example.

      No, the problem is with the end users. I admit, i'm one of the 'gung ho'
      types when it comes to new stuff. I have a weakness for tech toys, and
      I work in the computer field. However, it's mankinds reluctance to even
      try to keep up with new stuff that can cause problems. Rather than
      causing the computer to adapt to them, most people just use 'off the
      rack' software and hardware to accomplish whatever thier job is. If
      they'd sit down and learn a bit about the tech, they could very easily
      modify it to thier needs, rather than bending to the will of the guy who
      did the programming.

      What I also see as a problem is the government. All the wrong types
      have taken an unhealthy interest in computers. Two examples: 1. the
      FDIC has a proposal on the table to have all banks turn over all
      customer records on all payroll data. that means that the government
      would know who you work for, how much you got paid, how much
      you spent, if you pay your taxes, and what you saved. Scary.2. Intel's
      new Pentium III chip has an integral identification number. this number is
      sent to whatever webpage you log on to. so, if I want, I can compile the
      id numbers and find out who you visit, how long you visit the page, what
      you did there, and how often you visit. Just imagine if Pentium gives this
      customer info to the government. More scary.

      that's just two recent examples of technology that is most certainly out
      of control. link the IRS and FBI databases together and you have one
      hell of a file that can be accessed by any dweeb with a sec clearance.
      The only reason it hasn't been done yet is because of the releative age
      of the languages used to write the database applications. they weren't
      designed to link. but that can be fixed pretty quick.

      so, the point is that this type of tech isn't evil, but the abuses that it can
      be put to are staggering. We have the potential now to construct a
      police state that would have an unprecedented ability to monitor it's
      citizens 24X7, 365 days a year.

      Hmm...ranted to long again.I'll take a break and discuss education next.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      what about Y2K taking the world down?

      ask not for whom the bell tolls...

 Though I can see some evidence for good sides to technophobia if used in moderation
 (waryness to weapons for example) in the WoD its repeated overuse by several game
 systems gets dull after a while.

 ChAoS

 I feel the government is more inept than it's corrupt. That's
 not to say corruption doesn't exist their, corruption is
 everywhere if you look hard enough. I just think their's no real
 shadowy conspiracy. Serious blunders are much much more likely
 than malicious spying. Heck, I have nothing to fear anyways, I do
 nothing illegal so why should I worry.

      Y2K can be chalked up to one word: economics. You see, in the
      begining computer memory was expensive, so that two slot number was
      hardcoded into various embedded technologies to save time and
      money. About 15 years ago, the industry started to really take off, and
      when they talked about fixing the y2k bug then, the bean counters in
      charge didn't think it was a problem. That meant that it got reported,
      filed, and forgotten. It was Somebody Else's Problem.

      Now that milennium is around the corner, and the bean counters who
      could have fixed this years ago are safely retired, the guys who didn't
      cause the problem are getting the blame for it. Thanks guys. We
      appreciated that.

      Chaos, laws change. What you do today isn't illegal. What you do
      tomorrow might be. Now, I don't buy into organized conspiracy either.
      But, why make it easier for someone who is organized to get all that
      info. The entire American system of government was founded on the
      principle that tyrants will *always* try to subvert the law. that's why our
      goverment is set up to run the way that it is. It's not pretty, but it works.
      It's also the reason that America has been free and powerful for 200
      years. We've proven that socialism and communiunism don't work.
      Well, scratch that - socialism works fine if you're the guy in charge.
      Pretty much sucks for everyone else (see great britan for an example of
      that).Hmm, I digress...

      The current anti-tech trend isn't anything new. There is always someone
      who loses when new tech is introduced. It's a true zero sum game. In
      order for someone to gain, someone has to lose. Take network tv for
      example. When cable tv started to take off, the networks didn't think
      much of it. Now, the networks are fighting for daily survival. So much
      so, that they've had to run screaming to thier buddies in the
      adminstration to clamp down and regulate the cable industry. That's a
      short term solution of course. the networks are going to die. Unless they
      get of thier asses and start competing (that means actually running
      quality shows, and not the crap that's out there now...*gasp* Actual
      GOOD shows! never...)I give the networks 10 years. Maybe less.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

    Once upon a time there was a COBOL programmer; we'll call him Joe.
    For years, Joe had been made fun of by C programmers, UNIX hackers,
    and all variety of other people who worked with real languages; even twits
    that programmed in BASIC made fun of Joe.

    And then, suddenly, it was 1995, and Business realized that the millenium
    was rolling around, and all its COBOL programs were in need of
    updating. Then everyone came crawling back to Joe. He was working 80,
    90, 100 hours a week, making shitloads of money. And damned if he
    wasn't getting tired of it. Finally, about March 1999, Joe decided that if he
    ever heard another word about Y2K, he was going to kill someone. So he
    had himself cryogenically frozen until June 2000, so he would miss all the
    hype, all the Millenium Parties, everything. The place he went for the
    cryogenic process was throuroughly modern and completely automated.

    A few seconds later by his personal time-scale, Joe woke up. "Did it
    work?" he said to the oddly-dressed person bending over the cryogenic
    capsule. "Is over?"

    "Weeelll," said the oddly dressed person, "it seems there was a mistake.
    You see, the cryogenic process wasn't Y2K compliant, and you've been
    frozen for a little under 8000 years longer than expected." Before Joe
    could voice a complaint, the person added, "But there's someone who
    wants to talk to you."

    Suddenly the entire wall in front of Joe lit up, and the Prime Minister of
    Earth (who bore a surprising resemblance to Bill Gates) said, "Hello, Joe.
    We're sorry you were stuck in cryogenic stasis for so long, but we're
    awefully glad to have you. You see, the year 10000 is rolling around, and
    your file says you know COBOL."

    --Natoli
      ([email protected])

      Y2K is bullshit
      And COBOL is the stupidest possible language.
      Whose idea was it to store numbers in decimal, anyway?

      as for Y2K (boy, that phrase is almost as tiresome as the "Monica
      Lewinski" one...) I have gotten the impression that it'll be *really*
      inconvenient for a few weeks at the beginning of the year, but no huge
      problems. The worst-off (from what I've read) will be the hospitals
      (who are behind schedule), the smaller airports, and maybe the smaller
      banks. It seems like some of the worse problems are going to be the
      result of people flipping out, making runs on the banks, and generally
      acting crazy and extreme and irrational.

      Anyone else know anything about it? My info is based on articles from
      Popular Science and Time, and a few others I can't remember. Also
      from conversations with friends of mine who are programmer-types.

      Y2K!!!  RUN!!!  BARRICADE YOUR HOUSES!!!
      SHOOT ANYONE WHO COMES NEAR!!!  AAAARRRGGHHH!!!!!!!!

      Well, from what I've seen, most of the private sector is going to come
      out of Y2K pretty well. There's going to be some local disruptions, and
      shipping schedules might be a little odd...but it won't be all that bad.

      Then there's the Goverment. Military computers are pretty dumb, they
      were built that way. So, they won't be bothered by the Y2K bug. Well,
      most of them won't. there are some exceptions, but the guns will still all
      fire, and the tanks will work. That's the important thing. No, the main
      systems that will be most impacted will be the IRS, the Federal
      Reserve, and the Social Security/welfare distribution networks. You
      see, they all use computers and software/hardware that is 20 years old.
      They started on fixing thier Y2K problems last year. Guess what? They
      didn't make it. Go figure, they missed thier deadline, and came in over
      budget - but at least they are consistant. So, it's a fair bet that we'll see
      the IRS crash, and all thier records with them. No loss. Same for the
      welfare people and the Social security crowd. Again, no loss.

      So what does this say about man's reliance on computers? Now, those
      folks on welfare for instance. They're going to pay the price for being on
      welfare. They didn't cause the problem (well, not directly - but that's a
      different argument.) but they're going to pay the price. Of course, they
      can always get out from behind the tv and do something about it, but
      they have to do it right now. I just don't see it happening.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      For a brilliant discussion of technophobia, privacy and the surveilance
      society, check out David Brin's _The Transparent Society_. He's a bit
      idealistic, but he really makes you think.

      --Faucon

      Okay, a great book to read on this is "Brave New World". It's not
      directly geared towards viewpoints on technology, but technology plays
      a very interesting role.

      As far as the rants against socialism and social welfare...Take trip to
      Europe some time. You will be VERY hard pressed to find any of the
      slums there that America abounds with. They have their poor people,
      but their poor doesn't live in areas that look like war zones. Go to parts
      of Harlem, Queens, East St. Louis, L.A. and any of the other slums.
      You FEAR for you life. Go to Europe, and there are shady
      neighborhoods, but nothing like the above. Why is this? First, excellent
      gun control laws. It wasn't until just a few years ago that English cops
      started to carry guns. It's unheard of in most cities to have shoot-outs
      like the americans do. Next, welfare programs that are geared towards
      helping the people on them. Gauranted health care in most of the states.
      Work hour laws that are enforced, and an average work-week shorter
      than America. Socialists are in control of most of the major European
      countries. I agree that complete socialism and comunistic ideals are
      unattainable, but good old capitalism is not what our goverment
      propaganda wants us to believe.

      So that's my rant

      In the absence of someone with more knowlege of the area than I, I'll
      field the question about what exactly causes the Y2K problem.

      You see, a program has to allocate storage for numbers, and if a value
      overflows the storage allocated to it, it wraps--to zero or a negative
      value, depending on a whole complicated series of arcane stuff.
      (Apologies for anyone who already knew the preceding: had to get the
      background out of the way first.)

      Now, COBOL (the most entirely braindead language ever divised) has
      especially rigid storage allocation methods. You specifiy the exact
      number of digits in the number, and woe betide any who allows their
      variables to overflow, for lo, it doth truncate the most significant digit.
      (Sorry I had to lapse into the pseud-archaic there; many of the rules in
      COBOL take on the tone of commandments.)

      At any rate, many business applications are written in COBOL. This is
      because it's a language a trained monkey could learn, and business
      prefers trained monkeys to intelligent programmers. (Have I gotten
      across the impression that I don't like COBOL? Good.) It is these
      applications in which the Y2K problem is most relevant.

      Now, I can think of some truely bletcherous programming techniques
      that would lead to the Y2K problem causing the kind of calamity being
      predicted, but I don't think even trained monkeys are that dumb.
      (Though I could be wrong. You should *see* some of the programming
      errors my classmates make. Beware programming classes where they
      actually *specify* that you have to give a variable the same name every
      time you call it.)

      At any rate, this is as good an explaination of the Y2K problem as I can
      compose. Someone else might know some pertinant facts that I haven't
      learned yet; if so, I'd be interested to know them, too.

      -- Natoli
         ([email protected])

      Hmmm. This is an interesting thread.

      Weaver had total props from me until he/she slipped into the
      stereotypical remarks about welfare recipients and "socialism." Talk
      about bias! Weaver, you lost some points with me on that one, since
      VERY few poor people are that way due to their own laziness. This
      isn't to deny, of course, that poverty can breed lethargy and apathy, but
      the bottom line is that the vast majority of poor people were born that
      way. And the most conservative figures available show that most
      able-bodied welfare recipients receive welfare for LESS than two years
      before finding gainful employment (and that was true even before the
      Federal government's recent two-year restriction). But even in the best
      of times, there are not enough jobs around for everyone who wants to
      work to be able to do so, and something has to be done. And
      personally, I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on charity than on the
      military-industrial complex.

      Having said my piece on that, however, I agree whole-heartedly with
      Weaver on the anti-tech subject. As an advocate of skepticism and the
      scientific method, I encounter a great deal of this kind of thinking all the
      time, and it gets pretty damn frustrating. I think there's a lot of truth to
      the argument that there are no bad machines, only bad people, but in
      the end, it amounts to the same thing.

      Much of the problem comes from the fact that society usually fails to
      work out the ethical guidelines of how any given technology will be
      used, until it's too late. This leads to abuses and destructive mistakes
      that could have been avoided if there had been rational guidelines in
      place from the beginning. Nuclear technology and computer
      programming are two very good demonstrations of this. If government
      and private sector bureaucrats had deigned to listen to the scientists
      who created these technologies at the start, then things like Three Mile
      Island and the Y2K bug could have been prevented. And now, with the
      imminent arrival of genetic technologies, it appears that society is trying
      to set the rules before any catastrophes can take place. But then again,
      the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people can patent life-forms, so who
      knows?

      BTW, whoever mentioned Brin's "Transparent Society" is right on the
      money. Brin concedes that surveillance technology is here to stay, and
      suggests that instead of trying to supress it, we ought to level the playing
      field by passing legislation that allows private citizens to "spy" on
      government and corporations the same way they "spy" on us. An
      idealistic proposal that makes good sense, and can still be implemented,
      at least at this time.

      Away I go....

      "If there's no dancing involved,
      I don't want to be in your revolution."
                           --Emma Goldman

 Palindrome:You should reconsider your position on the military/industrial complex. It's a better investment for one and, unlike government social welfare programs (NEVER mistake those for charity) it provides opportunities for productive activity that helps to drive the economy. I think perhaps you suffer from some of the same biases of which you found Weaver to be guilty of. You just found another equally anonymous group to direct them at. The fact of the matter is, without the dreaded M/I Complex, none of the rest of this stuff is going to happen.

 Mr. Anonymous: You forgot to mention that many European countries are abandoning or radically butchering their socialist programs because they are DESTROYING their economies. Something to do with their having been dependent on capital flowing in from this side of the pond. When the US had that economic hiccup in 92, the Europeans went batshit trying to figure out how they were going to keep their vaunted social welfare programs from bleeding them dry. They're still trying, last I checked.

 Yes, indeed, Europe is certainly a quiet neighborhood. Public surveillance cameras, lenient lethal force and search&seizure guidelines, and negotiable civil liberties are conducive to that sort of thing. But then, they were primed for it. Transition from monarchy to socialist oligarchy isn't too far of a trip.

 Keep in mind that nation with the safest streets in the world is also one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet. They also have a penchant for clamping down on any new technology not controlled by the government. Go on, guess who that is.

 Bonus Question:  How many US defense budgets can you fit in the Social Security budget alone?

      Mr. Anon: I've been in europe. Lived there for three and a half years.
      Saw east germany before the wall came down. Life there truly sucked.
      And if they bitched about it, or did something to make thier lives
      better....well, you get the idea. NOT a warm and fuzzy place to live. As
      for them being less violent...also not true. Oh sure, they didn't have as
      many guns. but they also had basic chem books, alot of nails(make
      great shrapnel, btw.), and the ever present lead pipe. All were used
      quite effectively. I think about 2 americans a month were being killed
      when I was there. (late 80's. the regan years. the libians REALLY hated
      us...) FYI, I have some friends on welfare. They're smart. They know
      better. But they don't do anything. You know why - 'cause they still get
      thier check even if they don't go out and get a job. And I know that if
      they didn't have any $$ coming in - they'd get motivated real quick.

      And thier slums were as bad, or worse, than ours. No enviormentalist
      lobby you see. The ACLU would have been sent en mass to a gulag if
      they'd try to organize in the former soviet block nations. Now, they'd
      just shoot them and call it random violence.

      As for whoever said they hated COBOL: yep. I agree. I hate it lots too.
      I'm a mainframe programmer/operator. I see the unlovely side of the
      programming field. It gets worse when you dig into how the mainframe
      handles all those numerical fields. Some of the date fields have actually
      been 'burned' into chips on some of the older IBM models. It just
      'assumes' that the date will always start with '19'. That's something that
      can't be fixed with a patch. So, we're not going to know for sure that
      we got all the imbedded tech fixed until the date rolls over.

      However, I digress...

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      I should have stated Western Europe. Those folks who walk the
      delicate line between socialism and capitalism. I too was in Germany,
      but I went two years after reuinification. The old east was bad, but signs
      of improvement were everywhere. If you were in the Armed Forces
      when you were there during the 80's, of course you were a target. My
      cousin served in Germany for a while. However, that had more to do
      with international crisis than domestic. While you were in Germany, pipe
      bombs were going off at two of my local High Schools in America.
      Suburban High Schools. Don't get me wrong, the Europeans are by no
      means perfect, but they have a lot more going for them than some
      people realize.

      Their current economy is becoming one of the strongest ever. And
      before we hear anything more about all the rights we enjoy here in
      America, several European nations have us beat. A past survey ranked
      the US somewhere around tenth for personal freedoms, with I believe a
      scandanavian country (I think Sweden, it's been some time since I read
      it)having the most personal freedom. I like the US, and I think it's a
      great place to live. However, we shouldn't be blind to the realities
      enjoyed by other Nations. We might just actually be able to learn
      something from them.

      Take the whole Lewinsky thing. The Europeans were wondering why
      the Americans were making such a big deal over it. I was wondering the
      same thing myself. Bill Clinton sure has the freedom to keep his private
      affairs to himself.

      -- Anonymous

      Mr. Anon, if you think that the lewinsky situation was only about sex,
      then there is no point in discussing that matter with you. Obstruction of
      justice, purjury and abuse of power is what that was really all about.
      And if you really believed your story, you'd tack your name on your
      post so that we'd know who you are and where you stand....I'm at least
      open about it.

      Sex indeed...

      One final note on the abuse of power by the current administration.
      Today they got caught (specifically the Secret Service, guess who they
      work for?) trying to buy florida, colorado and (I think) Montana's
      driver's license databases (with drivers pics). they were doing this thru a
      third (private) company. So if they had a legitimate reason for this, why
      all the secrecy? And what about those FBI files?

      But I digress...

