ok... so Stand Alone is simply that?

[Marf]

wow, I didn't know that. Kinda' like how the CIA gave the north vietnamese army the name 'vietcong' because their existing names weren't 'sinister' enough.

Precisely, the powers that be needed a simple sinister sounding name to call the supposed "threat" which as with communism during the cold war was used to rally people behind their cause.

I would suggest you watch "The Power of Nightmares" bbc documentary, it covers this in great detail and is available on google video.

I think your right, the attacks on London and Madrid seemed to be directly in response to the home governments war on terror stance and the actions of coalition forces abroad(iraq/afghanistan) rather than a direct response to OBL's call to arms.

I've often wondered if OBL is merely a pawn(whether knowingly or not) being used as Kuze was to further an agenda. There are numerous reports around the net of the US intelligence services being offered OBL's head on a platter(the pakistani army tracked him down weeks after 9/11, ditto the UK army) yet they ignored the offer or acted too late to catch him.

In fact all factions involved act in very similar ways with almost identical soundbite(swap patriot/martyr, Jihad/WarOnTerror, GodGiven/InAllah'sName and so on...).

This I feel is a key point, its almost like the western leaders nod towards god when they talk about the war on terror(ref Blairs recent comments about God being the one to judge his actions in Iraq), almost as if its a holy war, or at least they are trying to make Islamist Jihadists believe so to push them to act.

Its a dirty dirty game.

[AlphonseVanWorden]

Perhaps we're speaking too loosely...

But wouldn't these more recent terrorist cells be mimics of the US war-on-terror meme, rather than OBLs Jihad meme?

Elmo, I have to disagree with you on these first points. It seems to me that your (implied) version downplays the manner in which a "jihadist" meme-complex operates. Once someone is infected by a "jihadist" meme-complex, the person more often than not develops a vaccime (sic- a memetic immunity) to the U.S. "War on Terror" meme-complex. For a jihadist to even consider the War on Terror meme-complex as valid or true (always necessary for memetic infection and mimicry to occur) would be to run the risk of admitting the possibility that s/he is a terrorist and not a warrior fighting for a sacred and just cause. It would take a similar but different meme or meme-complex (say, a different and more moderate Islamic narrative) to work as a retromeme and rewrite the jihadist meme-complex-- and the War on Terror meme-complex doesn't function that way. So, sure, folks who're infected by the jihadist meme-complex probably watch Bush and Blair... and think those two men are evil and are lying. (But they already believed that, so...) Similarly, the War on Terror meme-complex presupposes that the jihadists are evil, deluded, or lying. To put this another way, the War on Terror meme-complex has a relationship to the jihadist meme-complex only insofar as the "War on Terror" causes "our" side to behave in a way that reinforces (and for those who are immuno-depressed or infected, proves the validity of) the jihadist meme-complex.

We could discribe the two things- the War on Terror and the Jihadist meme-complexes-- as counter- or complimentary meme-complexes... in the same way that the Individualists and refugees in 2nd Gig are counter- yet complimentary meme-complexes. And that situation existed before Gouda came along... he simply (and deliberately) escalated matters, in order to serve a purpose that neither the refugees nor, I think, the original Individual Eleven would've approved of.

I suspect that, given Gouda was working with or trying to guide pre-existing meme-complexes, the resulting movement'll kick him in the posterior at some point.

If I'm not mistaken, Gouda implied that he was also the product of a stand alone complex... which is a kind of meme-complex.

Wheels within wheels...

Memes within memes.

And, based on my experiences with government officials, they're just not as intelligent or scientifically-minded as Gouda. There's a bit of a difference between influencing voters, trying to spin a news item, and playing geopolitics. The larger the system's scale, the harder it is to control things.

You seem to imply that the jihadist meme-complex's origin is bin Laden-- which excludes bin Laden's debt to Shaikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam and Azzam's own debt to earlier Islamic revolutionaries and theologians, and overlooks the pre-existing conditions-- cultural, political, economic, historical-- that allowed the memes to converge and form a meme-complex, then to mutate and spread. To use terms common in memetics: Different immuno-depressants hit several populations. (The Asian bubble-economies burst and it feels like divine punishment for materialism and like exploitation and manipulation by, say, Australian and U.S. businesses and banks; the bourgeoisie evaporates in many Middle Eastern nations; many Arab Moslems look at Western support for Israel and perceive it in terms of Palestinean suffering; cultural values and city skylines change thanks to globalization and modernization, and people start noticing the way money seems to move in certain economies; the legacies of imperialism, colonialism, and the aftermaths of Cold War proxy conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East create feelings of resentment in those regions; immigrant communities feel excluded from the social, educational, and economic structures of their host-nations.) Behind these immuno-depressants, and within them, we have certain narratives involving the past-- other memes-- at work. Several meme-complexes arise under the all-encompassing word "jihad"- a pretty loose term in today's world. Some Moslems use the word in the sense of a spiritual struggle, while others within Islam use the word to describe certain types of nationalist, ethnic, or sectarian activity; to promote a sort of action that's seen as vital to resurrecting the Caliphate; to encourage action against U.S. and Western presence in and involvement with certain nations (including not only Iraq but Saudi Arabia); to include fatwahs being issued against those who offend certain sects or communities.

