On fabulation and fake news

-what differentiates fake news from fabulation?

-what differentiates fabulation from imagination?

- what is the role of acceleration on the first one?

State of affairs / conditions of the event / double movement / powers of the false / the falsifier / double bind

                Important: powers of the false is not moral, thus not per se good

                A different logic

                

                create conditions of the emergency of novelty (beautiful !!! is this not more contrast in the Whiteheadian sense?)

                or

                directedness  novelty through "ceaseless shapeshifting" ------ >  

 is it only a vectorial issue? Noooo :: hmmmm, for a while i thought about vectors as singular movements (or possible), a bit like how mckenzie wark thinks about vectors as being of neoliberal capital (https://tinyurl.com/yc7q7qzn)

How can fake news still plug into the force of the powers of the false? Punctum? Barthes?

dispositives of full fabulation or fake operations?  Deepfakes porn has serious consequences

The technique Henrikson (2016, p. 182) invokes is related to the open-endedness of the circulation regime of those figures, not aiming for a deniability of its microfascistic or reactionary essence but tricking it, let the spectre spread its word. “I offer this trick in the form of corrections”. To “correct” may seem to be a very normative technique, but her interest rests not in its moral predicates, but in the mechanisms it can activate. “When the hoax engages, it performs a pledge, that is, it promises an allegiance, returning us to conjuration as a conspiracy against the ghost, with the ghost.” (Ibid., p. 177). The question to be done is “what does that mean?”, or “is it ethical”, but “how does it operate?”. Which contagiousness mechanism is involved and in which we can be involved to trick or correct it?

cases:

-nunes memo (https://www.democracynow.org/2018/2/1/marcy_wheeler_on_showdown_over_nunes)

-slack wave (changing all the channel names): moving with the qualities (still responsible, thus not effacing agency)

- greg gregging greggy


<nunes memo>

State of affairs: an FBI research into the relations between president Trump’s election team, helpers and family and the Russians. This research inquires into whether there had been any contact between the two parties, and above all whether this contact had possibly any relation to the suspected Russian interference and influencing in the election won by Trump.

As the investigation has been progressing, several media have picked up that FBI researcher Comey has gotten closer to the Trump group in the sense of having found certain links. As this had been going around in the media, it is obvious that the republicans have begun to move against the research and the FBI as a whole to dismantle and disarm the possible threat it poses to Trump’s staff and his presidency.

Memo: around mid-January the republican party as well as Trump have begun talking about a certain memo that has been written by Republican Congressmember Devin Nunes of California. This memo “purports to show that the FBI abused its power when it began surveilling Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016 due to his dealings with Russia.”

The question concerning this memo is not so much what it contains -- as has become apparent it has a suggestive tone towards this apparent abuse but does not give definite facts as it itself undermines this possibility by stating that the research had been going on longer before -- but more so what it does.

What this memo does, and this seems to part of a larger operation of strategy employed by the republicans since Trump’s presidency, is to defuse any concretion of facts by employing a suggestive power that preemptively removes the threat. In line with a logic of fake news, the republican party and notably Trump self have been circulating statements that seem to have no ground whatsoever but are merely expressions made against what is considered a fact. Moreover, these expressions are often double in the sense that they can contradict other said expressions as well as even internal contradictions. As a matter of fact, a lot of the times they seem to be gathering their strength particularly from these contradictions: somehow they operationalise a double bind to create a thick veil where it matters more who says something and how it is said, then what is being said.

The most important thing to the memo was then also not so much its content, but rather the way it suspends and undermines any actual matters of fact. That it had been ...

<logic>

It would seem to us more than obvious that such mechanisms no longer functions with and through a logic of truth or any logical construction towards it. Rather it affirms the powers of the false and its affective force to the fullest.

How such a strategy seems to affirm this is through a conscious understanding of media and its power to amplify, intensify and accelerate. As such expressions get caught in the mass circulation of messages, shifting from one medium to another mustering up more and more intensity, they have long since moved beyond the speed in which the logic of truth wants to and needs to function.

As with the memo, by the time the actual content has been published (and of course this is still purposly ambiguous)