      Education in america is also slanted against those who wish to pursue
      careers in hi-tech fields. In order for innovation to take place, it's
      necessary for students to be given a certain lattitude in how they
      approach problems. This isn't happening. Now, this is by no means a
      blanket statement, but it's been my experience with higer education that
      most people just don't get encouraged to go and learn electronics,
      computer programming or other fields in the vein. Most of the on
      campus hype is directed towards the 'soft sciences'. How many times
      have you sat in in the caffeteria and seen the programming students
      being segregated by thier 'fellow' students. None of the others even try
      to befriend them, save when they have trouble with thier math
      homework. This segreation is carried out by both students (I have yet to
      see student councils in college direct $$ to computer lab upkeep...they
      spend it on Art programs.) The same thing applies to college admin
      types. New computers and up to date software is expensive. admin
      hates to upgrade thier student networks. they pass it off to the student
      councils...with predictable results. as a result, lab and computer
      departments must constantly scrounge for donations of hardware and
      software. And they make do with whatever patchwork systems they
      can get. This is starting to change, as most schools now realize that this
      is an excellent way to jack up tuition...but still, the tech is at least 6
      years behind the powercurve, even in the best places...with MIT being
      the obvious exception. can't comment on the left coast schools tho, I
      haven't been there...

      Hmm...rambled again.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Just a comment -- I see no reason to get TOO partisan, or TOO into
      the idiot politics of the day...

      ...

      First, I usually go anon, because I go that way anyway. Whether I
      choose some psuedonym or not doesn't really matter to me. Is your
      name really Weaver? I guess it could be a last name. hmmm

      The Lewinsky affair was all about a man who has been investigated for
      roughly six years by another man with almost unlimited assests. Do you
      really think that anyone could stand up to that scrutiny that long and
      NOT make a mistake? Could YOU be investigated for six years and
      not be caught doing something? What the Lewinsky affair is about is
      another failed attempt by the Republicans to contain a man that has
      used them for years. Clinton is still on top, and the republicans are
      probably worse off for their whole attempt to impeach him.

      As for computer in schools. I can't speak for every school, but the
      University at Buffalo (a state school) throws a whole bunch of money at
      computers. The same goes for most of the New York State public
      school system. The ostracism of the computer people is the same for
      anyone who doesn't hide their inteligence.

      As for the thread, technology does get a bad wrap at times from the
      popular press. It's called ignorance on the part of the writers. However,
      there are also sci fi shows that cast a good light on technology.

      In general, I don't need to argue every point of this. You obviously have
      some conservative politics, and I have liberal politics. Lets recognize the
      differences and talk about Mage. I apologize to everyone who didn't
      want to get this far off subject. And I'm sorry Weaver if I have offended
      you.

      -- Whatever I feel Like
         (Anonymous)

      Weaver,

      Let me apologize again. Lets leave the politics and economics out.
      Techonology does get a bum wrap at times.

      Butch, hairy, stinky, Mr Silly Simon ...
      The list goes on.

      I'm not offended, just disappointed. But, since you've stuck your head
      in the sand, it's not my place to yank it out.

      The point about computers is schools. Let me address that. We all
      agree that computers in schools is a good thing. But why? To be sure,
      it's necessary if you intend to learn programming that you need
      computers. But what if you are an english major? Or an Art student?
      Oh, I grant that *some* computer applications will be of great help in
      your studies. But do you really need that computer for the majority of
      your assignments? Of course not. So, how does that desktop computer
      really help you out?

      And there is the problem. It's the presumption that new technologies are
      better because they are new. sometimes they are, and sometimes they
      aren't. Someone a few posts back mentioned that writers fear
      technology because they don't understand it. I only partly blame the
      writers for that ignorance. I think it's more a combination of ignorance,
      and intellectual laziness. They could correct that ignorance, but they
      haven't been taught how to go about it. We concentrate more on
      accumulation of knowledge rather than learning. We beat it into our
      students heads that they have to know dates, times, and equations. We
      never learn how to do the equation ourselves until much later in our
      education. We are graded, and judged by people who were never,will
      never, be put to the same kind of scrutiny that we students are.
      Teachers violently resist the idea of teacher re-qualifications. So how do
      you know that what they tell us in school is going to do us any good?

      The proof, as they say, is in the pudding...

      And God help you if you try to learn it on your own. Do you know that
      if Lincoln tried to do what he did in today's legal field that he'd have
      been rejected? Not only that, but he would also have stood a good
      chance of failure. In order to pass the bar, he'd have HAD to go to the
      'right' schools. So we would never have had him as president, if the
      folks we have running things now, ran them then.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Oh, one word about 'partisan'. We are discussing the ideology of
      technology. I expect there to be some dissent. It is the fallacy of modern
      liberalism that all must be in agreement. Hell, I expect there to be
      disagreements with what I say. I respect your God given right to be
      different than me. Just be polite, and allow me the same respect.
      Besides, most people are only liberal until they get thier first
      paycheck....

      Ok, I'll stop now...

      No. Really. I mean it this time...

      couldn't resist one more...

Natoli ([email protected])
      February 19, 1999 (00:53)

      Technology tends to be taught as a very clean, very hard science. In a
      way it is--you have to think in very discreet, very logical steps if you're
      going to program a computer. However, the discreet, logical steps are
      meaningless if you can't step back and view it all from an aesthetic
      perspective, and say, "Wow. That program is beautiful." (This is a
      major reason I hate COBOL. COBOL programs are ugly.) Also, logic
      doesn't mean crap when you're looking to solve a problem that hasn't
      been solved before--which is the point of technology, after all. If it
      could be done through pure logic, computers could program
      themselves.

      Technology is a science, yes, but it's also an art. One of the major
      reasons many people object to it is that many people, especially those
      who think of themself as creative rather than logical (what a silly
      division), tend to hate technology so much is that it's quite hard to see
      that it *is* an art, and they object to having this mindless, cold,
      science-beast attempting to take control of their lives.

      Has anyone else out there read _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
      Maintanence_? I've read it three times now, and every time I do I find
      new bits where I say "Yeah! That's right!" It explains a lot about the
      reasoning behind anti-technologism, as well as many of the evils even its
      proponents often see in technology.

      -- Natoli
         ([email protected])

      Sorry, Peregrine. Seems like idiot politics is the only kind we're allowed
      these days.

      Hey John Galt, the answers are Singapore and between three and five,
      depending on which fiscal year, respectively.

      A few corrections because I couldn't let some of Mr. Anonymous'
      statements go unanswered and he didn't leave an e-mail address:

      Yes, Western Europe is finally getting around to combining their
      economies as they can no longer count on strong U.S. markets to
      bankroll their systems. They will incorporate the Italian economy as
      soon as they come up with some concrete proof of its existance.
      Mergers, however, are a poor substitute for real growth, and we have
      yet to see any of that.

      As Mr. Galt correctly pointed out, many Western European countries
      have indeed started gutting their social welfare programs. It hasn't been
      a popular thing to do, as Jacques Chirac and Helmut Kohl can tell you,
      but it can't be put off any more.

      Public surveillance cameras are in use in Britain. They also monitor
      roadsides and intersections in Germany. Those two nations are in
      Western Europe last time I checked. There have also been test studies
      in some U.S. cities, amid howls of protest from some advocates of civil
      liberties. Say cheese.

      Furthermore,when I lived in Germany(after reunification) I seem to
      recall the normal assortment of crimes being committed. Polizei were
      killed, apartments were firebombed, rapes, murders etc. but the
      German media didn't treat them with same sense of national self-loathing
      with which our own journalists portray such things. That, I think is
      where they have one over on us. I believe the Europeans have a greater
      appreciation of what they have.

      I have to wonder, however, about what the evaluators of that survey
      considered "freedoms." There is a lot more to personal liberty than who
      or how you shag and how you choose to numb your mind. Most
      European governments draw the line when it comes to things that
      "threaten" political and economic "stability(read: status quo)."

      Finally the whole Lewinsky thing turned out to be just a historical
      footnote to what has been at best a mediocre presidency. A guy abused
      the rights and priviledges of the single most powerful office in the world
      to cover up who he was boinking, and made a buggered up job of it
      too. Not to mention that he made his entire cabinet look like slapped
      asses, not that they needed any help.

      A remarkable turn for an unremarkable administration. A chuckle for
      future history classes. We'll get over it.

      (whew)

      NOW we can talk about Mage.

      -- AT651
         ([email protected])

      Not that it matters, but I'm a leftist on just about every political issue.
      Nobody cares, but I thought I'd say something about it, since it seesm
      to have become a the topic o'the day.

      OK, enough of that. Let's get back to the point of this thread.

      I've been giving some thought to how the anti-technology bias shapes
      White Wolf's presentation of the World of Darkness. In almost all of
      their games, espcecially Mage, Werewolf and Changeling, science and
      technology are seen as the forces of evil. The first time I read Mage, I
      was offended (deeply so) by the concept of the Technocracy, because
      it's evident that whoever thought it up has absolutely no idea how
      science really works. The picture of the Technos stamping out beauty
      and creativity (Banality anyone), and hence "magick," could only be
      dreamed up by a group of game designers who are woefully
      science-illiterate. There is beauty and wonder to spare in the realm of
      science and technology, and inspriation that's more than comparable to
      that of any "artist" or "dreamer."

      I've always felt that White Wolf does its readers and themselves a
      disservice by buying in to this ridiculous anti-tech ideology. From where
      I stand, it is the forces of mysticism and occultism which are static,
      boring and banal, relying as they do on tired dogmas and authoritarian
      belief systems. Its no coincidence that the closest thing humanity's ever
      had to true democracy came about at the same time as the scientific
      revolution. Only when people began to question everthing did they learn
      anything, and only then to new and liberating technologies emerge.

      In the context of White Wolf, this process of cultural advancement is
      spat upon constantly. The forces of science, technology and healthy
      skepticism are portrayed as stagnant and oppressive, while mystical,
      fanciful and "magickal" ideas are seen as more legitimate. In the real
      world, however, the equation is usually the reverse of this. Fanatical
      mysticism and religious idiocy in the real world are far more responsible
      for curtailing of rights than any technological or scientific institution. It
      isn't the scientists, after all, who want to ban books or pass legislation
      designed to treat people according to silly, unfounded stereotypes. It
      isn't scientists or technophiles who strap bombs to themselves and blow
      up nightclubs or government buildings. The Unabomber didn't operate
      in the name of technology. All those forces of real-world dogmatism
      come from anti-technological, anti-scientific, highly mystical points of
      view.

      White Wolf encourages this kind of shoddy, pseudo-religious thinking
      buy exploiting the anti-tech paradigm. Sure, it may be "just a game,"and
      the fact that WW was prescient enough to cash in on this cultural trend
      is a testament to their capitalist spirit, but I encounter a disturbing
      amount of people who play Mage and Changeling with just this sort of
      thinking in mind. They come away from the game with their
      technophobia enhanced and justified, and they will rail to no end against
      the evils of technology and "stagnating" science; meanwhile, the forces
      of mystical and religious ignorance seek to curtail their personal
      freedoms and cut them off from the very scientific knowledge they seem
      to think is oppressing them.

      For this reason, I rarely play Mage or Changeling, and I never run them
      the way White Wolf conceived of them. In my games, scientific people
      -- who don't accept pat answers at face value from anyone, who
      constantly seek new and better evidence, who are willing to abandon
      long-held beliefs when it becomes clear that they aren't true, who are
      not afraid to use technology to its fullest and most positive extent -- are
      the heroes.

      IMHO, the bad rap that the Technocracy gets from other supernaturals
      is a reflection of the real world's fear of the unknown. In the WOD,
      supernatural forces are personified, and they fear the Technos because
      the Technos have wised up and realized that the silly mysticism that's
      fostered by other Awakened beings is a tool of oppression. The
      Technos are on the Sleepers' side, or at least they should be; the books
      are written from the opposition's POV, after all. In the real world,
      skeptical inquiry knocks down walls that constrain thought and
      creativity. Technology, for the most part, advances human health and
      knowledge, although much of it gets misused along the way by people
      (mostly corporate and government bureaucrats) who don't really
      understand it or care to listen to warnings from the people who do. In
      the WOD, the opposite is true.

      So my question is, why do I keep playing these games? Am I helping to
      advance technophobia and credulous thought?

      Okay, I stop ranting now. Bye-bye.

      Cthulhu fhtagn!

      Careful, palindrome, you're displaying some of the same reactionary
      tendencies that you're accusing White Wolf of harboring.

      To say that all of the suffering in this world has been caused by mystics
      and religious dogmatists is to ignore the dehumanizing and soul-crushing
      science-based collectivist theories that have plagued the Twentieth
      Century. National Socialism, Communism(in all of its bloody
      incarnations), and just plain Socialism are all pseudoscientific political
      ideologies that rolled all over human rights in the name of human rights.
      Scientists have shown as great a tendency to be shitheads as anyone
      else. There is little if any difference between a book-burning religious
      zealot and a lab tyrant who undermines research that would challenge
      his or her pet theory.

      The trap that so many scientists fall into is that they become like those
      who attack them--"Religious thought is an oxymoron" is something I've
      heard a number of times from people who should have been smart
      enough to know better. Your arguments would appear to contend that
      scientists are immune to prejudice, incompetence, jealousy, and simple
      ignorance. Some of them seem to think so. Fact is, they're just as
      human as any of us, and just as vulnerable to the pitfalls of hubris.

      Which brings me to the Technocracy.

      Yeah, okay, so they're the cardboard villains. They're also held up as
      examples of the "He who would fight monsters"
      schtick(Nietsche-typical philosopher-a foolish man who said clever
      things)as well the the "power corrupts" schtick. They are without depth,
      but then I think, that is the point.

      On the other hand, they are a fine example of the dehumanizing effect of
      collectivism. I mean, few things are more dehumanizing than reducing a
      living breathing human being with wants, dreams, desires, loves, hates
      and potentially housepets to a mere unit among the "Masses." To regard
      a person objectively is to reduce them an object. That, on some level at
      least, turns people into lawn chairs, or at least puts them on the same
      category. Their goal is noble, or at least it was, but they've become the
      overbearing wizards that they once fought; imposing their will on the
      masses as they see fit.

      That, I think is the way in which the Technocratic Union is portrayed:
      Basically good people who do the wrong thing in the correct manner for
      the right reason. I just wish that White Wolf hadn't made such a shitty
      job of it.

      -- AT651
         ([email protected])

      Of course, it's entirely possible to put a different slant on the Union. The
      first thing to realize is that the 'offical' convention books that are out
      there, were never written from the Union's point of view. Every one of
      them was meant to show the Union in a somewhat negative light. I
      found the syndicate book to be the biggest disappointment. White wolf
      had a wonderful oppertunity to show them in more than one
      dimension..and they resort to pawning them off as greedy investment
      bankers. How sad.

      I'm not going to go any further into what the Union should be. But I do
      like palindrome's ideas about showing the Union in a more than one
      dimensional fashion. So, why not play them in a game where both
      Traditions and Union have thier fanatics. Ideological battles within both
      the council and the Union spilling over into the character's lives. paint
      both sides in similar shades of grey...and then see where that can take
      you.

      But to simply dismiss the Union, and science in general, as banal and
      soul-crushing....I think you lose something in the translation.

      I think we've come full circle again.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Prior to reading the Mage books, I thought of myself as a technocrat to
      a certain degree. However, I find the Mage technocracy's view of
      reality to be somewhat narrow and one-sided; the rejection of anything
      not scientifically provable as fluff and silliness is just as narrow and
      prejudiced as the rejection of all technology as cold and dehumanizing.

      However, that wasn't even the point I was trying to make. Instead, I'm
      going to express a highly technocratic viewpoint that's going to get me
      into a lot of trouble, but which I believe in nonetheless.

      The viewpoint is this: if the masses want to be sheep, let 'em. If they
      don't want to know how any of the technology that controls their life
      works, let them live in ignorance: there's no way to educate anyone
      against their will.

      I believe I said before that if you would not be a slave to technology,
      you must be it's master, though. If the masses want to be sheep, they
      have no right to complain when they get whacked upside the head with
      a shepherd's crook.

      The reason I don't like the Technocracy as it's presented in Mage is
      that, quite simply, they try to treat the under-shepherds as sheep. Most
      of the technocracy mages don't really have any say in how it operates,
      or even any ideas of its long-term goals; and this is unacceptable. I've
      never read Plato, so I'm not sure if I understand his concept of an
      aristocracy of merit; but if I do, that's what the Technocracy ought to
      be.

      -- Natoli
         ([email protected])

 AT621 --

 As soon as I posted my last message and ran off to work, I thought of the very
 same argument you just made. I apologize for my overbearance, and I thank you
 for rightfully taking me to task for it.

 However, I'd like to say something about the word "scientific." When I use this
 word, I am referring to the process of scientific thought, not the institution of any
 particular ideology. Science, or skepticism if you will, is the application of reason
 to ALL ideas -- no sacred cows allowed. Any thought system that fears healthy
 criticism and resists demands for evidence is inherently un-scientific, even if it
 uses the trappings of technobabble to justify its existence. Thus, hardline Stalinism
 is just as reactionary as hardline religious fundamentalism, and equally
 anti-scientific as well. No surprise then that the first people most police states
 round up are the scientists, the artists and the political opposition.

 The real problem I was trying to get at is this: that as a society, we seem to want
 to be able to exploit the RESULTS of scientific thought -- called "technology" --
 without wanting to accept the PROCESS of scientific thought -- which means
 always questioning everything, always demanding new and better evidence,
 greeting each and every idea to which we are exposed with the retort, "That's
 nice; now prove it." Most people (including many scientists) , in my experience,
 are not willing to try and think this way, because it means that we have to
 question our own pet beliefs and ideologies just as harshly as we question others'.
 It also means that we have to not take it personally when someone else points out
 a flaw in our beliefs and offers a better explanation.