We have the classic preconditions and components of a meme-complex in "jihad" and "al-Qaeda". (Notice the quotation marks; these aren't simply memes, they're also meme-complexes, and as such have more than one "meaning" or aspect.) Immuno-depression, infection, the bait meme, the threat and villain-versus-victim memes, the reward meme, mimicry, replication.

The term "jihad" implies more than one thing in the Arabic language and means more than one thing in the context of Islamic teachings; the meaning that's stuck in the consciousness of most Westerners is that of violent action, the "jihad of the sword"-- and while this reduces the term's meaning to one of armed conflict, and while such a meaning has undoubtedly been exploited by the Western media and by certain politicians, the word was and is used by radical Islamic clerics and foundamentalist revolutionaries precisely because of the religious connotations. It's not as if the Western media or the U.S. government planted that meme in the Moslem world-- they just observed it and ran with it. And the "jihad of the sword" means something different to us than it does to believers...

And at a certain point, "al-Qaeda" and "jihad" become catch-alls for "terrorism" or "violent resistance", depending upon your position. (For what it's worth, the term "al-Qaeda" was used by the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to refer to training camps and bases in the 1980s; both the term's popular meaning in the Islamic world and the U.S. government's use of the name derive from that.) And people who act in the name of this (loose association of) ideologies demonstrate what memeticists refer to as "memoid" behavior, i.e. they function in such a way that the meme or meme-complex is more important to them than their individual, physical survival. To become a martyr is not only to gain a reward in the afterlife, it is to promote the meme in this life, by setting an example...

To quote former NSC Deputy Director of Counterterrorism Roger Cressey: “Al-Qaida, as we knew it, is pretty much on its death bed now. I mean, we've had real successes in attriting its capability [including funding], so the organization that attacked us on 9/11 no longer poses the same type of threat. That’s the good news. The bad news is we've seen a growth in this global Sunni extremist movement, partly driven by Iraq, but also by other events, which is much more difficult to track, follow and ultimately disrupt. So as we're doing really well against what was al-Qaeda, we've got a new threat — this movement, which is much more of a challenge.”

Want to convince someone to do something? You could invoke a hero-type or a mythic/salvation narrative or something similar and use that to inspire folks. But some of what people do in the name of jihad and al-Qaeda has little or nothing to do with bin Laden's stated goals. In fact, he's not even an origin-point, nor is al-Qaeda the original of the behavior or meme. He and his organization are merely visible signs of the jihadist meme-complexes, and "bin Laden" becomes a means of transmission, a vector rather than a memetic engineer. One could make the case that the "bin Laden" we and most people know (the image, the persona) is merely the media-oriented (or created) manifestation of any number of ideas, a kind of floating signifier... perhaps even a copy without an original in Baudrillard's sense of the simulacrum, as mass media transforms him into something more than (and perhaps less than) real-- so that the "original" matters less than what the images or words "mean" in different contexts.

A lot of the discussion and invoking of bin Laden occurs after infection. First, people feel a certain way, then they're exposed to a given jihadist meme-complex (and one wonders if the al-Qaeda sites the London bombers were looking at were al-Qaeda sites, or al-Qaeda-inspired sites), then they do something... then someone invokes jihad, bin Laden, or al-Qaeda to explain it. But it's not really the "actual" bin Laden they're talking about. The preconditions are already there; bin Laden and al-Qaeda are simply signifiers-- and inspirations. Perhaps they provide focus... but this focus is more about inspiration than actual instruction.

This happens in some segments the Moslem world... and it feeds into the Western system's beliefs.

You're familiar with emergent processes and phenomena, of course. It's something like those things, too.

Does the West's reaction to these things feed into the meme-complex's increased replication? Sure. But that works both ways.

So I'm not sure I'd say that the West "created" the meme. It may feed the meme-complex... but not in the way you and marf seem to be implying.

