Nonviolent sabotage

Sabotage is nonviolent because it only destroys material things without physically harming human beings. Of course, even if it’s done carefully, by very skilled activists, it’s a risk that citizens can be accidentally hurt when using explosives to destroy equipment and property owned by Big Tech. That’s why I recommend that activists first try to see if it’s possible to mobilize enough people to make civil disobedience effective when fighting Big Tech. If that is not possible it’s arguably best to use the method of nonviolent sabotage.

The targets can be everything from server parks and fiber-optic cables to IoT-5G towers and/or the stores of MTFAANG.

Tesla/Starlink/Neuralink will also be targeted by cultural conservatives opposed to transhumanism, especially if Elon Musk distributes the online products of libertines. But if his online platforms respect moderate liberality and moderate conservatism, in the traditions of John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke, then it’s predictable that he will be lower on the target list of cultural conservatives, such as Christian militias for example. Leftwing anti-surveillance activists, and libertarian freedom fighters, may of course attack all Big Tech, including Tesla, but they will not be as emotionally motivated as cultural conservatives in the Romanticist tradition. The political version of this tradition has clearly been at war with the Enlightenment tradition since the Germans fought Napoleon, since 1810 very approximately. (For more on this read Isaiah Berlin’s “The Roots of Romanticism”.)

The Nazis in 1940 were Romanticists, and they still are today. Moderate cultural conservatives and all traditional religions, including the popular versions of Buddhism, also belong to the moderate branch of Romanticism. Radicals in this tradition are very proud of putting feelings above logic and facts. That’s kind of the whole point of radical Romanticism. It’s intentional, and not necessarily a sign of stupidity.

Today’s libertine CEOs in the West don’t fear Antifa (unless the latter gets power, like Lenin or the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War). Fear rightwing Romanticists, because they are emotionally motivated to fight ultra-liberal Big Tech.

If Silicon Valley and Seattle/Bellevue are smart they play the long game: pacify cultural conservatives now, by dropping libertine and “woke” values, until Gen X is dead in 25 years, and then switch back to woke ultra-liberality when the global system of AI drones and IoT surveillance is fully developed, so that conservative rebellion against the libertine global elite is forever impossible.

To be very clear, and definitely without any “dog whistling”: this website will never support sabotage of Big Tech systems that are used by hospitals and other institutions which are necessary to protect the health and lives of common people. This will limit the number of possible targets.

Unfortunately, today’s ultra-liberal version of Big Tech has put itself in a position where it’s also a risk that it will get attacked by not only organized crime, including drug cartels, but also China, Russia and all other authoritarian states.

Cartels want to stop the (omnipresent) anti-crime surveillance systems of Big Tech. Ultra-liberal companies like Amazon are the major players in Cold War 2, so authoritarian regimes want to destroy them before libertine states in the West attain AI supremacy.

The forces, mentioned in the last paragraph above, will have an interest in causing more internal chaos in America by sabotaging the infrastructure of Big Tech after having planted evidence that leads the FBI to think that rightwing militias are responsible.

A foreign hacker can plant fabricated evidence on the computer of a militia leader, “proving” that he’s guilty, according to the RICO Act, of cooperating with a domestic terrorist cell nobody will find because it doesn’t exist. But since the police found his fingerprint on an unexploded IED near a sabotaged server park, the FBI will arrest the militia leader, while the real culprit, a dictator in Africa perhaps, enjoys a very good laugh.

But will it actually be possible to prevent the development of totalitarian surveillance by sabotaging Big Tech? AI today need an endless amount of new data to learn new things. Physically destroy many of the fiber-optic cables or server parks owned by companies like Amazon, and you will significantly slow down AI development in the West. (Then rely on nukes, and the non-hackable tech of the 2 and 3 industrial revolutions, to deter attacks on constitutional democracies.)

Life was great in the 1990s, which proves that Big Tech is not necessary. However, even if sabotage (and other tactics) may not stop the fourth industrial revolution completely, it can level the playing field enough for moderate conservatives and moderate liberals to once again have real influence on developments in the West.

A less important note, on the aftermath of the US Capitol riot (Jan 6, 2021): ultra-liberal Big Tech has now practically sabotaged the free speech of many cultural conservatives. Sabotaging the IT systems of Big Tech, in a nonviolent manner, will therefore be fair enough from the viewpoint of reciprocity. It’s fair partly because you can’t differentiate between corporate censorship and the censorship done by a state when living in a CorpState that has a revolving door between Big Business and Big Government.

Free speech is often about politics. Politics is about power. When moderate nationalists and globalists – and all other main ideologies – compete in order to get power in the political arena it’s only fair that one doesn’t distinguish freedom of speech from freedom of reach. All the moderate versions of the main ideologies (socialism, liberalism, nationalism and global capitalism) should basically have the same freedom of reach when using tech to communicate with common people.

This website only discusses political struggles if it’s relevant in the context of surveillance. So, if you happen to be a leftwing anti-surveillance activist disagreeing with my interpretation of the Capitol riot aftermath, then I will not spend time opposing you, on this website here. The only thing that’s important in our context is cross-ideological resistance to Big Tech.

It goes without saying that activists should only sabotage infrastructure owned by Big Tech (and corporately monopolized television stations). The rest of the Internet should remain free, open and decentralized, to improve the conditions of real free speech. It may be a slower Internet, but we need slow now. Humans can’t deal with being info junkies on speed.

Give hospitals and other critical institutions enough time to move away from Big Tech infrastructure. Start by attacking the gaming servers of Amazon for example. That will force media to cover the story, thereby making common people aware of the risk everyone takes when using the services of Big Tech. The risk is very high independently of this website here, because of Cold War 2 and organized crime being at war with Big Tech.

Finally, if you are a reckless and impulsive idealist, either left- or rightwing, don’t use explosives! Stay away from sabotage operations if you are not highly skilled. If one single individual is physically harmed because of reckless militant activism, it will only hurt the anti-surveillance cause, and other activists will suspect that you are an agent provocateur.

Since responsible sabotage operations require much skill, tactical creativity and (relative) bravery, I doubt that left- or rightwing idealists will try to attack Big Tech facilities. After all, many of these places might be even more guarded after I have published this post here. If successful attacks occur, my first guess is that organized crime or foreign agents have done it. Because almost all subcultural militant groups are too incompetent, full of internal strife and disrupted by undercover officers like Mark Kennedy and Bob Lambert. Almost all radicals who are not part of militant groups are even more harmless, or as they say in Texas: all hat, no cattle.

And the solo terrorists? They are not into nonviolent sabotage. Their fetish is to gun down or blow up innocent people in some relatively random public place. In a sea of 7.8 billion human carnivores it’s statistically unavoidable that an extremely tiny minority is neurologically wired in such a way that they don’t perceive the meaninglessness of such violent activities.

Maybe nonviolent sabotage is pointless too. What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s