 Bureaucracies -- both corporate and governmental -- operate just that way.
 They want the experts -- scientists and researchers and programmers and
 doctors -- to pump out profitable technologies, but rarely listen to those same
 experts' warnings about the implications of the new technology until it's too late.
 When Oppenheimer invented the A-bomb and gave the U.S. military superiority,
 he was hailed as a hero; but when he tried to warn us about the dangers of
 nuclear weapons, he was blacklisted and branded a traitor. Now, 50 years later,
 we are coming to terms with the fact that he and his fellow A-Bomb developers
 knew what they were talking about after all. Similarly, I have little doubt that
 some early programmer somewhere noticed the potentially disastrous glitch their
 calendar and pointed it out to their higher-ups and was politely told to go screw
 him- or herself. And now, on the cusp of the Y2K glitch, it turns out they were
 right after all.

 "We must not believe the many, who say
 that only free people ought to be educated,
 but should rather believe the philosophers,
 who say that only the educated are free."
                                                   --Epictetus

      The point is that they are more Oversheep than Undershepherds. Most
      folks just assume that, in such a situation, they would be one of the
      shepherds, and are genuinely shocked when they get struck with the
      rod. History is full of such examples. How many comissars just assumed
      that when Stalin started the first of his many purges, they would be
      awfully busy executing the enemies of the people, only to find
      themselves on the wrong end of a firing squad? That's the problem with
      collectivism; in the end, you're a quantified expendable resource, and
      your value is determined by someone else's math.

      Furthermore I must point out that the Technocracy is not all that thrilled
      about the masses doing any innovations of their own. Yeah, if the
      masses decide to stay ignorant regarding technology, it's on them; but
      the Technocracy conspires to keep them ignorant, which is inexcusable.

      Yes yes I know that they're shoddily portrayed, Weaver. But my point,
      that any collectivist institution is at its core dehumanizing and
      soul-crushing, is still valid. As the Technocracy is apparently the great
      grandaddy of collectivist institutions, it stands to reason that they
      possess the strengths and weaknesses of such an organization to the
      ultimate degree.

      I think that White Wolf was trying to portray the Union as having lost its
      humanity in its bid to serve humanity. They have focused on the how for
      so long that they forgot why. That's why you have all of that imagery of
      soulless constructs, machine men, faceless operatives setting wheels into
      motion etc.

      But then, like somebody said (Natoli I think) if logic was all that was
      necessary, computers would program themselves. That is where the
      shallow portrayal of the Union starts to fall apart. Such an
      organization,completely without direction, would lose its viability in a
      relatively short peiod of time a la the U.S.S.R.

      As an aside, notice how it inevitably becomes apparrent that the whole
      "Union as Villain" imagery is rife with warmed-over stereotypes from
      the old 60s counterculture crowd.

      Example 1) Old men in suits: Boooooo!

      Example 2) Government Agent Types: Hsssssss!

      Example 3) Rich Guys: Boooooooo!

      Example 4) Empowered Lab Geeks: Hsssssss!

      Example 5) Military Weapons Technology: Booooo!

      Bonus: Power-mongering White Boys: BoooooHsssssss!

      There is hope, however. For some time now, we've seen hints of depth
      in the Technocracy characters. I'm hearing rumblings about a
      Technocracy players' guide(wish I may, wish I might). If it's anything
      near the quality of the work in the Camarilla guide; prepare to be
      spoiled rotten, my fellow wire-heads.

      I wish they'd either depict them as high minded but fatally flawed,
      irredeemably corrupt, or both. I just hope they support their portrayal a
      little better than they've been doing. The Technocracy is a subject that
      has been begging for an in-depth exploration for some time now, and I
      hate to see the neglect of it be the albatross around the neck of what is
      otherwise a very good game.

      Next post I talk tech.  Promise.

      Okay, maybe I won't.

      It has always been my understanding that Oppy was blacklisted
      because of the suspicion that he provided the Soviets with data on
      atomic weapons.

      It is indeed true that bureaucrats of all stripes will give little thought to
      the long view. I think, however, that scientists are more often than not,
      far more complicit in these acts than your argument seemed to imply. "I
      just built the bomb, I didn't drop it," doesn't wash.

      The scientific method is indeed laudable. Critical thought is essential.
      There is, however, a difference between questioning everything and
      simply being contentious. It's sad when critical thinking degenerates into
      iconoclasm. Just as sad as when idealism becomes fanaticism. It
      happens so easily too. One never realizes it until it's too late.

      NEXT post I talk tech.

      Okay. First, I was afraid that this thread had been overtaken by the
      dreaded Lewisnky virus (damn! i said it again!), but am now greatly
      en-happied to see that it has become sudedenly quite interesting and
      valid. Whee-ha!

      Second, Partisan. Not to get us back into that rut, but in terms of
      Technocratic influence and anti-tech sentiment, I'd have to say that the
      corruption and bureacracy in the US government and that of other
      countries to a lesser degree, both WoD and IRL, is disturbing... I
      personally tend to think that both "liberalism" and "conservativism" are
      two arms of a big Good Cop / Bad Cop game, wherein neary every
      citizen is offered an enemy to hate, and a lesser evil to support. Bleh. A
      bunch of misdirecting bullshit. A tool used by the Union, if you will to
      distract the majority of the masses from the real issues and workings of
      the state/nation/whatever.

      Also, I want to thank Natoli for some good points... (others too,
      Natoli's the only one I remember right now)... one thing that has done
      more damage to the political and interpersonal arenas of human life has
      been the dichotomization of reason and emotion, eg technology and art,
      eg science and religion, etc. etc. I have found most dichotomies to be an
      easy way out that is not supported by any rational or thourough thought.
      Too many people think that one of these is mutually exclusive with the
      other, as if one who is 70% as reasonable as he might be mustd
      therefore be only 30% as emotional as he might be. Bleh.

      And GREAT point about Zen and the Art of etc. wish I'd brought that
      one up...

      Let's see... I figure that if one wants to dispute the books and say the
      Union's all nice and heroic, fine... but that seems as unfortunately
      narrow (less loaded word: unexplored?) as ahving them as the
      always-evil ones. It seems there are some facts as far as the official
      WW books go -- the Union is using Mind magick to sedate and mollify
      the masses, the better to assure stability and control (any good tyrant
      wants stability). The Union destroys or severely weakens anything that
      remotely opposes, threatens, or even clashes a little with its particular,
      specific vision of the New World. Which is to be expected under purely
      Darwinian, Hobbes-ian (look I can name philosophers/scientists!)
      thought... but I find fault with Hobbes' Brutal World idea too, since
      mankind alone is gifted with the sentience and ability to lift ourselves out
      of that. In that sense, I agree with Hobbes -- the savage Brutal World is
      our last resort, not our inevitable result.

      That said, as far as the "let the sheep be sheep if they insist on it" thing...
      I agree, and that's one of the ways I could see someone like me getting
      into the NWO. I generally see it happening after a period of despair,
      disgust and disappointment in the world, in people en masse. You try to
      help them, and they throw it back in your face blind... ah well, that's
      what altruism gets you. So screw altruism. Anyone read Ayn Rand's
      stuff? On anti-altruism, Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead are good.
      Those who are bitter about hippies and liberals and such should read...
      The New Left, I think it's called. Good for thinkin' if you're so inclined.

      Finally, I figured that in my WoD, there's a certain Future Fate (ala
      M:tSC) in store for the Union. They become (?) totally corrupt, but the
      younger technocrats grow increasingly dissatisfied and eventually dissent
      and seek reform. After a violent civil war, they eventually achieve it,
      who knows how long it take. The Union moves into Spring again, and
      begins to take the actual welfare of humanity into account again. Not
      just the common denominator. Perhaps too late, they become at least a
      bit tolerant of spiritual and mystickal beliefs.

      And then we all get contacted by the vulcans, build starships, and go to
      meet the Ferengi and the Bajorans.

      Pretend I never said that last bit.

      And I'll have more to say about Plato and his
      Aristo-stuff later...

      While it's certainly true that there is a significant majority of folks out
      there that don't want to learn new tech. And couldn't care less about
      new tech. I think it also important to mention the red-headed step child
      of technological advances: Economics.

      Yep, the feared and dreaded voodoo, soft core science of economics.
      See, the reason for a majority of tech advances is to do something
      (manufacturing usually) quicker, cheaper than the next guy. Not always
      a bad thing. But it's because of this rush to get this new development
      into use as quick as possible (to save money) that we start using new
      tech before the ramifications are considered. Since someone already
      mention atomic weapons, let's consider them first.

      It's a given that without the use of atomic weapons that taking Japan in
      WWII would have been a bloody mess. Overextended supply lines,
      communications stretched to the limit...the problems were many.
      Solutions few. So, from that point of view dropping two nuclear bombs
      really did save lives. Both American and Japanese. Even tho someone
      will disagree with that assessment.

      However, there is the longer view of nuclear weapons to consider.
      Sure, America used 'em to end the war quicker...but we've been paying
      the long term price for that victory now ever since. That cost has been
      high in economic, political, environmental and social terms. Was it worth
      it in the long run? I sure as hell don't know - and wouldn't presume to
      answer...But the nuclear arsenal we maintain has cost us. It's the same
      thing with other new technologies, but on a much lesser scale.

      Just something to ponder on.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      > First and formost, the Technocracy AS PRESENTED cannnot> be
      defined as anything else BUT EVIL.

      I would *tentatively* agree, with a flexible definition of Evil (see the
      Nephandi thread). As defined, they're mostly pretty nasty, though I tend
      to allow for some of the junior members being idealistic types.

      > And so are the all of the Traditions and anyone else with > an
      Awakened Avatar. All True Magick users, regardless of >
      alignment,disposition, etc. seek to produce their own > paradigm or
      version of reality.

      Well... again, that *is* "as presented". That's why, in *my* WoD, only
      a very few mages are involved in the Reality War at all. Most of them
      just work quietly toward their own, usually smaller goals -- personal
      enlightenment, protection, or gain, as often as not. The Alchemist at his
      altar works to purify and perfect his soul, not to force the laws of
      alchemy on anyone... the witch seeks to forge a stronger connection
      with the primal forces of god and goddess within, not to force the world
      to accept god and goddess -- they know better.

      Now there would be some who fight that War -- namely the Order of
      Hermes, the hacker-mages, and the Etherite scientists. They do seek to
      replace the Union paradigm with their own, for the most part. Though I
      wouldn't necessarily call that Evil. I mean, Survival of the Fittest, those
      who are strong make the rules, that's the way it's always been. You can
      only feel so sorry for sheep.

      That's me words, I ain't got no more.

      For now.

      You are right, that was a poor wording choice of mine. Magesaren't evil
      in the fact metaphysical evil. What i meant to stateis that they are all
      against sleepers. Now not against as inadversaries (although SOME
      are) but against as in the fact thatthey all wish to at some base level
      control sleepers and thuscontrol reality. As for the survival of the fittest
      argument,it can be seen as that, however, I would hope that humans
      couldovercome such base natural factors and work together in
      harmony.Woops, what am I talking about. This IS the world of
      darknessafterall.....

      Excuse my avatar, he used to belong to Gene Rodenberry

      I'm going to dissasociate from discussion of real life for a moment here,
      and focus more on Mage specifically. Maybe points will bleed through,
      maybe... I'm short for time.

      I dislike White Wolf's portrayal of any of their set-up villains. I'm as
      offended with their anti-Technocratic slant as am with their
      anti-Nephandic slant. And the fact they haven't really even presented
      the anti-Tradition viewpoint anywhere near enough. In fact, the only
      area where they did right as far as balance were the Marauders. And
      there I'm not really satisfied with the player's common view. (Ever stop
      to think that Jolly Roger's experiment was a SUCCESS? [Read
      DW2.0])

      I think my displeasure can be summed up in one part of one line in the
      main rulebook. "There change to oppressors of humanity was complete"
      was about how it ran. The only 'good' followers of science were the
      renegade hackers and the renegade mad scientists, and possibly half of
      the half-renegade void engineers.

      The books of the Conventions I found to be severely disappointing as
      well. And no one book more than the Iteration X Convention book. It
      was a real slap in the face for me, that one... A man turned into a
      mindless, soulless killing machine having one moment of repentence and
      redemption as they spill forth the evils of the Convention. As bad as the
      NWO book, where the students, turned into a mindless, soulless
      obiendient follower through brainwashing tells his horrible tale, telling the
      evils of that Convention. And the Void Engineer book -- told by a
      Nephandic Mage, turned into a soulless dark creature by the
      (necessary?) evils of his Convention. We go onto the Progenitor book,
      where a new student learns of how the Progenitors twist and warp
      humanity and life itself, and is warped himself by their teachings and
      power, only suffer a dark, unmentioned fate, a final evil of his
      Convention. And the Syndicate book, files stolen by John Courage tell
      the tale of misguided economicists, slowly merging with the Nephandi
      through their Pentex connection. Though I have to say that I did
      appriciate some of the self-worth of mankind bit that the Syndicate
      brought up, along with the Adjustment view.

      While on the subject (I'll tie this in), I'm /so/ disappointed by the Borg
      as portrayed by whatever feeble-minded idiots write for Voyager. The
      original Borg were brilliantly done and compelling, at once both
      completely alien and surprisingly human. Just as Hue gained compassion
      and understanding of humans, Picard and his crew gained compassion
      and understanding of the Borg. Their 'Resistence is futile' line was so
      profound because it /wasn't/ an action catch phrase or a threat. If you
      can capture this essence when you present Iteration X, it'll do you well.
      (The theme, not the hive-mind or other specifics.) And they'll still play
      as interesting villains. A divergent evolutionary path, different on a level
      more fundimental than our social groupings and philosophical beliefs.

      Hopefully I'll see a Technocracy Player's Guide clear this up. White
      Wolf merely cashed in on the anti-technology sentiment to make sure
      the Technocracy were painted as clear bad guys, so the VAs would
      have something to fight, and there would be some shadowy 'big brother'
      to chase down protagonists and hinder and oppose them any time the
      plot might demand.

      Technology gets a really bad hype for something that's just an extention
      of ourselves. A study of the evils of technology is really a study of
      human nature.

      -- Bit Nine

      good points all, so far.

      while the theme of technology out of control is a good one for Mage (it
      works well with SoE and VA's as well as the Union), I find that trying
      to break thru the stereotypes it engenders to be very difficult. Every
      time I go to a convention and play in a mage game, the Union is
      portrayed as no better than a nephandus (except they have cooler toys
      than the nephandi, the Union isn't into slimy equipment) would be.
      When I try to explain this to other players, I draw blank looks.

      Now, this attitude is understandable, but could the trend be reversed? If
      so, how? The theme is deeply imbedded in most of white wolf's games.
      After all, a suppliment named "America Offline" sounds pretty anti-tech
      to me. I believe the aberrants in that book wiped out all the computers
      in america and did Nasty Things to people. The subliminal message
      being loosely translated as "never rely too much on technology because
      it will betray you in the end."Sad.I'm also going to mention the werewolf
      line. There is only one tribe of lupines that have anything to do with
      technology, and they are portrayed in a very negative light. The fictional
      embodyment of technology in lupine cosmology is portrayed as the
      villain. According to the werewolf myth, the Weaver was the one that
      warped the Wyrm into insanity. What does this say about the tools of
      the Weaver? And about all technology? Bad Things.There is also the
      obvious chances that are missed for all sorts of social commentary and
      character depth and just plain ole good times by simply writing off the
      Union (and technology) as being the tools used by the Bad Guys....I'd
      like to hope that the Technocracy Players Guide will be a good book.
      It's possible that it will be. But givin the track record so far, I'm not
      going to hold my breath on it.....

      Prove me wrong, White wolf. Do the Union some justice.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

 EXCELLENT post, Bit Nine. As I have come to expect. =)

 In response to Weaver: I empathize with your perspective. But it has always seemed
 to me that White Wolf has been less critical of technology in general than it has of
 LCD (lowest-common-denominator) thinking and reality-tyranny. It has been
 mentioned fairly often that the Order of Hermes and the Union are very similar... that
 the Janissaries are just Men in Black with mystick paradigms... that if the Order had
 caught on to Jerbiton's ideas of using the Consensus to maintain power in a changing
 world, the Hermetics would have taken the place of the Union as humanity's
 shpeherds/masters. I ran a whole game on it. It's just that the Order of Reason got
 there first; the Craftmasons, who started the whole thing with the Templars, were a
 part of the Hermetic House Ex Miscellanea, as was House Golo (which became the
 Etherites)...

 Anyway, if the Hermetics as dark masters of the New World had made enough sense
 as a part of the modern WoD (which had to conform to our world for the most part),
 they probably would have used it, and then perhaps this thread would consist of
 HOGD mysticks complaining of the pervasiveness of anti-mystick ideology, and the
 prevalence of bleeding-heart technological rebels. =) I guess my point is that, if
 anti-tech was such a powerful influence in WoD, they wouldn't have *any* good tech
 guys, like the Etherites, the Adepts, and the Glass Walkers. I think that the persecution
 and mistrust that these groups suffer is White Wolf's way of agreeing with you, of
 describing the misplaced fear of technology that is common among humanity as a race.

 People have always feared that which requires them to be intelligent, to take
 responsibility, and to face the future with openness and with strength. That is why
 hundreds of thousands of people immerse themselves in newspaper horoscopes and
 cheap New Age tricks, and ignore or even persecute those who practice the more
 valid, worthwhile occultisms... and why the world spends millions on Nintendo,
 pagers, and PCs, but maintain a stubborn ignorance and even fear of the programming
 languages and basic concepts of electrical and mechanical workings.

 If one element of the Triad (as simplistic and anthropomorphized
 as they are) were to grow too powerful and overcome the others,
 and it had to make sense in relation to the real world, which
 one do *you* think it would be?