It seems you're thinking more in terms of how the meme-complex works from a Western perspective... how "our" actions feed into "their" meme-complex, and how "their" meme-complex feeds into "our" own meme-complexes. The articulated views seem pretty centered on the West. I'm suggesting that it's interesting and instructive to watch how "their" meme-complex developed and spread from an approximation of "their" point-of-view, or with an overview of their history in mind. (And yes, those quotation marks signify irony.)

To look at the jihad meme-complex, I'll quote two texts-- one from 2006, and one from 1979.

We are a nation, for which God has disallowed treachery and lying... You tried to deny us the decent life, but you cannot deny us a decent death. Refraining from performing jihad, which is sanctioned by our religion, is an appalling sin. The best way of death for us is under the shadows of swords… There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars. Hence, we can understand the insistence of Bush and his gang to continue the war. If you have a genuine will to achieve security and peace, we have already answered you. - Osama bin-Laden, January 2006 tape

The sin upon this present generation, for not advancing towards Afghanistan, Palestine, the Philippines, Kashmir, Lebanon, Chad, Eritria, etc, is greater than the sin inherited from the loss of the lands which have previously fallen into the possession of the kaffir [infidel]. We have to concentrate our efforts on Afghanistan and Palestine now, because they have become our foremost problems. Moreover, our occupying enemies are very deceptive and execute programs to extend their power in these regions. If we were to resolve this dilemma we would resolve a great deal of complications. - Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, The Defense of Moslem Lands: The First Obligation After Faith, 1979

Notice the similarities between the two quotations. It's simply that mass media and global communications give the more recent statement wider exposure-- and spread the meme-complex more effectively.

This I feel is a key point, its almost like the western leaders nod towards god when they talk about the war on terror(ref Blairs recent comments about God being the one to judge his actions in Iraq), almost as if its a holy war, or at least they are trying to make Islamist Jihadists believe so to push them to act.

Its a dirty dirty game.

merf, I think the way "God" functions in the two discourses is radically different, even though the rhetoric appears similar. I think the similarity has more to do with how memetic transmission occurs-- with how memetic infection and reinforcement strategies resemble each other-- than with anything like similarities between the belief systems. I'm tempted to cut-and-paste some quotes which suggest that for some in the West, "God" is associated with "free trade" and "democracy" and such-- in short, with Western notions of "history" and "progress". (More ironic quotation marks-- and I'd propose that "God" doesn't have to be present in the discourse for "free trade" and "democracy" and "progress" to have similar, although not quite identical, values.) In the other discourse, "God" seems to be associated with "tradition" and "our identity as Moslems". The former uses the terms "barbaric" and "fascist" to describe the latter, and the latter uses the labels "Zionist" and "infidel" to describe the former. (I'm not going to cut-and-paste examples of these positions, simply because I think I can make the case without quoting from representative speakers and writers, and because I find both positions pretty dismissive and downright meaningless-- in short, pretty self-congratulatory, and not communicating much in terms of information.)

One advocates capitalism, and the other sees capitalism as evil. One sees U.S. and Western investment and presence as necessary to participation in a global economy and therefore good, while the other sees these things as an abomination being performed upon God's chosen people.

Honestly, I don't think Blair's and Bush's comments about God influence anyone in the way you're suggesting... except for those who're already inclined to agree with what they're saying, or those Westerners who have a meme-complex which causes them to view religious references with suspicion. For the jihadists and potential jihadists, those two leaders are simply acting in character. For many other non-Westerners, it's just an indication that those leaders are... well, however and whatever a given group thinks those leaders are. So that stuff gets cycled... just to reinforce the idea.

A lot of that kind of language is more about preaching to the converted-- and about groups and individuals talking to themselves-- than it is about communication with outsiders per se. And lot of listening is about hearing what you want to hear, too.

[ghengis]

to address the original question posed in this thread...

the origin of the idea of a "stand alone complex" (in laymans terms, a copy without an original) most likely stems from french philosopher Jean Baudrillard's work "Simulacra and Simulation."

A simulacra is by definition a "copy without an original." The book is a straight philosophical read and can be hard to get through at times but its a great read and will hekp you understand the core idea behind what I feel the writers of SAC were trying to portray.

[shawndow1]

thansk for getting bak to the orignal topic...

[sonic]

In (simple) terms of the story, I figured it was the "condition" that the terrorists in SAC that Section 9 are always preventing from ruining society have... they could be said to have a "stand alone complex" (mentally- you know, because they are separating themselves from society... and even though they sometimes work in groups, maybe at route they are really just on their own). Really it just seemed like what Motoko said in the very first episode to that guy she was chasing.

