If datalove was the affect of association, there must be a political will when affects are systematized. We call this will tele-juche, but it bears no resemblance to the fascism of Kimilsungism. In fact, it does the opposite: North Korean juche strives towards one organic whole, Telecomix tele-juche, on the contrary, pushes all power in a centrifugal movement towards the end-nodes, towards a siphonophoric multiplicity.

Tele-juche means the principle of self-reliance in internetworking.

Welcome to the integrated peripheries of the endnodes!

But then, all of a sudden, a critical internaut started asking questions. The idea of endnode power sounded very promising, still quite impossible: everyone scattered, yet acting together as a political subject, ridiculous!

The internaut began to ask:

- How can there be collective forms of political action, as you say, while preserving the endnode principle?

Then, Cameron replied:

- Easy! If every endnode is correctly configured according to tele-juche, it will be self-reliant. Self-reliance in a meshwork milieu means the ability to connect to all other nodes in the network. Thus, it is is implied in the form of the endnode to be able to include itself in a collectivity.

- But, how is it possible to intensify the affective and associative power of datalove without centralizing power?

- Because each endnode is in itself a full body, an electromagnetic monad loaded with a protocol cabable of connecting to all other bodies, it needs no exterior source of affection. Affection is folded upon itself, encapsulated in the endnode. But affection can by nature only be fully unfolded when one node connects to another. Association is only possible between two or more entities. The web precedes the spider!

- I understand. So collectivity comes "built in" and association is still possible in a centrifugal motion. But then, how can we desire progress, together as one, without desiring fascism?

- We desire nothing as One. We desire only as many. Uncertainty is strength, unity is weakness.

- But, it is still impossible! How can you take power over the networks without doing it as one. Power is for the One who writes the rules.

- No, power lies with the many who write protocols. Technical protocols, social protocols, protocols of desire, protocols of construction. Everything we do, we implicitly of explicitly do with protocols. Not rules, not laws - protocols! And there can be thousands of protocols, as long as they can affect each other. You talk to someone on the other side of the world: then you are using a technical protocol to transport a social protocol. There is no rule of the One here, only the sharing of the protocols of the many. Power lies here, in the protocol. This is what we call telejuche, this is where we start unboxing the blackboxed circuitry of power.

- Okay. But now what?

- Hack the planet.