      Underground Tech-rebels in an age of Mysticism....hmm...THAT
      conjures some very interesting images. Computers suppressed as works
      of the devil, COBOL manuals burned as 'evil tomes' of satan (Which
      they actually are, but that's another thread..) and the inquisition hunting
      down programmers and electricians and accountants as
      heritics....Hmm...

      But I digress, as usual...

      The fact that most people don't make the effort to understand new tech
      is more because of thier education, I think. Let me see if I can articulate
      this correctly. Pardons if I don't..but here goes:In the 'modern'
      education system, there is a bias against innovation. If students innovate,
      there can be no 'objective' standard to judge that innovation. There are
      no hard and fast 'rules' to measure and quantify that innovation. With no
      way to chart such progress, the teacher becomes irrelavant. And the
      teacher's union's like to be relevant. So, instead we substitute the
      accumulation of knowledge as the standard by which we are measured.
      In this rush to chart and measure, the much needed skills of synthesis
      and critical thinking get left behind. We are taught that rote
      memorization is better than innovation. Some students overcome this,
      but it's usually much later in life. Most never overcome it, and regulate
      themselves to the back of the technological bus - so to speak. They
      leave the details of code and equation, of schematic and electron to the
      new priesthood of programmers and network admin people. This
      dosen't have to be like this. Pick up a book on basic Unix, and start to
      learn. Computers and compilers are cheap and easy to use. It takes
      some personal initiative, and you're going to have to give up some friday
      nites while you learn what to do...but it can be done. And is should be
      done.

      However, nobody wants to break the habits of a life time. It's far easier
      to keep going they way they have. Inertia does it's deadly work and we
      just float along....If we can change this attitude, get kids to keep an
      open mind and explore the limits of Science. Teach people HOW to
      learn rather than WHAT to learn....Then, maybe things will change. And
      get the politics out of schools. Damn NEA and the horse they rode in
      on.....

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

 A few problems I have with science in WoD and Real Life.

 1. In WoD the close tie of science with business and media (syndicate/NWO).
Most scientists I know would love to study what they want to study and
not what others want to study. However business you must study what makes
cash, whether you like it or not. Many scientists who work for businesses
feel oppressed because they cannot do what they want. Meanwhile I dislike
the media's attempt to turn stories into rating by focusing on one tired old story
after another. (presidential trial, Simpson trial, etc.)

 2. Philosophy of science overcoming scienctific thought.

 All right heres something for you to do, name five scientists.

 do it.

 come on come on, I'll give you spoiler space.

 -

 -

 -

 -

 How many of them are the following:

 Physicists.Chemists.Biologists.Geologists.Geographers.
------------PsychologistsSociologistsAnthropologistsArcheologistsMathematiciansEngineersOther.

 If you do this physicists tend to dominate most peoples list.
Though scientificly all sciences are equal and none is more important
than the rest their is a little problem with scientists being human
thus making mistakes. The most common mistake is reductionism
or the closer you get to chemistry and physics the
smaller, more accurate, and more mathmatical you get, the better.
I got interested in bio because of observations of animal behavior
and interaction, only to find my way of study is nearly dead due to
interest in the chemical spirals of DNA.

 Also notice admitting of unclarity. Biologists and Geologists
(well, professors of these courses) seem willing to point out
the potential excuses to explane something that isn't necessarily
rational or correct but a good explanation and uncertainties as
just that. Most chemists and physicists are not. I was
shocked that after a year of Chem 1 with Jasinskis interest in
Mol conversion that Chem 2 with Steppanuck actually explained
not only the basics but also the inconsistencies that he said chemists
don't like to admit. Meanwhile every bio professer I know points out
the flaws in the definition of species, etc.

 I think education would be better if it accepted the multiple
intelligence theory. I have always done great in science and poor in math.

 The WoD done correctly would have rebel scientists
going against media, big business, physicists, and chemists. :)

 ChAoS

 Do I sound irritated to you.

      ...you mean I didn't just ramble in that last post? All right! Well, I might
      break down here, but here goes...

      I've thought about this before, in fact, several years ago when the topic
      came up on a local BBS. I began to think about the nature of
      technology, aside from its common scientific trappings and modern-day
      appearence and connotations. One of the things that struck me as
      interesting is that it isn't just a physical object that can be classified as
      technology, but the plans or knowledge on how create or utilize such an
      object. It's a form of technology: informational technology.

      Then I went and backtracked this to its earliest stage. Fire was/is a
      technology, one used by ancient man. But so was the knowledge of
      how to create fire. And likewise was the learned behavior of being able
      to avoid predators a technology.

      And beyond that, our memories and learned behaviors are a series of
      chemical reactions of nuerons in our brains, an organic technology, a
      medium for storage of the informational technology of our thoughts.
      Even social interaction is a technology, refined by our experiences and
      what we learn from others.

      And of course, this lead me to think about the now and again reference
      to genetic code as an organic technology, refined by the process of
      natural selection. If that is true, human life may well be the biggest R&D
      project that we've ever seen.

      There are some fundimental differences in the comparison. Evolution
      and earlier learned technologies and sciences are result-oriented. If
      something allows for a 95% chance of success, it is usually accepted.
      (Especially when it was not formilized 'science' at all, but learned
      behavioral patterns.)However, later science has become concerned
      with a greater truth and absolute certainty as ideal situations were
      thought of to accomidate concrete laws. And perhaps the biggest
      difference is that man has become self-aware of human nature and his
      use of what he has learned and built to further his needs.

      This reach for fundimental, quantifiable laws of the universe does fit well
      into the Weaver concept of the Trait as presented by Mage. However,
      I think that trying to craft the Technocracy to fit this theme was
      overintensified. If you take the purist idea of each of the Convention's
      idealogy, temper it with their faults, and make sure to include the good
      ideas which are present in each one of their books. There was one line
      that struck me, either in the book of chantries (the Autochthonia
      presentation there was done pretty well, in my opinion), or the Iteration
      X book: (I'm going to paraphrase here, since I don't actually own the
      book.)

      "The biggest mistake people make is to think that we are stagnant and
      cannot grow. Almost the opposite is true; we represent carefully
      controlled expansion."

      -- Bit Nine

      The witchhunt on technologists in a mystical age idea? I think Weaver
      mentioned it. Well in my COBOL class (pay attention? why?) I started
      designing a game with exactly that as one of its main themes. It's kind of
      a nasty tongue-in-cheek sarcastic thing, of course; it takes place in a
      pseudo-medieval culture about three hundred years from now, after the
      Fifty Years of Darkness caused by the Y2K bug (damn, I'm sick of
      hearing about that thing).

      At any rate, on the Technocracy: I very much like the origional purpose
      behind it, since I feel that most of the supernaturals in the WoD are way
      too obnoxious, overbearing, and incapable of minding their own
      fragging business. Also, Prometheus--Greek God who stole fire from
      the heavens and gave it to man; spent eternity having his liver pecked
      out by a vulture for it, too--has always been my personal favorite.
      However, I do *not* like what the Union has become: as manipulative
      as the rest of the fragging supers.

      I'm currently working on a renegade technocrat character--former
      Iteration X operative, currently loosely allied with the Sons of Ether.
      ("No, I won't tell you the value of X, I won't let you take me apart to
      see how I work, but I'll give you six more digits of Pi, and you can have
      an eye." I know it's a blatant Odin referance, but what the heck.) She
      considers herself to be loyal to the ideals of the convention--protecting
      the masses and perfecting humanity. That's what they told her when she
      signed up, and if they've let themselves stray from that, well, they're the
      traitors, not her.

      Too bad I'm forever doomed to be ST; I'd like to actually be able to
      run her.

      -- Natoli
         ([email protected])

      Someone mentioned the subject of growth in an earlier post...I'd like to
      say a few things about that while I'm thinking about it.

      The idea that the Union (and technology in general) limits ideas and
      growth of society is idiotic! If the Union didn't want new ideas, then
      they'd very quickly find the Traditions and other factions of the WOD
      surpassing them. After all, it's a mage-eat-werewolf kinda world. And
      the second place loser gets eaten...So, the Union would encourage
      growth of new ideas, new inventions. The problem is one of direction. If
      they educate the Masses correctly, than there would be no need for a
      heavy hand approach. Simply by funding the right people, and
      distributing the right products, the system would take care of itself.
      THAT's why the Union is so hard to fight - it looks like it's everywhere.
      Actually, it's just in the right places.

      So, the same sort of thing is true for the real world. It's very possible
      that a change in our education system, and a few economic adjustments,
      can make a radical change in both politics and technological devlopment
      in a very short period of time. I can't tell you the number of professors
      i've had to suffer under that were blatantly technophobic. One guy even
      had us write out our term papers because he felt that computers were
      'de-humanizing' us. Bastard. I hope he gets a Unix driven machine with
      not gui some day...serve him right.I also have noticed a very interesting
      trend in college: all the english/psych/art/history profs that i've met (with
      one or two exceptions...) have hated and feared the computer room. In
      fact, they subtly discoraged students from using those facilites for thier
      research (not allowing web page URL's in the bibliograph for example).
      However, the business/programming(natch!)/poly-sci crowd were the
      exact opposite. They made it mandatory that thier students use the
      computer labs in thier course work. I don't know why that dichotomy
      exists, but there it is.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      I've also always liked Prometheus -- the idea of defying edicts of
      "forbidden knowledge", the egalitarian distribution of knowledge... it's a
      very hacker-ish sort of thing. My primary character, whose moniker I
      adopt on these forums, is an Orphan who tries to play that very role
      among the mysticks... he toys with technomancy, tries to learn about
      everything, but isn't much of a techie. He knows alot about mysticism,
      bits and pieces from everywhere, and tries to play the reformist among
      what he sees as stagnant and silly mysticisms... finding a way to maintain
      the essential elements of the ancient without insisting on returning to an
      irretrievable past... seeking an integration of the past with the present in
      a way that does not make one the enemy of the future. He's been
      tempted before to join the NWO, but he severely doubts that he'd be
      able to maintain being the idealistically true operative in the hive-mind...
      kindof like my feelings about getting into politics. It's a system set up so
      that the only way to progress and proceed is to sumbit to the paradigm
      and the methods.

      Natoli -- sound like a nifty character, I like the Odin One-Eye
      reference... and I sympathize, I'm stuck as the ST too. Ah well...

      bye bye

      there's that 'hive mind' thing again....

      The fact that so many folks just assume that the NWO and the
      conventions in general have to brainwash thier personal is another
      notion that just dosen't stand up. Consider, the Union faces horrors
      every day that are pretty grotesque. Sabbat war parties, rampaging
      lupines, grand distortions of reality (al la Maurader incursions), Things
      From Beyond(tm), Nephandi cauls, and that's just the stuff on this side
      of the barrier. This is going to take it's toll on the sanity of ANYONE.
      So of course, the Union is going to take steps to monitor the mental
      health of it's operatives. This is not only practical, it's good for morale.
      THEY DON'T BRAINWASH THIER OWN!!!!!! They would help
      thier operatives put up defenses against mental attacks from others tho.

      The average operative *knows* that they are fighting the good fight.
      They are well trained, well equiped, hardened fighters who know that
      they hold the line for one more day. That's one more day that the
      nephandi don't eat thier kids. Or someone else's kids, for that matter.
      This is much better than having brainwashed, braindead zombies linked
      to a hive mind overlord. They want thier folks to be good at what they
      do. They would place them where thier talents lie, so as to get the most
      out of thier limited resources.

      Hive mind indeed....and I thought we'd gotten past that...

      Or am I a bit sensitive on this subject?

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      I was in the bank the other day, and something caught my eye. It was a
      small pampthlet called 'Fleet Kids', and I'll be damned if it didn't make
      me think of the Technocracy. I'm going to attempt to recreate its
      content here: (I've used several quotes from a part of the paper I've
      found.)

      <recreation> (Believe me, this post is long, but worth it.)

      What is Fleet Kids? Fleet Kids is an online learning center where kids
      can find out about the value of the dollar, good citizenship and more! All
      those who visit the site can play interactive games. In addition, children
      attending a school that is enrolled in this innovative edicuational program
      can earn points for their school each time they visit the Web stie, play,
      and learn. Top-scoring schools can qualify to redeem accrued points for
      technology-based teaching tools, including computers and educational
      software.

      Each child is challenged to investigate in an array of mathematic,
      financial and scoial concepts, including: *Setting goals, *Saving and
      budgeting, *Balancing "needs" and "wants", *Learning to work in
      teams, *Developing solutions. The FleetKids program is a self-teaching
      experience that enables students to play and learn at their own pace, at
      any time-and as often as they wish-anywhere they have access to the
      Internet. So, they can play at home, school, most public libraries, and
      many community centers.

      </recreation> (A little scary, no?)

      Now doesn't that give you something to think about, especially in the
      context of the World of Darkness? Can you imagine New World Order
      educational experts combining their efforts with Syndicate banking
      conglomerates in order to teach our children "the value of the dollar,
      good citizenship, and more!"?

      The fact is that anything presented in the view of a Mage is going to
      have a skewed outlook on the Technocracy. Think about what each
      one of the Conventions really does. More and more they probably sit
      down at an office or a lab then run into dark alleys, guns blazing.
      However, that makes for a nice, cleaner enemy to chaingun them in the
      streets or hunt them down and kill their families.

      Think about the New World Order teams working on refining the
      educational system in America, trying to make the next generation
      capabile of dealing with the future. Trying to present youth with an
      acceptable place where they will fit into society. Antiviolence programs
      and children's services are probably a concern to them, as much as
      'reeducating' fellow and renegade Mages.

      What about the Progenitors? Gene therapy has been successfully used
      to cure SCIDs, formallity a debilitating and fatal disease. Thanks to the
      miracle of the retrovirus, we will never see another "bubble boy". Burn
      victims can look forward to having their own flesh cloned and graphed,
      sparing them the horrifying possibility of cellular rejection. And soon
      entire organs may be cloned from failing tissue samples for rejection
      free-transplants. Even Parkenson's disease has been shown to have a
      successful therapy, though the use of the brain tissue of aborted fetuses
      is too controversial to let the technology save lives this moment.

      And the Syndicate. Our economy is booming. Look at last month's
      Time cover. Unemployment is low, and the stardard of living is up. And
      did you hear Clinton's proposal for the USA accounts? Credit cards,
      debit cards, overdraft, refinacing, all tools for the modern man to better
      manage his income and entire life. We're coming closer to that ideal of a
      cashless society, especially with Internet purchasing and online banking.

      Iteration X of course has some of the worst press. Who do you think is
      responsible for the assembly line and Ford automobiles? Factory-built
      cars and computers and televisions. The development of new
      technologies into the Masses, like DVD palmtop theaters and flatscreen
      TVs, as well as medical technologies that can let a deaf man hear by
      interfacing with the auditory nerve, artificial hearts and limbs and other
      lifesaving technologies. Computer Engineering's boon of digital cameras,
      smart toys, and even the field of ergonomics. Toys and tools and
      anything else useful or fun is mass produced and delivered directly into
      our homes!

      Void Engineers are probably the most sympathized-with Convention
      already. Theirs is the dread job of going into the deep places that are
      yet unknown, and fending off that which would destroy us without a
      thought. Would you believe that the horrors of the deep umbra never
      happen across our fragile sphere? No, they are stopped by the Void
      Engineers. So many things are as yet unnamed by the Masses, because
      they have been spared. (Whether true Nephandus, or nightmare
      spirit-demons borne of the darker nature of man's thoughts, would one
      over the other be any better to be subjected to?)

      These roles are downplayed to the extreme. What do you think would
      happen if the Technocracy didn't exist? Are you going to tell the De
      Silvo family that their little girl must die of SCID because their gene
      therapist was evil? Plunge millions into bankruptcy because there was
      some 'conspiracy' to sell them useful goods and services? Solve every
      crime and catch every murderer and lunatic that NWO databases help
      the even the Masses to catch themselves? Let ailing patients die
      because an artificial organ is an atrocity? Turn safe streets into a
      warzone because the protectors of mankind worked for some darker
      force?

      I'd like to actually run a game with this premise in mind. Let the player
      characters disrupt the Technocracy's plans in an area -- all of them, and
      let them deal with the results. I think it's more than most players could
      deal with. Perhaps even try to draw them to the conclusion that maybe,
      just maybe, the Masses were better off under the watchful eye of the
      Technocracy.

      Because, in the end, who do you trust more? A vigilante on the street
      handing out a Good Death to all those who he thinks deserves it, or a
      system in the name of justice, corrupt and imperfect as it might be?

      If the Masses were given the choice, who would they pledge their
      allegiance to? Who do they now?

      -- Bit Nine

      Who am I more inclined to trust, a Vigilante in the streets handing out
      the Good Death in the Streets or a system in the name of justice? Well,
      it depends on the Vigilante. I know several people who are not of that
      bent simply because they know they couldn't get away with it, and I am
      inclined to trust their judgement; whereas most of the representatives of
      that system I wouldn't trust any further than I can throw them.

      Remember, a system is perforce made up of individuals, and, while not
      necessarily as corrupt as its worst member, certainly no less so than an
      ordinary individual; and it's very difficult to hold an organization
      responsible for its actions.

      Further, it is extremely difficult for a legislated system to deal with the
      unexpected. If all the computers *do* crash in 2000, for instance, how
      many organizations will be able to arrange to get at their data and do the
      calculations with a stub of pencil on the back of a napkin? An individual
      could do it, but an organization probably can't.