But yeah, it's also a gimmick for the way the episodes are arranged (the stand alones (hah, irony) and the complexes).

[THYREN]

Indeed "Al-Qaeda" is a stand alone complex.

Because the group in itself does exist, I don't know why you can call it a SAC. It would have been if it were only a myth created by the CIA, but because it has been created by the CIA to fight the Russians, as a real group, I don't think you can consider it as a SAC.

[Lightice]

Indeed "Al-Qaeda" is a stand alone complex.

Because the group in itself does exist, I don't know why you can call it a SAC. It would have been if it were only a myth created by the CIA, but because it has been created by the CIA to fight the Russians, as a real group, I don't think you can consider it as a SAC.

It doesn't need to be a myth. It just means, that it's "followers" don't have anything to do with the main body, aside from ideals. The original Al-Qaeda was just the core that inspired the other fighters. As such, they qualify as a SAC.

[djcode6]

The stand alone complex is like a bubble chart but there is no center so the e-mail leads to the man called the laughing man which leads to the guys that tried to carry out the assassination. The black mail and the majors impersonation where not copy's but where taking advantage of the situation. so there is no lines connecting the chart but if they knew who wrote the e-mail found by the laughing man he would be the original because he inspired the action that started the phenomenon.

As for the Dynamic of section 9 it is not as much a stand alone complex as it is simply gravitation as is pointed out in the 2nd gig. they have been drawn to the majors skill and ability same with the chief. Another example of this is in the mental institution the laughing man it gravitated to cause of his skill and is called chief by all the kids or kousa the refugees follow him cause of his ability's and his conviction in the cause even after he went against them.

[geckochan]

I agree with ghengis' Baudrillard reference. The Laughing Man is a hyperreality - the representation takes on a life of it's own and become its own reality, separate from what it originally referred to. The Laughing Man himself states that he never called himself the Laughing Man - this was a title applied to him by the government through media for their own uses, so the Laughing Man presented to the public was a different thing from the originals actions, and therefore never really existed as an original.
I did wish the show had gone more into the copycats - all ordinary people with no affiliations to anarchic groups or previous similar behaviour. I believe at some point in discussing this Motoko mentioned it having to do with their cyberbrains (?but I'm not sure), which made me think that people using cyberbrains in combination with their actual ghost/mind/whatever take in information while having less behavioural precedents with which to process that information, making people more susceptible to this sort of response. (That's just my own thoughts though since I didn't think the behaviour of the copycat assassins was adequately accounted for.)

[Elmo]

I agree with ghengis' Baudrillard reference. The Laughing Man is a hyperreality - the representation takes on a life of it's own and become its own reality, separate from what it originally referred to. The Laughing Man himself states that he never called himself the Laughing Man - this was a title applied to him by the government through media for their own uses, so the Laughing Man presented to the public was a different thing from the originals actions, and therefore never really existed as an original.
I did wish the show had gone more into the copycats - all ordinary people with no affiliations to anarchic groups or previous similar behaviour. I believe at some point in discussing this Motoko mentioned it having to do with their cyberbrains (?but I'm not sure), which made me think that people using cyberbrains in combination with their actual ghost/mind/whatever take in information while having less behavioural precedents with which to process that information, making people more susceptible to this sort of response. (That's just my own thoughts though since I didn't think the behaviour of the copycat assassins was adequately accounted for.)

Good post, my opinions pretty much echo what you've said especially about hyperreality - SAC is most definately a simulation without a referent, but does SAC represent a counterfeit reality, a copy of reality, or a produced replacement reality in which the mimic has become more real than the prior reality?


(I love the idea Baudrillard's 'orders of simulacra', mainly because I once got away with not handing in a philosophy essay by telling my teacher I rejected his reality and substituted my own )

[geckochan]

does SAC represent a counterfeit reality, a copy of reality, or a produced replacement reality in which the mimic has become more real than the prior reality?

I wonder - probably something of a sliding scale - it starts out as a purposely manipulated counterfeit reality, but its propagation into the public consciousness results in action that makes it it's own reality more real than the prior reality perhaps? After having the reality of his actual actions so thoroughly co-opted, the laughing man really acts more as an individual, sort of forfeiting that reality to what it has become and forging a new one for himself. I wonder what would have happened if he had tried to regain control of the phenomena?

(PS: lol! Your prof must have had rather a good sense of humour to let you get away with that!)

[DELETED]

DELETED

[DELETED]

DELETED