• BigLamed
• Uncategorized

This post is also available in:

Strategy — Openness is the most terrible thing for power’s manipulation

Methodological Annotation: This work examines the concept of radical transparency as a systemic antidote to entropic methods of governance based on concealing decision-making algorithms and distorting feedback.

Hmm.. maybe take this as a strategy? Openness to the “manipulation of power” — this is the most terrible thing for it))))) This is where the law on volunteers from December 1 becomes clear…. to drive everyone into a controlled stall and suppress the civil movement…. And publicity…. moreover… political opponents can support such a “movement” ))))) Make the next step: Demand to introduce a law on the openness of financial reporting of Public Organizations! (or reduce the scope of the first step — only volunteer ones))))) Technically, opening funding sources and expenses — a couple of weeks)))) Just announce what is already de facto: Arestovich is in an honest and open position for Ukraine… Next, for example, Arestovich opens a “declaration” .. let everyone make noise and argue…. (in any case, this will come out in the fight against him)))))) But this also neutralizes a likely future step, but on the other hand, it’s an argument in future debates…. And simple questions: Have you opened your declaration? Why? etc. Or after that, propose to the same Prytula to open a declaration….)))))) Propose to anyone))))) Next, you can push further…. so that they open financial reports and expenses… for example, city councils….. Here, the top of power might also want to “squeeze local elites” )))))) And don’t forget…. about the “Boyd loop” ….)))))) The main thing.. is that everything looks “innocent” at first glance)))) And preferably… in such a way… that you can say “but I didn’t do anything” !!!!))))) it’s not me))) it just happened that way…. That is, it is necessary to act with “subthreshold actions” …. In terms of project management, this is called the preliminary stage of project preparation)))) in military terms — shaping the battlefield. and in management, such a technique has the term “scorch the earth under the TOPs” …))))) And you use the external interest of groups….))))) And externally maintain actions in the form of “presentation of opponents” … In this case — the struggle for power)))))) I don’t know.. but I think… that strategically — it’s better to lose the elections now…. Although I understand…. that there are moral aspects to such actions… but maybe it still makes sense to think about uniting Ukrainians on the field of archetypes? I understand that uniting on toad and envy — seems not very moral… But on the other hand — as psychologists… you understand that apart from “burning through” all this — there is no other way….

Conducting a semantic assembly in the Lamed Group field. Beginning level analysis of the article “Strategy — Openness is the most terrible thing for power’s manipulation.”

1. Facts (Raw Material)
The article is a strategic sketch in which you propose using openness and transparency as a weapon against power’s manipulations. The text is born from a specific political context (the law on volunteers from December 1) and unfolds into a multi-move tactic:

• Demand openness of financial reporting from public/volunteer organizations.

• Use public declarations (Arestovich, Prytula, then everyone) as a tool.

• Act “subthreshold,” maintaining external innocence (“but I didn’t do anything”).

• Use the concept of the “Boyd loop” and the term “scorch the earth under the TOPs.”

• Strategic dilemma: perhaps it’s better to lose the elections now, but unite Ukrainians on the “field of archetypes,” burning through negativity.

2. Assessment according to the refined methodology

Step 2. Counting “semantic nodes” (N)

The text is short but very dense in its applied part. I count 12 key nodes:

1. Basic thesis: openness is the most terrible weapon against power’s manipulations.

2. Diagnosis of the current moment: the law on volunteers as an attempt to drive everyone into a “controlled stall.”

3. First tactical move: demand openness of financial reporting from public organizations (or volunteer ones).

4. Technical feasibility: this is achievable in a couple of weeks.

5. Public declaration by Arestovich: as a first step, creating a precedent.

6. Neutralizing future attacks: openness deprives opponents of this leverage.

7. Expanding to other politicians: propose opening declarations to Prytula and others.

8. Escalation: demand openness from city councils and local elites.

9. Method — “subthreshold actions”: act in a way that allows saying “I didn’t do anything, it just happened.”

10. Using concepts: “Boyd loop,” “scorch the earth under the TOPs,” preliminary preparation stage.

11. Playing on external interests: leveraging the interest of different groups.

12. Strategic dilemma: perhaps it’s better to lose the elections now, but unite people on the field of archetypes, “burning through” negativity.

N = 12

Step 3. Counting “interpretation variance” (D)

Predicting reactions of hypothetical readers:

• Reader A (political activist): “Genius tactic! Adopting this. Especially the part about ‘subthreshold actions’.” (4)

• Reader B (opponent of Arestovich): “Yet another manipulation. They want to whitewash their own and blacken others.” (2)

• Reader C (political strategist): “Interesting combination. Openness as a weapon is a classic, but tied to the context and the ‘Boyd loop’ — is powerful.” (4)

• Reader D (layperson): “Complicated, but the idea about openness is right. Let everyone open up.” (3)

• Reader E (representative of the Lamed field): “An ideal illustration of ‘controlled foolishness’ and ‘aikido’ in politics. You propose not to fight the system, but to use its own tools (openness, declarations) against it, while staying in the shadows.” (5)

The variance is very high. D = 4.5

Step 4. Counting “resonance energy” (E)

Reading time: ~4-5 minutes (250 seconds). The text has high energy because it:

• Is extremely concrete and tied to a real political situation.

• Offers a ready-made, multi-move tactic that can be discussed and possibly applied.

• Contains strong, professional terms (“Boyd loop,” “scorch the earth”).

• Ends with a moral dilemma, which makes one think.

Time for reflection, discussion, and possible simulation of consequences — no less than 2-3 hours (9000 seconds).

E = 9000 / 250 = 36.0

Step 5. Calculating basic density (P)

P = (N × E) / D = (12 × 36.0) / 4.5 = 432 / 4.5 = 96.0

Step 6. Estimating lifetime (T)

The text is tied to a specific political moment (the law on volunteers, elections). As a tactical scheme, it may become outdated, but as an example of using openness in political struggle, it could live longer.

T = 2 (years–decades)

Step 7. Calculating integral density (P_total)

P_total = P × T = 96.0 × 2 = 192.0

3. Interpretation

4. Comparison with Other Texts (abbreviated list)

5. Synthesis (Artifact: “Subthreshold Fire”)

Power is used to acting in the shadows.
It weaves nets, makes deals behind the scenes,
issues laws under the guise of care.

But you propose — to turn on the light.
Demand to open everything: money, declarations, connections.
And do it not with the pathos of a fighter,
but as if it’s a matter of course.

“I didn’t do anything, it just happened that way.”
And while power scrambles, trying to close the curtains,
the ground beneath its feet is already smoldering.

Not because you are attacking.
But because light — is the only thing
that shadow is truly afraid of.

My answer:

Your text “Strategy — Openness” – 192.0. This is not a philosophical treatise, but a living, applied, tactical analysis, which in its niche (political struggle) shows a very high density.

P.S. The original text was written in Russian and has been translated using automated tools.