      Which reminds me: someone mentioned the idea that one can become
      overreliant on technology as paranoid. Which is a silly idea, really.
      They're talking about allowing first graders to use calculators when
      they're learning arithmatic now--which means that we'll be stuck with an
      entire generation that wouldn't be *able* to do the calculations in pencil
      on the back of a napkin. While technology itself is not evil, this
      helplessness in its absence is. Technology is no more infallible than
      humanity; that's something I think a lot of people forget that. How many
      of us have heard the bit about "I'm sorry, sir, you can't do that, you're
      dead. It says so right here."? This is an example of overreliance on
      technology--AND IT HAPPENS!

      Has anyone read Ninteen Eighty-Four? The idea I'm thinking of is that
      records are a more accurate reflection of history than memory. While
      this may be true to a certain extent, when taken to its logical extreme it
      is extremely frightening--especially now, when we can fake anything
      from photographs to voice recordings.

      While it would be silly to reguard technology, beurocracy, and the other
      trappings of the modern era as pure evil, it would be equally silly to
      reguard them as pure good--or even pure neutral, as contradictory as
      the phrase may seem.

      -- Natoli
         ([email protected])

      "Who am I more inclined to trust, a Vigilante in the streets handing out
      the Good Death in the Streets or a system in the name of justice? Well,
      it depends on the Vigilante. I know several people who are not of that
      bent simply because they know they couldn't get away with it, and I am
      inclined to trust their judgement; whereas most of the representatives of
      that system I wouldn't trust any further than I can throw them."

      I wasn't talking about people you know. I was talking about people
      you've never met. Because where you can have people that you know
      and trust that you would feel happy killing people on the street (I know
      I would be at least slightly unsettled by even my trusted friends doing
      that) I certainly wouldn't be as ready to accept them. Certainly not as
      much as a policeman. Besides, are those few people that you know
      going to patrol the entire city that you live in? The state? The nation?
      The world?

      Now more onto the WOD side: Would you accept that you must die to
      satisfy some greater plan that will be filled by your reincarnation? Where
      would the controls be? What about the Euthanitoi that scry into the
      future, and because you are 'destined' to give birth to another Hitler,
      decides you must die? And with them walking the streets, how long
      before the age old conflict with the Akashic Brotherhood flares up are
      turns our streets into ancient battlegrounds? (The Men in White serve a
      purpose, you know.)

      "If all the computers *do* crash in 2000, for instance, how many
      organizations will be able to arrange to get at their data and do the
      calculations with a stub of pencil on the back of a napkin?"

      Overreliance on technology can go both ways. If the technology is
      imperfect, then it most certainly is bad. But I think that the Technocracy
      would be able to coordinate themselves with ease in the face of the
      Year 2000 crisis. I would like to argue that the problem is not in our
      integration of lives with technology, but the quality of technology that we
      work with. We've pretty much perfected the technologies of making
      pencils and paper, or napkins as it were.

      We've been reliant on technology for a long time. Spearheads and fire
      were our first addiction. Plumbing, penacillen, hunting traps, ect. have
      been essential to our survival for a very long time. We simply need
      reliable technology. Our computers do not fit this definition. The
      integrated cybernetic technology of Iteration X are a different story.
      Especially with True AIs, including the fabled Captain Feedback (his
      backstory was one of the best parts of DW20).

      In fact, Iteration X has not only realized this problem, but solved it. The
      Machine is Year 2000 compliant, and I'm be damned surprised if the
      Matriarch crashed. Machines have been compined with the human mind
      and soul as the ultimate act of technology. (And there is a Spirit 3 Rote,
      Awaken the Inanimate.)

      "Has anyone read Ninteen Eighty-Four? The idea I'm thinking of is that
      records are a more accurate reflection of history than memory. While
      this may be true to a certain extent, when taken to its logical extreme it
      is extremely frightening--especially now, when we can fake anything
      from photographs to voice recordings."

      Bah! I think back to Nazi Germany. You've seen footage of the great
      German orators, speaking to legions of enthralled nationalists? The
      translation job makes me cringe. With common lines like "You must
      subjugate your will to the good of the people!", it makes the German
      populous sound like fanatic brainwashed maniacs.

      Consider that last quote. Now think of this one: "Don't ask what your
      country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
      Wonder how that would sound in German?

      Besides, the point behind 1984 was nearly opposite. The conditioning
      of the people was about the human condition, not about technology.
      The people were so trusting and willing to accept what they were told
      that they forget what they saw. If they were to have a photograph, it
      wouldn't matter. They would believe anything that they were told.

      Brave New World has always been more fitting for the Technocracy.
      The Masses were given everything that they wanted. "There was no
      need to ban books, because no one wanted to read one," as it were.

      -- Bit Nine

 The Hive Mind: upper left corner of pg.58 in ConBook:NWO

 "...Men in Black, trained for investigation, intimidation, subversion, and combat." "As
 experts in surveillance, interrogation and brainwashing, the New World Order
 understands Mind influence quite well..." (both from Mage 2nd Ed., pg.51)

 I hate to get referential, but in this case I feel justified. Weaver -- though I have greatly
 enjoyed and respected your posts in the past, and though I am mostly doing the same
 with your recent posts -- I DO believe that yes, you are being a bit sensitive. I know
 this thread is one close to your heart, but I hardly feel that I or anyone else deserves to
 be so heavily criticized for merely going along with what is in the book.

 (I *am* assuming that your post was not In Character)

 I appreciate your viewpoint. Though I personally wouldn't be as interested in playing in
 a chronicle where the Technocracy is basically entirely good (where the Ivory Tower
 is the reality), I fully respect and support your right to do so... I feel I shouldn't even
 have to say that, but hey. Anyway, what I'm saying is that I myself have made major
 changes in the concept of faeries in the WoD, but I don't act surprised and indignant
 when someone else mentions the changelings as White Wolf has presented them.

 Maybe *I'm* getting a bit sensitive, but it's frustrating...
 I get bombasted by half the people I talk to because they see me
 as some cold, emotionless supporter of the Union and its ideals,
 then by the other half of the people I get roasted because I
 don't see the Union as the shining saviors of humanity... so
 that makes me a liberal flaky mystic-hippie technophobe.
 Not that Weaver was saying that at all, just...
 aw never mind...
 

 btw, that Fleet Kids thing was interesting... Hitler Youth, PC American style? or
 simple sensible orienteering of our youth toward a worthwhile goal? ...

 Bit Nine, as far as your latter comments, I have to respond with another urging of all
 involved to maintain a separation between the WoD and Real Life. Technology is
 great in our reality -- gene therapy cures diseases, economy is booming -- but hey,
 WE DON'T HAVE A TECHNOCRACY!!! The WoD does, however, have a
 Conspiracy. A cabal of technomantic mages who have infiltrated and subverted the
 worlds of government, industry, military, and finance, and turned them to their own
 ends, to their own advantage. And that's the thing: to me, it seems that it is not from
 the Union that these benefits of science would come (in the WoD), but from the more
 brilliant and worthwhile sceintists. *Scientists* not *Technomancers*. Let's give
 Sleepers some credit, you know? The Union introduced the advanced technology
 and ideas, but the common man turned those ideas to good use -- the benefit of
 humanity at large. And to get rich or famous, probably.

 *Scientists* not *Technomancers*. I think that's my primary point here, perhaps...
 that I don't think anyone here is really attacking or condemning technology in and of
 itself... rather, it is the Technocracy we are criticizing. So, considering the presence of
 the Union in the WoD -- and considering that WW might be *critically* reflecting the
 real world's prejudices in their descriptions of the Garou's and the Mages'
 technophobia as well as that of the Masses -- it would seem that the much-discussed
 technophobia makes a bit more sense in the context of the *game*. And since we
 are in fact talking about the Technocracy when discussing the evils of WoD
 technology, we are not speaking in the same context if, in your game, the Union is an
 idealistic and generally beneficial group, as opposed to the "looming menace of
 monolithic proportions" described in Mage 2nd Ed. It may be a great game, but that's
 not what most of us are operating on.

 Oh, and as far as credit cards go, I would hardly call them "a tool for the common
 man to better manage income". Designed to trick people into high interest rates and
 entrap with precisely arranged payment schedules. When planning the nation's
 banking system, one bank owner walked out of the meetings in protest of the idea of
 the "credit" used in credit cards, calling it a system guaranteed to tie the common man
 into a debt that he will never be able to pay off, even throughout the rest of his life.
 Maybe the common person should be more financially aware and cautious, but that
 would mean not getting a credit card in most cases, and besides, the "common
 person" is unfortunately not much known for awareness and caution.

 Look at the Lotto, apparently "a tax for people who are bad a math..."

 I do, however, truly hope that the Tech.Player's Guide will put
 a less stereotyped  and more rounded-out spin on the rather
 stale old menace we know as the Union.

      "I'm not talking about people you know..."

      The fact is, the world is made up of people that *someone* knows. A
      study in the seventies or eighties--I certainly couldn't give an exact
      date--showed that there are a maximum of six degrees of seperation
      between any two people chosen at random. That was before the days
      of vast interpersonal networks; I wouldn't be surprised if it was down to
      five, or even four, now.

      Now, this doesn't mean that I would trust *everyone* in the universe as
      a Euthanatos--or as a Cultist of Extacy, for that matter--but remember,
      magic--unlike technology, to a certain extent--has a built-in limitation. If
      you are a psychotic killing machine, you will for the most part end up
      being destroyed by paradox before you do as much damage as a dink
      with a machine gun. And before you mention Marauders' immunity to
      paradox, they have a pact with the Wyld, the creative force, and are not
      likely to go on killing rampages without good reason.

      I don't like the idea of vast impersonal collectives precisely because any
      beaurocracy, conspiricy, or organization is made up of individuals. True,
      individuals behave differantly based on group sociodynamics, but every
      person is an individual with personal preferances, prejudices, emotions,
      and consciousness. That last is often downplayed--even as a member of
      a vast conspiricy, every member makes a personal choice to go along
      with it rather than defying their fellows and taking the consequences.
      The consequences may be dire, but the choice is there. I don't like the
      abdication of individual responsibility implicit in institutionalized
      decision-making. After all, isn't "the culture made me do it" as lame an
      excuse as "the devil made me do it"?

      That said, I'm not an anarchist. This is because a lot of people would be
      unable to handle anarchy--psychologically as much as socially. For the
      most part, humans are still group animals, and in any group, someone
      must be in charge.

      It seems to me that the Technocracy is betrayed as the villian simply
      because it *is* in power--if the Hermetics, for instance, were winning
      the Ascention War, then *they* would be the bad guys, have no doubt.
      Just as there is an inherant human need to have someone in
      charge--true, this "someone" is preferably a nebulous other that never
      appears in one's personal life--there is also an inherant tendancy to root
      for the underdog. However, one doesn't become the Good Guys just
      by virtue of being on the losing side of an ongoing conflict. Just a
      passing thought.

      -- Natoli
         ([email protected])

      NWO sourcebook, page 58 upper left hand corner insert follows:"[Not
      all black suits are robotic fascists, nor do all of them utilize a Hive
      Mind.] ..usually the training is so thorough that the group practically acts
      as one..."

      Translation: The Hive mind idea is a crock, designed to scare the
      Enemy into thinking he/she/it is up against something that is much larger,
      more powerful than they are. That way, they have to fight themselves
      AND the Union...Mind games is what the NWO is all about, after all.

      Sure, if you want to run the MIB teams as souless constructs that can't
      act on thier own, go ahead. But it's not very fun, and it dosen't really
      portray the NWO like they should be shown. Well, unless you just want
      to set up your players for something really nasty next time around. That
      would also be a very NWO thing to do.

      I hate to digress, but this should be mentioned: the television show "The
      Prisoner" really does a good job of showing what a mindscape run by
      the NWO would be like. 1984 had it good points, and Brave New
      World says quite a few things on the topic as well...but for sheer
      wierdness - watch that tv show. 7 shows into it, and I still didn't know
      what the hell was going on. I started watching it in hopes that a plot
      would show up. It did, around episode 15 I think it was...And the final
      episode...well, ya just gotta see it.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      One more thing:

      We do have a technocracy here in the U.S. What we do not have is a
      central distribution node, or an administrative office for the
      dissemination of technology or an organization that fulfills the functions
      of the [fictional] Technocratic Union.

      By technocracy, I mean that we have a group (actually, more like
      several groups of varying sizes) that see technological development to
      be the source of thier economic/political power. They will not slow
      down the pace of new developments, because the momentum is part of
      what keeps them in business. They focus on providing goods and
      services (of a technological nature) to consumers that need/want them,
      whether they need them is another matter entirely. Some do. some
      don't.

      This rapid developmental pace of technolgy is the hallmark of a
      Technocracy. Relatively small groups of people, who's powerbase is
      high-tech industry is another. Now, what they all *do* with this power
      differs...and that's where we can split hairs. but they all have this base in
      common.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

 Oh, something I forgot to post last night:

 It's probably mostly based on my dislike for having any easy Always Enemy like the
 nephandi, but... all that talk about the Void Engineer heroes and their valiant struggle
 against the horrors of the deep got me to thinking.

 If one takes a Hermetic approach to things (not necessarily talking WoD Hermetics
 here), one may see that "as above, so below" -- or in this case perhaps, "as within, so
 without." The Macrocosm and Microcosm are linked, and can effectively be used at
 some level to represent each other. This can be backed up by philosophical and
 scientific theories and evidence as well. So we have a world, the earth -- the
 macrocosm which may well correspond to the individual, any given person. Now,
 here we have terrors from the deep being brought up in this thread, and that's when I
 began wondering... I don't just buy the whole, "hey it's the Deep Dark Umbra and
 therefore there's things out there that'll eat us" schtick... of course, were I playing
 under an ST that DID buy that schtick, I'd be fighting just like anyone else. But that's
 not the point.

 I prefer to use symbolism and allegory in many of my games, and if I were to run
 something involving the deeps and darks, it would run counter to many of my
 observations and philosophies about the world if I were to support the rather
 paranoiac idea of Evil Things in The Shadows. I don't believe in evil, but rather in
 unpleasant or dangerous forces that must be mastered or avoided; if you say "of
 course", then we agree in concept if not in semantics. There is an opression, I feel, in
 playing the game with beasties and demons in the deep; though this oppression has
 more to do with superstitious religious and mystical (note: no "k") idealogy than with
 technological ideas, I feel it's worth mentioning here.

 So what about this: rather than a protective barrier erected by a heroic and Space
 Guardian-esque Union, the Horizon is actually a barrier that symbolically and thus
 magickally separates the conscious world from the subconscious, labeling all that lies
 outside the conscious world as Evil and Dangerous, and encouraging dissociation and
 separation? One criticism I have for people in general (in RL and especially in WoD)
 is that they seem far too separated from their subconscious, emotional, darker sides.
 We live in a world that seems far too polarized to me... half the people seem cold
 and emotionless, having suborned themselves to Reason (just a new God to follow
 blindly)... then the other half are so blindly emotional and superstitious that it's
 ridiculous. But even those who leap into the abyss of emotion don't really face
 anything dark,in fact they tend to be the ones running away from almost everything.
 This Horizon is merely a manifestation of the split, the fissure in modern society (not
 that it didn't exist in older society, but that's another topic) that has crippled humanity
 and made it very difficult to progress and achieve some kind of wholeness.

 We push our shadows away, our demons, our lusts, our fears, the repressed
 pushed-down squashed denied elements of ourselves. We allow it all to hide there in
 the darkness, and then most of the rare times we actually allow ourselves to confront
 them, we label them demons and evils. This is the mentality that has allowed for the
 superstitious, foolish, and ultimately self-destructive belief in a projected Satan/Devil
 figure -- an false idealogy that has created far too much pain and trouble in the world.
 Technology and science, unlike religion, does not by any means teach humanity to
 believe in devils, to fear the unknown -- rather they urge us to explore it, analyze it,
 learn about it. But I fear that they also inspire in some the tendancy to underestimate
 these shadows because of the very superstitions that foolish thought attached to them.
 Just because one's shadows are not servants of an Evil Demon Lord doesn't mean
 they can just be continually dismissed in favor of pursuing a better toaster or engine
 or genetic splicer or whatever. I have noticed a disturbing tendancy in those who
 most loudly proclaim the virtues of science and reason (of which I feel I am also an
 adherent) -- that they are often the most emotional of all, that all that cold logic and
 rabid anti-spiritualism (or anti-emotion, or whatever) is often only a thin veneer
 masking a person who so desperately seeks stability and order in their life that they
 will devote themselves as blindly to the banner of Science as any blind churchgoer
 ever did to their god(s).

 So perhaps it is the Horizon that is, in a sense at least, the enemy. Perhaps it is this
 polarization and easy dichotomization of our hidden selves into distant demons that
 causes much of the disharmony and non-productivity of our world. Or perhaps I've
 just rambled on for far too long about nothing at all. It could happen.

 And I would distinguish between Reason and Science... Reason is,
 in my sight, a near-divine tool with which humanity has been
 gifted (or has stumbled upon in the course of evolution, though
 you could say it amounts to the same thing).  Science is a
 limited but useful practice in which that tool among others
 can be put to use.  Science, by definition, is a process that
 cannot *prove* anything, but is useful in disproving and thus
 gaining a clearer understanding through process of elimination.

 A few comments here.

 TECH-COLLEGE-Y: At Keene State College all the courses are scrambling to get online
 pages. I have seen no anti-tech among them.

 TECHNO BOOKS: The biggest disappointment to me of the convention books were
 progenitors. Sure the gengineers and pharmacopists made sense but FACADE. HAhahahaha.
 Making monsters and clones as it's own group is laughable. In my game I got rid of FACADE
 and introduced the following.-Ecologists: The technocracy clean up crew/rebalancers.- Cladists:
 Helpers of the gengineers. Their subgroups (entomologists, ornithologists, ichtthyologists, etc.)
 are a dying breed. The pharmacopists absorbed the anatomists a while ago.- Behaviorists:
 (regulated by the NWO.)- Botanical league (does lots of work for pharmacopists.)

