"Naming is nevertheless a tricky business; it leads to the problem of individualisation." - Galloway and Thacker

increasingly undynamic relations on social media represent types of mob shaming justice, or to be named as such, makes one actual as such, as memory and programming work in fundamentally different ways: both can be altered, but only one makes any attempt to do so. Memory is more impermanent and more permanent than we realize. Collective memory reduces. On the `net. Guilt is irrelevant as guilt is never manifest, only a kind of ousting of the failure, a cutting of the cancer, a reducing of the tribal size.

in taking on a name the `net defines your actual presence in that handle after handle doesn't matter if your IP connects you with your locale (spacial actual locale) and your identity, thereby establishing a personhood, ie non-anonymous. people are always watching and Richard Stallman has the right idea. Don't buy anything with your real name. That makes you becoming.

The technophobe occultist understands the power of the name. it can take disparate things and make them singular ("Al Qaeda", "the Internet"). this is all stolen from Thacker and Galloway. Naming them in relation to each other doesn't evoke their actual identities but their identity as an author-team, as co-authors, like Deleuze and Guatarri, it's meaningless. or at least it means something other than what is intended, if anything is intended at all. everything people do is aimed at simplifying inherently disconnected and difficult ideas because nobody likes complexity, including people tasked with talking about complexity. creating names is shorthand for reduction. My name isn't that I am but a way to signify my meat-bag.

Pointing fingers. getting out those pitchforks. paragraph on paragraph of anonymous. remain anonymous. redact your name from the records. as soon as your birth certificate is signed and your government name is given you're a slave to the system, and without that government name, you exist outside of the government, non-quantifiable, a non-essence. A nothing. early `net interactions were largely done through fake names and handles, and some still are, but places like Facebook and Twitter want to push you toward your real name, to give you real consequences for your real actions. mid-90s frenzy over what our anonymous status was doing to our psyche. tho we've always been racist troll-mongers assholes sexists homophobes etc etc, just easier to piss you off if your target isn't Jimmy Smith but rather bluebeard17834. nobody wants to argue with a string of random numbers.

patchy beginnings. moving onto v2.0. iterative upgrades insist on solid foundations. hitting that knee-wall, hitting that knee-curve, jut up into exponentiality. can't get there without the naming to create a false sense of control.

After you were born 'they' registered your birth, a 'legal-entity' was then created, here's how 1. This 'entity' has a name that sounds and looks like your name, however 'this name' as an entity is not the same thing... it is separate from the physical YOU. 2. This is the LEGAL NAME and it appears on the Birth Certificate, ID's, Passports and Commercial documents. 3. You are not this LEGAL NAME, and you do not own, nor can own, this legal name. 4. When 'they' (your parents?) registered your birth on the certificate, they unknowingly gave ownership of this name to the Crown Corporation. Simply thus, all legal names are owned by the Crown, and therefore using a legal name without their written permission is fraud. 5. All 'bodies' attached to a LEGAL NAME, (you/me/anyone claiming/consenting in saying Yes!) are therefore also 'owned' by the Crown, meaning; when you 'claim/join' a LEGAL NAME you are consenting to be property owned by the Crown. e.g. Such as: Q: What is your name? A: You say 'blah blah blah'... or "My name is Blah Blah", or Q: is this you? as the 'person' hold's your ID card, A: And YOU say YES! Yikes... You just JOINED in AGAIN to the GAME. A: Yes i am 'your name' which is accepted as being 'YOUR NAME'... 'joinder' achieved boom, so read on...

above text stolen from here.

nonetheless ranting gov't conspiracy theory aside it has a point, the naming claims consent/power over the individual object. what's in a name? everything is in a name, everything is shoved into it. magick.