 I had more too if I can remember them.

 TECH VS. MYSTICISM: WHICH IS BETTER: This is as pointless as the "law vs. Chaos
 which is better" threads on the planescape mailing list. It's all a matter of extremes. The problem
 with science and gov't alike is that it's done by people. People are flawed and their are good
 people, bad people, and many misguided people.

 COBOL

 > At any rate, many business applications are written in COBOL. > This is because it's a
 language a trained monkey could learn, > and business prefers trained monkeys to intelligent >
 programmers.

 Now that's rediculous. Now get back to work Bobo we'll have more bananas ready when
 you're finished.

 Introducing the newest technocrats the Monkeys in Black.

 ChAoS

 on the law vs. chaos issue, I was one of the few who leaned towards law.
 I saw what insufficient control can do and it isn't funny.

      What a theme. More rambling than the Danude or the Colorado Rivers.
      When I saw the title I knew it was going to be filled with the
      ever-present the Union is wrong and the reliance of technology is evil
      vs. no they saved humanity from themselves, even the Hermetics can
      agree to that. Little did I expect such ill-thought out polictical theory and
      point-to-point analysis on actual socio-economic events and even
      political scandals thrown in. No it seems down to the "referencial
      stages" of the variations of Technocracy Good:Bad and can we make it
      better theme. As a sociology history major I have always used the term
      anti-technologicalism to indicate the ever-present reaction to cultural
      change. This usual crops up just before the "spiritual" movements that
      yearn to find the deeper, ancient truths that individuals use to strive for
      things they cannot achieve IRL. As somebody who has lived in Europe,
      I return to Germany about every two years to visit family, and the
      Middle East, I have seen technology and in various forms. I've treated
      people in explosions to sancitify me even further. If you are tired of
      Y2K then realize that your computer is a low-tech device. If you think
      otherwise then you trust used car sales people. Hi tech stuff like the
      typhoid vaccine or the air plane far excell their original purposes and at
      not much greater costs. If anyone thinks that the IRS or the Welfare
      System is going to disappear 1 Jan 2000, remember the thing the
      Egyptians made up called paper? I have all my $$$ in ledgers and on
      statements, do I need all that cash 2 Jan 2000, no probably not. To
      save the trees someone could say the Void Engineers working with the
      Iteration X developed plastic and grease pencils. I guess my point here
      is that the even the rationalists so far have been excluding some really
      obvious points. The Union isn't really about brainwashing its about
      success, I've heard that somewhere else....and finally WoD doesn't ever
      say Technology is evil. The Technocrats are using it for the wrong the
      reasons. So bullets don't kill people the arms dealers kill people.

      anybody get it? AT 651 probably does.

 Well said, Walrus, that is most of what I have been trying to say. I thought I
 said it clearly, but perhaps not... there have been many things even on this
 forum that I have believed I clearly stated, only to find that it was
 misunderstood, misinterpreted, or simply ignored. Of course, communication is
 a two-way street.

 However, rather personal tangents aside, I think we have established some
 fairly clear consensus here... aside from the emotional content inherent in some
 postings (bitterness and generally justified resentment), I feel it has been a
 somewhat productive thread... I'm sorry if Walrus or anyone else has been
 disappointed, but hey, what can ya do?

 So the points, off the top of my head, seem to be as follows:

 1) Technology is NOT evil.

 2) The Union has its good points and bad points, but is in fact mostly stagnant
 (outside those games in which the ST reworks the Union in a more positive
 light).

 3) IRL, technology has been an amazing blessing whose negative influences
 are mostly caused by lack of discipline or ethics in the users, and are generally
 reversible with fairly simple societal procedures and disciplines. Though I don't
 think this topic necessarily has enough to do with this thread to merit the
 attention it has gotten, it seems others DO think it's that important, so, okay...

 4) not all members of any group, including the Union, are all the same.

 5) oh I don't know I'm tired of this. You all get the point, and I'm sure if this
 list is realyl necessary, someone more eloquent and capable can surely write it
 up for you all...

 I hope my demons and Horizon thing didn't upset anyone
 or anything like that... it was just an idea that skipped
 across my mind.  Not an exceptionally complex or technical
 or highly-educated idea, granted... but I thought it was
 interesting...

 Just for the public record. Peregrin, I think you have done a wonderful job
 considering the unruly audience and yes your points were made. I just wanted
 to get back to anti-technologicalism. Sheer posturing just spell it out. Everybody
 has made some very good points.

 One day I will ask someone how to get spaces between points.

      Hmm...

      Thank you for that witty and insightful analysis there Walrus. Shame you
      didn't address the topic and instead decided to just insult and
      run....otherwise we might have had something to discuss.

      As if European economic stagnation was a good thing....geez.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Weaver, I thought I was addressing the topic. Which is a single-word
      and the implications thereof. If you find rebuffing you for wrapping
      yourself in a flag to expouse polictical points, is insulting- I just wanted
      to show there are those who can wrap themselves in a that same flag
      and be on the other side of the political spectrum. And still agree with
      you on many points. As I have a lot of respect for you I hope you don't
      take it too personally. I thought I had addressed quite a few points
      without dwelling to deeply. Others have already gone into greater depth
      on them. I will also apologize for bothering anyone else's sensibilities. I
      was reacting to platitudes and striving to enliven the discussion. As for
      the current issues discussed, I would like to see the Technocracy
      revamped also. I don't see WW doing it anytime to soon because how
      well they sold the setting, and the majority opinion of WW customers is
      jsut the opposite of the Book of Mirrors- which is not just to throw
      your television set out the windows.

      -- Walrus

      Walrus, I was hoping to read your views. I was hoping for even the
      occasional rant. Do you believe there is an anti-tech trend? If so, why?
      Can it be reversed?

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Peregrine Gray:

      Maybe I'm an idiot, but I disagree.I'm never going to say the unknown
      is inherently evil; it ain't. But I don't believe that there is _no_ evil. Evil is
      real.Furthermore, evil is precisely the force that WW portrays as the
      good guys: Dynamism. The Wyld and the Wyrm are one.

      Shocked? Don't be. We are stuck in a universe in which all change is
      ultimately for the worse--it hastens the winding-down process. The
      Wyld is chaos; the Wyrm is chaos. (Not saying you have to play the
      game that way; I'm making RL comparisons using WW metaphors.)

      You say one should deal with the ugly things lurking in your
      subconscious (I agree) rather than locking them away (I disagree). How
      else _can_ you deal with them, other than getting rid of them, tossing
      them out of your life, being done with them?

      The face of reason is the face of God.

      Maccabeus the Mad

      One God, One Truth; One Church, One World

      Walrus: But I LIKE pedantic posturing!

      Peregrine: Personally, I've always thought that suppressing ones own
      inner demons, darkness, etc. was a way of mastering or avoiding them.
      I've also found that by giving a name and a "face" to those forces,
      religions provide their adherents with a means of recognizing and basis
      for dealing with them.

      It is not that religions have given a name to darkness that is foolish and
      self-destructive, nor is it the prevelance of this practice that has caused
      so much of the suffering you described; it is the hubris that causes one
      to think that he has avoided or mastered these forces when he has in
      fact fallen in with and been mastered by them. It is the assumption that
      because he has successfully mastered or avoided these things once, he
      will do so in the future. This hubris pervades all faiths and belief
      systems.

      What is foolish is blaming the tool for the actions of its user. I don't
      blame ammonium nitrate for what Tim McVeigh did with it, nor do I
      blame Islam for the actions of Abu Nidal. To cite the Chewbacca
      Defense,"It just don't make sense."

      Religions and other belief systems are akin to science and technology in
      that they are tools used by humanity to help deal with the situation at
      hand, solve problems, pose answers to questions and questions to
      answers. They all can be used to suit the purposes of the user. This is
      more of a problem for one group than the other.

      The way I see it, Beyond the Horizon is the Great Unknown. There are
      things at which to marvel, things from which to run, things to embrace,
      and some that are any combination thereof. Then there are things that
      will lie in wait and gleefully eat you alive if they get the chance. The
      interesting part is that you won't always be able to tell which will do
      what. Now if that isn't a metaphor for the real world...

      Talk about high adventure.

      (Adjusting flag for fit)
      Seems everyone's wearing one of these.

      Damn, there’s a lot of material to respond to…Why do y’all have to
      post so darn much? :) Well, there's valuable-style information
      throughout, so here goes.

      As for the issues of scientists versus technomancers and those borne of
      the Technocratic Union in the World of Darkness: Mankind’s science
      does stem from the Technocratic Union. Not just in the broader sense,
      as in they brought about the Industrial Revolution, but in a more
      immediate and direct sense. The Union’s Timetable is very concerned
      with the rate of development of the Masses’ technology. This means
      that a lot of inventions are influenced by seeds that are spread through
      Technocratic influence. No, I realize that the man working behind the
      assembly line might not be a member of Iteration X, but the chances are
      that somewhere along the line, the design schematics were influenced by
      that Convention.

      For example, the Human Genome Project was directly started by the
      Progenitors to put Sleeper scientists to good use. They oftentimes use
      such projects as bases for research that they do not wish to conduct
      themselves. Indeed, the knowing hand of the Technocratic Union
      eventually guides most scientists. They make sure that things are going
      on schedule. This includes gene therapy and artificial limbs and the like.
      (I strongly recommend you buy the DW20 book and check under the
      helpful VR rig they’re currently donating to certain High Schools, it fits
      this VERY well.) It’s fairly symbiotic; one of their main goals is to show
      Sleepers that technology is useful and makes life more worth living.

      Of course, that’s a little one sided. A lot of this is dedicated to
      presenting technology that is so useful that Sleepers will be bound into
      their paradigm a little more. They also work with technologies that harm
      people, such as chemical weapons and guns. Moreover, their sole
      interaction is not to spread the seeds of wonderful new technologies to
      the people, it’s to carefully control it and keep it within the Timetable.
      This means sabotaging work that’s going too fast, either by cutting
      funding or disproving theories, or even more extreme measures.

      So technology is a boon in the WoD as well as real life. It is specifically
      formulated to help the Masses, and to be the best PR that the Union
      could ever have. It is so useful, sometimes even life saving, so that it
      cannot be struck from consensual reality. And so that it integrates itself
      into every aspect of every Sleeper’s life so that the Technocracy has a
      better tool in which to guide (you can read that as ‘control’ if you most)
      them towards a better end. There is an actual bulleted list in Digital Web
      2.0, one that espouses a much more progressive view then those
      presented in the core Mage book (probably something to do with
      internal refinements of the storyline and groups therein).

      As for trusting those members of the Technocracy and the hive mind
      issue: It’s a no one situation for these poor technocrats. First they are
      blasted for being mindless, soulless drones that do nothing but what they
      are ordered. And then they are attacked for being human, with faults
      and weaknesses. Technocrats are people as well. They lie in these six
      degrees of separation (this probably does not include those who dwell
      in horizon).

      Actually, most of them are. The Acolytes of the Technocracy, otherwise
      known as unEnlightened personnel carry out a good amount of the day
      to day work. They aren’t brainwashed, mindless mechanical bogeymen.
      Not only would this be rather stupid, it would be a tremendous waste of
      NWO resources. I’m sure that many of them do receive some mental
      condition as a part of their training. But that is to make sure that they
      have the strength and willpower to ensure that they can uphold the
      Technocratic ideal.

      Now, there are a few exceptions to this end. But they are tools that are
      used to a single end. HIT Marks are probably the most common
      example. So are the limited number of organic constructs that are used
      by the Technocratic Union. For the most part, they are living and
      nonliving machines under the direction of the Technocracy. And the
      Progenitors and Iteration X maintains control over them in case of any
      emergency. A specifically formulated retrovirus or a signal to
      nanomachines can instantly put a stop to a rampaging HIT Mark or
      other traitors to the Union.

      One of the points I made that was somewhat missed is the slanted
      perspective that a Mage probably has towards the Technocracy. And,
      to an extent, well they should. The concern of the Technocracy is the
      Masses, not those of the Traditions. They are dangerous random
      elements that must be nullified in one manner or another. The
      Technocracy feels that they are the greatest danger to the people,
      threatening to throw the world into chaos, or at least another Dark Age.
      With that in mind, they act accordingly.

      Finally, I’d like to say my piece about the Deep Umbra and the
      denizens throughout. First thing, I wasn’t thinking about the Nephandi in
      particular when I mentioned the Void Engineers in my little propaganda
      run. For everyone who wants to know, Peregrine in particular, I would
      recommend reading “The Book of the Wyrm (Second Edition)”. As
      much as I’m opposed to reading a Werewolf supplement (especially
      after Freak Legion), I found this to be quite well written and
      informative. The Black Spiral Dancers may be portrayed as dark,
      brutish beasts still, but the rest of the book is food for thought.

      It really does a good job of relating What is out there, and why it is so
      (both in nature and positioning). It gives a lot of insight into the Trait, the
      metaphysical creation story, and the reasoning behind the nature of the
      Wyrm (not just “it went crazy one day” or “it’s just really really bad”).
      What lies behind Horizon and in the Deep Umbra are any number of
      things that most of mankind needs protection from. From Urge Wyrms
      to the three aspects if the original Wyrm, everything is explained right
      there.

      And the way that it explains Famori is excellent (much better than Freak
      Legion, actually). Psychical manifestations of the darker side of human
      nature, they are warpings of the flesh that reflect what a person hides.
      They are still human. Sometimes painfully human, for all the torment that
      they endure and cause. They empower and are empowered by greed,
      lust, anger, hate, and the like. (See the comic in the front of Freak
      Legion for a somewhat well-done example.) It only makes sense, even
      from the Mage viewpoint.

      What is out in the Deep Umbra are the forces who wish to rework and
      balance the forces of creation. They feel that the Weaver, the static and
      balance force of existence has gone too far. Their first step is to tear
      down the Weaver’s Web, the fabric of society. They want a rebirth of
      the world, but they want it from a clean slate. This may sound like what
      I brought up in the Nephandi thread, but it was what was mentioned in
      The Book of the Wyrm. (I told you I was surprised by its content.) This
      includes the Urge Wyrms: creatures borne of the Wyrm's darkest
      thoughts. They are simply mistakes that should not be, accidentally
      empowered though a loss of control. It also acknowledged the
      presence of the Beyond, a place even farther removed to us than the
      Deep Umbra. Beyond Malfeas, stronghold of the Wyrm's servitors,
      there is something else, something completely unexplored and unknown.

      Not to say that I really agree with the idea that our civilization or
      whatever else of the Weaver is a seething tumor, either the cause or
      result of such a fundamental imbalance, but it is an interesting idea. I
      don't have the book in front of me, so I don't have many of the specifics
      at hand either. But I do remember musing that the servants of the Wyrm
      have a much better rationale than the Werewolf tribes themselves. It
      even is remarked that these misguided servants of the primal earth-spirit
      seek to destroy an aspect of balanced creation that should not (and
      possibly cannot) be destroyed.

      Besides, with the wide variety of things out there, there simply has to be
      /something/ to protect mankind from. Otherwise, those Void Engineers
      would have too cushy a job. :)

      -- Bit Nine

      As Bit Nine said, there's a LOT to respond too... yeesh. You know it's
      a good thread when the arguments you put forth are the easy part, and
      the hard part is keeping all the topics in mind and in order. =)

      Okay. First: Maccabeus (interesting name btw), I certainly would not
      call you an idiot, not at this point anyway =). I hope that time and testing
      will only strengthen my opinion.

      I think that the main point of contention between you and I, Maccabeus,
      is fairly evident -- you believe in the existance of Evil (presumably a
      facet of your implied religious tenets), and I do not (definitely a facet of
      my lack thereof). While this is a discussion debate I would be more than
      thrilled to further with you (no sarcasm, seriously), this thread is not the
      place... perhaps you could start another thread, and I will take the issue
      up with you there? I look forward to it. You may read through the
      Nephandi: Just Say No thread before starting, however, since much of
      what I have to say was said there. Bit Nine and I, among others,
      hammered some things out there, and I'm sure at least he would be
      relieved to see this topic not flare up again here. =)

      For summation's sake, I would see this disagreement so far as very
      similar to that which has arisen between church-mages (especially
      Christians) and some witches and pagans of old, in WoD. All agree that
      the unpleasant/"Evil" things must be controlled, must not master one. But
      where the church-mages see the avoidance and "locking away" of these
      "demons" as good enough, the types of witches I speak of believe that
      complete mastery can only come through accepting the darkness as a
      part of yourself -- and a part that is every bit as divine as the shiny
      happy parts. This runs close to my personal beliefs, which is to say, I
      have a "God" and a "Satan" within me, as part of me, but it is my Self
      (10th Sphere) that must control these deities and thus become Master
      of all the Self. Anyway, that's enough of that, I've already rattled on
      more than I intended.

      Oh. Except I wanted to ask about that "One God, One Truth; One
      Church, One World" thing... How In Character do you mean that, out
      of curiousity? It sounds frighteningly close to the Cabal of Pure Thought
      philosophies, which of course led swiftly to the One World tenets of the
      NWO...

      Next: ...oh shoot, I forgot AT651's comments, so we're back into the
      darkness/evil thing for a sec. His comments were wuite worthy of
      response though, so here goes... let's see... okay, I agree that religions
      have in many ways helped in efforts to master the shadows of the Self,
      which is the primary reason I still have some respect for the religions of
      the world. Also, hubris is indeed the primary issue, but what I was
      saying is that by giving the shadows a name, many adherents to religious
      tenets manage to convince themselves that it's that easy, that by naming
      your shadow Satan and repeating "Get thee behind me!" over and over
      -- or the emotional/spiritual version thereof -- they have solved the
      problem. You lust? just don't think about it, push it away, deny it. You
      hate? Hate is bad, push it away, lock it away. You are magnificent?
      Pride is evil, give your merit to a Higher Force, accept nothing upon
      yourSelf. This denial, this terrible obliviating humility, conceals (I
      beleive) a hubris that is all the more powerful for its disguise and
      subtlety. By handing over all responsibility for good and evil to a Higher
      Force, and by so rigidly and drastically separating that Higher Force (as
      well as the Evil) from oneSelf, one allows oneself a sort of smug and
      quiet pride... the faithful servant has once again defeated evil and
      escaped its diabolical snares. "I am SO faithful." And yet meanwhile, the
      lusts and hatreds and shadows that are locked away, given to the Lord
      (or whoever), gnaw at one from within, because they can't really be just
      handed over, they must be dealt with. And so it builds, and fear is
      mongered, and Crusades are begun, and greed festers in the faithful,
      and the useful and worthwhile tenets of the religion fade from disuse.

      Eck! And THAT was much longer than I intended. I am aware that this
      is a quite cynical view of religion, but I don't hink it's unfounded... I do
      have some respect for the religions of the world, and certainly do not
      dispute one's right to belive as desired. This is how I see it. If my
      perspective is flawed, or has led me to inaccurate conclusions, I would
      very much like to know about it -- it's more important to me that I
      become correct than it is for me to have *been* correct, if you get my
      meaning. =)

      Continued in my next posting...

      Okay. And then there's this talk of flags, which I must say has me a bit
      baffled...

      Bit Nine, excellent posting as usual, but I still fail to see a... well, I
      cannot grasp what anchoring foundation your views are tied to. From
      what I can tell, it seems that your views stem mainly from your personal
      opinion, what you desire the Union to be like -- which is great, go with
      that, and it even makes sense. But my main dispute there would be that
      it just isn't described that way in most of the books.

      *epiphany*

      ...which may well be your whole point... well slap me silly! Sorry for
      missing that one for so long... hm... well, in any case, even if we are
      essentially discussing the sourcebooks' lack of your more positive views
      on Technology/Technomancy, I would take some umbrage...

      Let me see. I would say that, in this new light, my response would be
      that -- while I agree that it is foolish to blame the tool for the acts of the
      ones who utilize that tool -- I think we can agree that there *are* some
      adverse effects that modern society has seen from technology. Just as
      with mysticism, religion, sex, any other societal function... and they
      probably have created *more* adverse effects simply because they've
      been around much longer. But I think you will agree to certain elements
      of technology in our society... eg, television and its reduction of the
      average attention span, the general disinterest in anything that is not
      flashy and squished into a soundbyte. The creation and perpetuation of
      as many "opiates for the masses" as possible -- religion, entertainment,
      etc. -- seeking to keep the majority of the world stupid and happy. The
      pathetic insufficiency of the school systems of the US alone. Yes, it
      does come down to "the masses" to be responsible for their own
      intelligence and their own actions, but they just don't, and the thing is
      they all live in a society (in societies) that are designed to perpetuate that
      ignorance and opiated satiety. It makes things great for the 2% who
      control and benefit from all the resources. And so one could take it
      down to Darwin's survival of the fittest, and sure, maybe that'd be fine.
      But humanity alone has the capacity to rise above Hobbes's savage
      world, the state of war. And capitalism *may* be the best thing thought
      up so far (?), but it sure ain't all that great.

      Anyway, my point IS: the WoD has been painted dark, with TV
      zombies in two out of three homes, and with factory drones pushing out
      the nine-to-five routine in submission to the stagnant Technomantic
      paradigm. This doesn't make technology wrong, but it does insinuate
      that the Union's use of it (and more importantly, the ideas behind it).
      wrong, or at least questionable. I've always seen the views you've
      espoused, Bit Nine, as being more those of the Technorebels, the VAs
      especially... the Union has stagnated and falled to corruption and
      massive bureacracy; the VAs want to set things right, to establish the
      beneficient ascendancy of properly-used technology. Used not to
      control and shepherd, but to offer and improve, to expand and create.

      And yes, I totally agree that since M:tA has been mostly from the
      mystick's POV, it is slanted. You kindof expect that if you go with the
      idea that the Union has been hunting them down and either
      "conditioning" them or murdering them (according to the sourcebooks).
      Though I have reworked it so that the Union doesn't even see msyticks
      as enough of a threat to hunt down anymore, they only confront them
      when it becomes necessary to intimidate them into being less vulgar or
      abandoning that portal-opening idea....

      Okay, and thanks for the recommendation, B9, I'll try to pick up
      BoWyrm 2nd Ed. I would certainly like to see the so-called "evil" of the
      WoD described less simplistically and superstitiously... I've always had
      a quiet little twinge of sympathy for the Wyrm.

      And of course you're right, the VEs have something to protect
      themselves and us from... just as, in that allegory I offered, there are
      dangers lurking in the subconscious. And Reason and science do offer
      one of the best systems for confronting and mastering these dangers,
      though the Union as described may not do so well with their general
      xenophobia and reality-tyranny.

      I'M DONE! I'M REALLY REALLY DONE!!! =)

      "Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
       But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game..."

 ok here goes. Where is that soapbox?....Okay, let me try this approach…AT 651, sorry about the bum wrap.

 Homo Sapiens took a step forward and edged out their primary competitors the Neanderthal by developing the Stealth projectile. Rather than stepping in front of that Water Buffalo and taking chances coming down to the nitty-gritty with something that weighed 40 times more than themselves, they threw something at the dang thing.  Even when the Egyptians, Chinese, and Sumerians had a few more then 10 people to keep record of the invented “writing.” These concepts in and of themselves made the impossible possible. The first was to effectively strike at a potential threat much greater than you in sheer capabilities and overcome, secondly was to keep track of things. With this humans were able to feed themselves and provide for others. I’m certain that while the Neanderthals and the Bar Bar tribes of the Far Hills had some pretty big movement reactionary
movements, they still went the way of the white buffalo. So to me anti-technologicalism is not a new phenomena.

 The current anti-technologicalism basically bemoans the lost of the unmeasurable, the mysterious, the
undefinable. Which is fine and dandy, if there were no God, mankind would invent him. Of course the same guy  who said that also rationalized that humans in France were inherently different from humans in say Germany or
 England because of metaphysical supremacy. Considering this line of reasoning helped the European nations
 spread over half the face of the Earth, I suppose it was a successful paradigm. But it also came to a
 dysfunctional end that took place in two major conflicts that utterly destroyed the societies that supported these
 beliefs. It also showed us the horrors of Social Darwinism taken to extremes, namely perpetual war and
 genocide for the sake of expansion. These later day Darwinist presented themselves as “modernists” and were
 using the technological wonders of the time, excluding the parts they didn’t like such as the growing free flow of
 information. Now the “Modernist” of I am encountering expouse free flow information as the end-all and base
 all truth on it, ignoring their own faults, that resembles the Tower of Babel in its complexity, forgetting that math
 is the universal language. They ignore the advances that have taken place around them such an economy that
 wont go bust if most of a nation’s population is at their optimal weight level. Or the fact that the guns and tanks
 can still get to where they are needed within weeks because of resources made available by taxes. This is a form
 of anti-technologicalism and a dangerous one that seduces its believers into a paradigm that can’t even talk to
 itself let alone most of humanity.

 Evil, good, it’s all a subjective label, given relativity. But the mysterious will always be there. Those that see
 cycles are missing the fact that the Tellurian is infinite. Or at least that is what they are selling.

 I suppose that's a 'red' flag huh? I should rip up Walrus and RP AT 234 from now on.

      Peregrine Grey:

      So as not to alarm you too much, I'll tell you that "One God, One Truth;
      One Church, One World" is the motto of the Dominion, an
      alternate-universe counterpart of the Technocracy in an article I'm
      writing for Constantine Thomas. He has an online supplement called
      "The Continuum," dealing with alternate Earths; while I don't much like
      his metaphysics the rest of the supplement is excellent. On Dominion,
      the old-style religious factions of the Order of Reason won out instead
      of the new-order atheist factions. It's considerably less black and
      corrupted than the World of Darkness, but still grey, so to speak. So
      yes, I mean that primarily IC, and you can take it as an ad for my new
      article.

      However, I've got to admit that, taken word-for-word, I think there's
      some truth in it: if there's one God (as I believe there is), then one truth
      makes good sense; and if the one God created one church (which is
      reasonable enough), then that church ought to be able to serve as a
      basis for world unification, at least in theory. Cabal of Pure Thought? I
      suppose I could fit with that, if I were a mage in Dark Ages Europe; but
      one thing I _don't_ believe in is religious persecution. Rather, I'd think
      that, following the above line of reasoning, all people who claim to
      believe in the same God ought to be able to come to the same
      conclusions about religion if they know where to look to find God's
      word. So I might find myself in trouble with the hierarchy if I were part
      of the Cabal.

      Maccabeus the Mad

      One God, One Truth;
      One Church, One World

      Hey everyone, I'm gonna start a new thread to contain all that
      evil/umbra/cabalofpurethought stuff so that we can more easily get back
      to the technology issue here... the new thread will come eventually, and
      I'd like to have the same intelligent and worthwhile contributions on the
      topic that have been seen here...

      </end shameless ass-kissing>

      =)

      Hmmm... Maybe I /didn't/ make myself as clear as I thought I did...

      It's not that I thought that this part of the Technocracy was absent from
      the books, it is just that it seemed to be downplayed and often ignored.
      The Progenitors mentioned their good to the Masses almost as a side
      issue as they went through a point-by-point relationship chart with other
      supernatural groups.

      But much of my views are based on the ideas that the books are
      unrefined, part of the earlier versions of Mage where not everything had
      been thought out and some things were still simplified. Digital Web 2.0
      is actually a key part of substantiation for this belief, as they have that 3
      page (75-77) spread on the New World Virtual High School Expo
      Center, in which they mention parts of the updated Timetable and paint
      a picture of the Union that (almost...?) perfectly synchs up with mine. A
      contradiction this may be, but I really do prefer to think of it as a
      correction or refinement.

      Since I don't really expect you all to run out to the bookstore to pick
      this up (though I hope you eventually will), I'll do a little quoting:

      "Orginally designed and engineered in a cooperative effort between
      NWO educators and Syndicate managers, the Expo has been designed
      primarily for Sleepers. Schools across the United States... are being
      given cheap, simple VR rigs, allowing entire classrooms to visist the
      Expo center at once... In short, the kids love it, the teachers love it, and
      nobody has probed too deeply to find its source of funding."

      And it goes on to mention that there is no Mind Magick subverting the
      will of the children, or Quintessence Drain Net set up to power their
      killing machines, and so on. It is just there to increase the love of
      technology and increase other's view of its useful applications. It really is
      a powerful educating tool, partially intended to show that the best use of
      technology is in the hands of the authorities or government.

      Of course, the history lessons presented in the Expo are done in the
      Technocracy's viewpoint (they built it!), and sticking with the group is
      very much encouraged. But /this/ is perfect for a believable
      Technocracy that makes SENSE. It is also one of the first pieces of
      information on how the Technocracy deals with Sleepers, put forward
      in a subjective manner.

      (Boo! They're controlling reality and shaping the future by providing
      educational tools... I love it.)

      This has really upped my hopes for a Technocracy Player's Guide.
      Finally, the World of Darkness is bending to my own personal views!
      Mwa ha ha! Well, maybe it is just coincidence, but it's still there. Take a
      look at the book, my quote barely scratched the surface.

      And it does even talk about the duality of feelings that the Virtual
      Adepts have for this particular Technocratic project. Kids who have
      never been interested in learning before now have been instilled with a
      thirst for knowledge and a love for learning. But the lessons they pick
      up along the way...

      And in a way, this is all the more scary then mindless drones sitting in
      front of television sets. I found Brave New World infinately more
      disturbing than 1984 because it was all the more plausable. The
      updated Technocratic Timetable might just be to establish a Brave New
      World Order: "(A) Technology is fun, attractive, and essential."

      -- Bit Nine

      FYI, the boys up at the FDIC have come up with a new idea. They
      want to have all the bank's generate 'user profiles' on all thier customers.
      Yep, that's right - every dime you deposit gets tracked. If you deviate
      from that profile, the bank tellers would be required by law to forward
      your name and account number to the government. An FBI review
      would then occur (with IRS help) to determine if your funds should be
      seized and legal proceedings initiated. Nowhere in all of this is it
      mentioned that a court order would be needed. The 'user profiles'
      would be created by the bank and forwarded/maintained by the
      government.

      I didn't make this up. This is a real proposal, by real government types
      at the FDIC. It's under review, and they plan implimentation by 2000.
      The Msnbc website has a story on it, if you don't believe me.

      does this scare the hell out of anyone else save me?I mean, I'm a
      technophile...but come on!

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Weaver> That _is_ scary.

      And I'm a law-and-order kinda guy.

      What exactly is in these profiles? Just the amount of money you deposit
      and withdraw? And if so, what does it mean to "deviate" from the
      profile?

      There are days when I hear something new about the crime rate and
      something so atrocious is going on I wonder if we should just scrap half
      the Bill of Rights and start over. But this...well, it's pretty
      dangerous-sounding.

      Maccabeus the Mad

      One God, One Truth;
      One Church, One World

      The 'user profiles' would contain information about your bank habits. In
      other words, it would contain when you deposit, how much you
      deposit, where you desposit it, who payed you, how much you
      withdraw and how often, who you wrote checks to, and how often.

      So, if you got paid on a bi-weekly basis and you deposit a third check
      during a month when you normally wouldn't - you get reported to the
      FDIC. Now, that check could have come from a lottery winning, or
      maybe a friend pays off an old debt. It dosen't matter. You get
      reported. And the really sad thing is that you'll never know it. The FDIC
      is proposing that they be completly confidental about this. So, if some
      guy thinks you're outside your profile he can report you to the IRS
      and/or FBI and he never has to tell you. You have no appeal, and under
      current federal laws if it is determined that this money is coming from
      illegal sources, the feds get to seize your assets. Actually, they get to
      seize your assest first - no warrent needed (hmm...that pesky 4th
      amendment. never liked it much anyways...). Then they go to a judge
      and say they have probably cause. Did I mention that since you now
      have no money, it's hard to get a lawyer to defend you against this?
      Sorry, you must be drug dealing scum so it's ok.

      I really liked the Bill of Rights. Shame it dosen't apply to U.S. citizens
      anymore....

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      From what I've read about the new law it seems to an electronic
      extension of existing laws where the bank's personnel are supposed to
      have been doing in the realm of analog data collection. Not to come off
      as a supporter of this action because it really makes my taxes difficult. I
      really enjoyed the breathing space of "who is ever going to really be
      looking" into the $1,000 for that gig and the $400 for that gig as long as
      its put into a savings account. Big Brother may yet get its due in stead of
      charity to organizations I approve of.

      -- Walrus

 Let me get this straight. We have yet another system whereby the US gov't has created
 a system solely for the purpose of tracking down ignorant, small-time criminals who are
 doing next to no damage and grossly inconveniencing everybody else?

 That's it. I'm liquidating my assets and dumping them somewhere outside the country.
 Come to think of it, I should probably dump myself out as well.

 You know, I would probably buy all of the technocracy propaganda if it weren't for the
 fact that it means the end of privacy. I somehow balk at not being able to be
 unwatched. Other than that, I suppose that I am a technophile myself. But if anybody
 has the time to check out the TRW webpage (the tech company, not the credit thing)
 and look at some of the people tracking systems, one may be able to see why it is
 enough to make me wish to either run screaming for a desert in Australia or to find
 someway to outsmart an increasingly smarter system.

 Unfortunately, as I will never have 2.3 children, I will always be
 suspected of lack of adherence to normal standards...

      But, Erasmus, that's precisely the point!

      So long as people are permitted privacy, they can do as they please
      without fear of getting caught. Granted, most of the time it'll just be
      something they're embarrassed of doing. But privacy also means the
      freedom to plan doing anything from knocking off a bank to
      assassinating the President--in some cases, to actually go ahead and
      commit the crime.

      I'm ambiguous about any claims to privacy. On the one hand, there are
      things I'd rather the government kept its nose out of. On the other hand,
      having the government know about things gives them the ability, at least
      in theory, to protect me. I half-suspect that some day it'll become totally
      impossible for police to collect any evidence at all without violating
      somebody's privacy...at least, if the crime is of any serious nature. And
      on the other hand, (maybe at the same time), I suppose it could come to
      the point where they're aware of anything small-time and nab people
      who steal two bucks by mistake instantly.

      *G* "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.
      Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you
      will have praise from the same." Rom. 13:3

      *EG*

      Maccabeus the Mad

      One God, One Truth;
      One Church, One World

      *sigh* I think I see why maccabeus calls himself mad....

      There are many many many things I can quote about why privacy, and
      freedom are so important. 200 years of American history for one. It's
      not pretty, it's damn inconvienent sometimes...but it's worked.

      Let's look at a worse case situation. Say the lib's get all thier orwellian
      wet dreams made real. That means if someone in 'The Governement'
      decides that they need to raise taxes. Guess what - since we're now a
      totally electronic cash society it's automaticaly deducted from your pay.
      But say that the gov't thinks it's unfair that white, christian, male, right
      handed, computer programmers make far too much money. So they
      plug thier filter into the system to rake most of thier taxes from that
      specific group. Isn't that nice? No need for 'gridlock', no need for
      congress, no debate. Clean, neat and effecient.

      And that's just a tame example of this. So let's say that an administration
      wants to target thier political enemies (and what organization dosen't?).
      Since we're all in a database now, they can filter the data to isolate thier
      opponents. They can find who they contribute to, if they have kids,
      where those kids go to school, if they're married and if thier parents are
      alive or dead. All by clicking on a mouse. Then they can alter financal
      data to move certain groups out of the cities. By moving the jobs, a few
      incentive here, tax break there - and you have all your undesirables
      where nobody sees them. And since all the tv shows are filtered not to
      show 'violence' and 'inflammatory' news - nobody will know or care.
      'but the internet!?' you cry? Well, since the gov't centralized all data
      processing - it's easy to kill any such stories with a simple blocking
      program. Just write an online 'bot to hunt down stories with 'offensive'
      language. Then track it to it's source (with the imbedded id number on
      all computers that's too easy) and get rid of that guy too.

      Read the Federalist Papers folks. All of them. Pay attention to history.
      It's coming around again.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Weaver> I said outright that there were drawbacks to the loss of
      privacy. I agree with everything you've said.

      I also pointed out that there were drawbacks to privacy. At least the
      government has a theoretical moral restraint; criminals don't.

      Imagine what life would be like if the government couldn't poke its nose
      into anything. No law enforcement, no chance of small companies
      breaking into the big time, X-rated movies on Saturday morning for
      kids...from the obvious to the ludicrous.

      Anarchy is tyranny as certainly as totalitarianism.

      Maccabeus the Mad

      One God, One Truth
      One Church, One World

      Okay, so we've established that extremes generally aren't good. Cool.
      And everyone made good points. I just wanted to comment on a couple
      of things...

      >"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do
      you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will
      have praise from the same." Rom. 13:3 <

      The problem I have with this quote is that authority is not always the
      good and beneficial thing that it would ideally be. Not to mention that
      what I think is Good may well not be what authority thinks is Good. To
      a degree I suborn my opinion to that of authority, due to the Social
      Contract, but hell, when it comes down to it, screw that. I've dealt with
      this for a long time, and it sucks. When I had my van with twenty or so
      *interesting* but non-volatile bumper stickers on it, I got pulled over for
      no reason at least every couple weeks in the small towns near where I
      live. I've been fired for: having Tarot cards, talking critically about
      Christianity, having a child without being married, and not sleeping with
      a manager. Of course, there were cover reasons, and many will think it
      sounds paranoid or something. But that's what happened, and most of
      the other employees knew it. Now this doesn't mean that all authority is
      corrupt, just that it shouldn't be blindly obeyed, and nor should one
      assume that by doing what one thinks is right one will avoid persecution.
      Remember that under communist regimes, rulers were definitely a
      "cause of fear" for any kind of religious belief. Sorry to go on and on,
      that just seems a particularly silly thing for a Holy Book to say. But then
      again, maybe Macc's *G* and *EG* were expressions of that same
      regard, I don't know. =)

      > At least the government has a theoretical moral restraint; criminals
      don't. <

      I don't think the conflict is really between the gov. and the criminals, at
      least not most of the time. Most of the time, it comes down to The
      Government vs. Everyone Else (The Public). Criminals are generally an
      exception. Though I wonder who wouldn't become a criminal to feed a
      starving family, if there were no other likely ways out. And for those
      who would naively say that there's always some other way out, there
      isn't. Not always.

      "You sing for joy,
       I sing for exorcism..."

      Morality aside for the moment, let's talk practicalities. Our founding
      fathers knew they couldn't trust the 'masses' to govern themselves.
      Jefferson talked about the 'tyranny of the majority' in a couple of
      publications. BTW, that's why I think he'd have HATED polls. Talk
      about tyranny...but I digres.

      They knew that government is nothing but a group of men. Men are
      flawed and therefor so is government. Ergo - create a system that
      presumes that corrupt men will pervert the intent of the constitution and
      build in ways to short circut thier eventually attempt at corrupt
      government. Those guys were pretty smart, if you ask me. So, sure - i'll
      concede that maybe the folks who want all this control really do have
      society's best interests at heart. Maybe they really do think it's for the
      best that personal space and privacy are forever extinguished. But what
      about 10 years from now? Can you assure me that my grandkids aren't
      going to be enslaved by a facist regime that I allowed to happen in the
      name of safety? Can you, without any doubt, assure that the next
      administration and EVERY ONE that comes after it, will be honest and
      not be corrupted by the almost god-like power it will inherit over it's
      citizens?

      Of course not. THAT's why it's important to fight something like this.
      Time for my generation to get off it's butt and do something about it.
      And you can to.

      I can't remember who said it, but it's still true:"all that is necessary for
      evil to win is for men of good conscience to do nothing."

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

 The inherent problem, as I see it, is that anyone who does not wish the details of
 her or his existence "tracked" will automatically end up in the "criminal" category.

 Incidentally, "theoretical moral standard" or not, I have known a great many
 "criminals" who I considered moral people. Actually, even from a proportional
 standpoint, most of the representatives of government that I have known are
 considerably less "moral" than most of the criminals I have known. This is
 admittedly according to my own rather subjective standards.

 Disclaimer: That last paragraph was not an absolute. I in no way approve of the
 vast majority of common law felonies.

 The statement that anarchy is tyranny is, by definition, false. However, despotism
 is usually a quick follow-up to it and the problems associated with that tend to be
 even worse. Further, I would tend to agree that anarchy is not a wonderful thing.

 The question is, "Where does one draw the line?" What is a "good" level of
 government intervention? I'm something of a technophile, and I like the fact that I
 can sit here and write this post, but I would like to remain secure in the fact that I
 will not be arrested for posting this.

 Incidentally, for something on a fairly related note, check out
 www.guinessrecords.com. It has an interesting piece on a cracker (hacker?)
 named Kevin Mitnick, who may be the only suspected criminal in US history held
 without a bail hearing.`

 Hmmm.  I've purchased a lot of roleplaying material on a bank
 card.  Will this end up marking me as a suspected instigator
 of "subversive" activities?  After all, this is not "normal"
 financial behavior...

      Erasmus: Granted that the "Anarchy is tyranny" statement is false by
      definition; it is not, however, false in practice. That is, in a state of
      anarchy, those who have the most personal power (strength,
      intelligence, guns, etc.) quickly seize the opportunity to take over
      everyone else's lives.

      That's all I meant.

      Maccabeus the Mad

      One God, One Truth;
      One Church, One World

      I think Mac and Eramus has some very good perspective on the issue
      being defined here. Weaver, I think the federalist papers are grand and
      I really dig the works of Thomas Paine. Well, given the background let
      me jump into the nitty-gritty of on the ground partisanship here.
      Anybody who has ever lived in a town where less than 3,000 ppl lived
      also knows that there is no such thing as privacy. People behave in
      ways that aren't going to be approved by everybody all the time. What
      the small towner knows that the big city kid forgot, is that secrecy
      makes work for itself. So if the religious right wanted to get me, a
      white-male leftist with 1.8 kids, a veteran status, and a member of the
      the local neighborhood council, and they talk Joe Smith on the NSA to
      authorize sweeping checks of my elctronic behavior. When they go
      public with the fact that I set a $40 tab on my Visa at a titty bar one
      night and drew out $40 from an ATM the following Tuesday across the
      street from a gay dance night at the Copa, I can simply state that is none
      of their damn business if I were either place or what I was doing in
      either place and where did then ask them where did they get the
      information. If the argument continues on for so long, somebody,
      hopefully a friend of Stansfield Turner, else in the security loop is going
      to get tired of all the noise and check out where the source of problem
      is coming from. I suppose the point to all this rambling is that as stated
      before humans are a social and therefore political animal. It isn't the
      disclosure of information that is making things dangerous it is the
      irrational and unrealistic belief that some have the right to privacy in the
      form of edited records of their behavior. As proof of this I offer your
      favorite scandal. Had the accused said, "that is none of your damn
      business" there would've speculation but no real *legal* offense.
      Sounding the alarm and calling the farmers in from the field to tell them
      about the information age isn't going to make Newt Ginrich president.

      Aren't I being just silly? But I am serious.

      I lost about twelve separate words in that last post. Does anybody else
      have that problem?

      -- Walrus the hick

      Walrus, um...I hardly know where I should begin...

      So let me see if I understand - you have no problem with being a
      number and a file on someone's computer somewhere. Knowing that
      this file could be pulled, your medical, financial, psych info could/would
      be evaluated and if it was determined by the 'experts' that you were an
      enemy of the state by the current administration that you would have the
      federal government do Bad Things to you and your family. You know
      the routine - round ups, camps in the desert, loss of property and the
      odd family member. 'GASP'! I hear you cry -'It can never happen here!
      This is america!' hmm...House UnAmerican Activities Commitee, the
      roundup of all japanese citizens after the Pearl Harbor incident, and that
      syphillus testing on black american males just to name a few of the more
      anti-social things some folks did with unrestricted access.

      Now, I'm not saying that american government is evil, it isn't. But I don't
      trust in the kindness of folks with any sort of power. Imagine a gamer
      twink with the power to jerk your family around, and you can't stop
      him. That's the sort of thing that scares me. Power in necessary for a
      government to function - but limits are needed to avoid tyranny. What
      we have here is the potential for a tyrannical government with
      unbelievable invasive potential. It'll start small. Almost un-noticed. Like
      the Nazi's did in 1928. Nobody ever thought they'd amount to anything.
      But once they get into the driver's seat - it'll be too late.

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      Weaver you are right in two points of your argument. The fascist did in
      deed take control of their nations through clandestine coup de tet’s that
      the populace only heard of afterwards. And that complacency in the
      benevolence of the powers that be can lead to supporting the wrong
      leaders. Why was WW II so destructive? The Germans believed what
      they were fighting for. Ask any VFW member or Wehrmacht survivor.

      And the misapplication of medical science, governmental investigative
      processes being manipulated by political factions, and the classic
      examples of xenophobic rationale to dehumanize portions of any
      population have occurred in our beloved cradle of civilization into the
      third millennium. They also happen to be well-documented and the
      same form of government that existed after the ratification of the
      Federalist Papers is still place, despite the events.

      But the alarmist approach you take doesn’t lead people to flock to the
      Open Net Coalition, Physicians Without Borders, the ACLU, or
      Amnesty International. It gets people into neo-occultism and reactionary
      militant groups.

      On one hand we have those that are so frightened about the pawns of
      ZOG that blow up buildings in Kansas and shoot physician’s at their
      dining room tables because of their work at clinics the assassin’s religion
      does not approve of. Our oppressive Federal government, is so
      ineffective that it finds two whole conspirators involved in the bombing
      of a Federal building and no one can find who is bombing clinics and
      using a store-bought deer rifle as a sniper rifle. No it is because while
      the Fed’s and cops are probably smart enough to see what’s going on,
      they are ‘traditional’ enough with the respect of law that these unsung
      heros of the ultra-right can hide in the backwaters with support from the
      locals. So why can’t they stop the neo-fascists they encounter back at
      the office?

      Then there are those that wash their hands of any sort of involvement
      with humanity what so ever. I was arguing, debating actually with a
      Shaman friend of mine at a campfire a couple of months ago. He spoke
      of the forthcoming Millennium’s end and the evil portents it boded. I
      asked what specifically he was talking about. He did not answer that a
      bunch of militants from the compounds were going to use the Y2K thing
      as an excuse to crack his non-Godly skull or that the MiB’s where
      going to look as this as an excuse to bust his canibus habit. He pointed
      out that “there were too many people. Without out computers we
      cannot feed ourselves or get electricity.” When I pointed out that the
      USA has 1/10th the world’s population and uses 90% of the world’s
      resources, he nodded. And places like Asia and Central America have
      been living in the low tech era with tremendous population booms for
      about 30 years now, he didn’t debate the validity of my quotes. He in
      stead, went on to the shifting of the Earth’s magnetic pole to the
      Southern Hemisphere and the revelations that would Armageddon, the
      movie, look tame. I didn’t bother to point out the magnetic pole has
      probably shifted a few times over the last 7 billion years or so. He was
      being so very entertaining at this point.

      I’ll refer back to my original Soapbox argument about the
      anti-technologicalism being a way of trying to achieve what is not readily
      handy in the realm of the rationale. I will shut up now.

      boy i talk to much.

      My comments, actually my personal beliefs. Government is necessary
      and I feel they are far more inept than they are corrupt. That's why I
      don't fear the gov't stamping a number on my and filing me away, they
      lose most of what they file. Heck, some studies of events like the FBI
      clean ups a while back and a few gov't clean ups show most classified
      files are pointless garbage that was lost. In the unlikely place a
      dictatorship does take place I'll leave, New Hampshire is low priority
      and it should buy me some time to step across the line to our neighbor
      to the north. Plus unless fishing, roll playing, or being online is declared
      an illegal activity I have no problem. I barely hang out with my friends, I
      have almost no social life (but enough of one not to be a reclusive
      loner), I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or go to parties. I don't fear
      gov't corruption. Laws never concern me, I have been more hurt by lax
      laws than by laws. Back in high school it was painful, I didn't fit in. I
      was interested in science, history, nature, and learning. Not in parties,
      the hot new TV show, or the newest band. I was hit, pinched, kicked,
      called names, and broken down until in tears. Ask the teachers and all I
      got was ignore them and they will go away. I did that (and I looked at
      what I was doing that made me stand out and stopped it.) It took until
      twelvth grade for me to have friends I can talk to (before their friends
      didn't like me and they preferred their friend.) 7th-11th grade were a
      hell that could have been stopped with stronger law and more devoted
      enforcement.

      Now here I am, senior year of college, and I have friends that share my
      interests but I'm effected. Cynicism fills me at those who live only to get
      drunk and vandalize things, or those who go to their weekly parties
      (those who were creul in the old days loved talking about their parties
      and illegal deeds) just to get hammered (talk about stasis, every week
      the same thing, party), or those frats who say "join us and be an
      individual" if I'm an individual why should I join your group, I'd join
      whatever I want or better yet join nothing at all and be happy.

      What does make me nervous is the idea of corporate corruption. And
      anytime I see companies and the gov't getting close (subsidies for
      example) it makes me nervous. You see companies would do anything
      to make a buck and if you ban one activity they'll just move elsewhere
      to where it is legal. They also actively search for loopholes that allow
      them to continue breaking the law and exploiting people, natural
      resources, etc.

      -- ChAoS

 The question is not, "Is having every aspect of my life scrutinized and 'decided'
 upon by persons I do not know 'bad'."

 Presented gradually, few will ever notice. Fewer will even care.

 The question should be, "If I do decide that this is a bad thing, what should be
 done about it?"

 I go to parties. I drink. I smoke. I have a whole slew of other vices, both popular
 and less so (like being a compulsive roleplayer).

 More than anything I am afraid. I have a daughter who will have to grow up in a
 world where popular image is compulsory. I honestly wish I could believe in the
 "justice" and "humanitarianism" of our current system, but I have personally seen
 too many times any possibility of that hope being crushed. (I don't suppose
 working in a lawyer's office helped.)

 Free fishing is already outlawed in many places in this country for several reasons,
 some of which I consider "good" and some of which I consider "evil." As far as
 roleplaying goes, people at the moment tend to limit themselves to ostracism of the
 offender, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this will continue to be
 the case indefinitely. And as for the internet, we have already begun to see what is
 happening to rights of "free press/speach/assembly." I do not argue that the current
 targets of limitation are neccessarily wrong (<18 viewing porn, etc.) but again,
 given historical precedent, I have no reason to believe that it will continue at that
 level. In DW2.0 there is an interesting spread on the technocracy and what it is
 doing in schools. If you think WW is making this shit up, check out
 http://www.trw.com/ and look at their education projects.

 I just want to know what to do. I know that I can live, survive, and for all intents
 and purposes, do well through such proceedings. I would rather not, however.

 If you think that I'm overstating the case, please let me know
 at which point I am doing so.  I will be greatly relieved.

      One of the most facinating points about this proposed regulation is how
      it does an 'end run' around the fourth amendment. Today the New York
      Times reports that congress passed a resolution 88-0 against this new
      regulation. Even they see it as a bad thing, and if THEY can figure it
      out....well, it's pretty obvious...

      The point about incompetent government and all-inclusive files needs to
      be addressed as well. While I agree that our folks in D.C. couldn't find
      thier rear ends without a map, that isn't any protection. Consider this:
      said incompetent chair warmer makes a mistake with your file, instead
      of putting you in the 'clueless loser' outbox - he puts you in the 'Enemy
      of the state' file. And you now have no recourse to the entire fed gov
      riding down on your head. No law will protect you, no men of good
      conscious are there (they got shot - they asked too many questions,
      don't ya know?) to stop it.

      This is a Bad Thing. FYI, Europe is going to hit the U.S. with sanctions
      because we have such a bad track record on privacy. The ALGORE
      has appointed a 'privacy' guru to look into the matter, but won't give
      any interviews. Nobody knows this guy's views on personal privacy and
      government intrusion. Scary, eh?

      -- Weaver
         ([email protected])

      I'm not suggesting mindless trusting of gov't and society, I'd be a fool to
      do that. I'm just against people being obsessively paranoid. It's far
      better in my mind to be a bit too much on the trusting side and suffer
      from it than to be a bit too paranoid, and making everyone suffer (by
      bombing buildings owned by the what you believe to be a corrupt gov't
      and stuff.)

      -- ChAoS

      Weaver the Congress voting it down proves my point about people
      don't just wake up to a whole new world everyday. And could we stop
      all this sanctimonious(?) crying about our kids. My daughter has
      effective ways to track me down if I should skip town and leave her
      mother without any support. Back in the good old days, I wouldn't even
      have had to hide in the military if I left the county. If anti-technology
      means forgeting what has already been discovered to be indulgent in
      false hysterics and 'photo ops' somebody elect me president of GTE.

      breathing out.