The best arguments against sabotage of Big Tech

Have invited dozens of critics of (DSI) to refute the pro-sabotage arguments I’ve presented on this website.

Since militant activism, radicalization and terrorism are major topics in Western societies today – cf the “War on Domestic Terrorism” and all the anti-terrorist experts and anti-radicalization experts who fill our news with talk about the necessity to convince militant activists to change course – one would have expected that academics welcome an invitation to refute arguments in favor of militant activism, but so far, at the moment of writing (March 04, 2021), nobody has replied. Isn’t that strange?

Supporters of the Establishment often claim that militant activists are not interested in dialogue, but when I invite them to a debate about militant activism, they are the ones who refuse to engage in dialogue.

Have in the past started two other dialogue projects – beginning in 2000 and 2015 – where I invited academics to refute arguments supporting militant activism, and despite repeated invitations and in the first case waiting patiently for 15 years, nobody participated in an open debate about these topics. So much for “dialogue”…

The University of Tromsø refused to assess my Dr Philos thesis about militant activism, despite written recommendations from five respected professors – Arnt Myrstad, Asbjørn Aarnes, Viggo Rossvær, Arne Johan Vetlesen, and Guttorm Fløistad. That’s one of the reasons why I have less faith in the social sciences of the Establishment universities.

But since I actually respect the scientific standards which university academics ignore in the debate about militant activism I will try to refute “my own” pro-sabotage arguments:

3 sets of counterarguments

1) as shown in a series of articles that begin here it’s possible to restructure the military defense system of the West, so that we can defend ourselves against future AI bot attacks from China and Russia, even if America and Europe don’t rely on 4IR (fourth industrial revolution) weapons.

But a military restructuring will be massive, on a scale that many will prejudicially dismiss despite not having rejected the equally massive 4IR restructuring that has occurred the last two decades.

The CEOs, politicians and generals of the military-industrial complex probably want to earn a lot of money on developing and selling offensive (4IR) weapons, so it’s very unlikely that greedy and myopic leaders of the arms industry will accept the purely defensive non-4IR system which I tentatively claim is a better alternative.

It’s possible to force the arms industry to change strategy if enough militant activists sabotage the 4IR infrastructure of Big Tech in the West, but here are the reasons why I doubt such nonviolent sabotage is going to happen:

2) it’s certainly not impossible to mobilize enough professionals capable of nonviolently sabotaging major Big Tech installations. But the chance of this happening (with the lazy and selfish generations we have today – unlike the WW2 generation) is relatively small when seeing how difficult it will become to nonviolently sabotage a major server park for example:

3) amateur militant activists can nonviolently sabotage fiber-optic cables, 5G towers, minor server parks and other small nodes in the 4IR infrastructure, but for this to be effective one needs a small army of amateur saboteurs.

Mobilizing enough activists is certainly not impossible, because if only 1 in 10 000 is willing to risk jail when nonviolently sabotaging minor 4IR facilities, it means that the US alone will have approximately 33 000 anti-4IR amateur militant activists operating in America.

That’s over 600 activists in each of the 50 states in the US, which may constitute 150 – 300 cells in a leaderless resistance movement across a single state. They can damage a lot of Big Tech property, even if half of them get arrested, presupposing that this rebellion leads to more people joining the resistance once mass media is forced to cover the destruction.

At first glance it’s realistic enough to assume that 0.01 % of the US population is willing to nonviolently sabotage Big Tech if they only study the information published in the introduction to DSI and in this article here.

However, in practice, in real life, it’s very difficult to mobilize a leaderless “army” of 33 000 militant activists willing to just focus on nonviolently sabotaging Big Tech. This mobilization presupposes that potential activists, who only constitute 1 in 10 000 people spread across America, somehow get access to the info here on the DSI website, but how can this be done if corporate media spreads fake news about DSI or the website is deplatformed or hacked?

A digression, a very speculative thought: DSI is not deplatformed yet (March 04, 2021) and maybe that’s because the leaders of Big Tech feel superior, safe and secure enough to study how people react to the website, a bit similar to how a cat is amused when seeing how a few mice is trying to attack it.

Mirror sites can secure that DSI is always online, and some potential activists will search for the website when or if corporate media is forced to write about DSI after a nonviolent sabotage operation.

But when almost nobody on Gab, Minds and Parler is willing to visit the DSI website – as far as I can tell when looking at the numbers shown on my computer screen – it’s pretty obvious that not even “radicals” have the will, skills and bravery needed to nonviolently sabotage Big Tech.

I assume and guess that NSA or other actors have not “shadow-banned” DSI and not hacked my computer so that I don’t get feedback and don’t see the real numbers of visitors. This assumption might be wrong, cf Messing with the Enemy by Clint Watts, especially because I occasionally notice glitches and anomalies, such as all my three VPNs always giving me a location in Germany even when I choose other locations, giving me search results in German when using a browser.

Since I’m a very heterodox individual, with both a left- and rightwing background, while mainly being a voluntary outcast, driven primarily by Mercurial curiosity, exploring everything when being always anchored emotionally in rightwing Christianity and feminism, which appears self-contradictory at first glance, it’s easy for private or government intelligence agencies to “deny and disrupt” the credibility I would have needed to become a public leader figure for a militant resistance movement. That is not my goal however. I prefer to remain anonymous. Don’t view me as an “authority”. I’m a hypocritical and self-occupied nobody, full of flaws, who says no to journalists wanting interviews. But this reduces the effectiveness of a militant anti-Big Tech movement if nobody is willing to be one of the law-abiding informal spokespersons for the resistance.

Furthermore, when people on Gab, Minds and Parler are aware of Fusion AI surveillance, described in this article here, and they still don’t fully mobilize against Big Tech surveillance, even though many of them very loudly complain about “Big Tech tyranny”, then one can assume that it’s (almost) all bark, no bite.

In short, the pro-sabotage arguments of DSI appear so far to be valid in theory, but mobilizing enough people in real life may forever be so difficult that a successful nonviolent sabotage campaign isn’t practically possible.

Neanderthals in a robot world

If people with normal empathy are not willing to nonviolently sabotage Big Tech one can predict that if attacks on Western 4IR infrastructure ever occur, the immoral perpetrators will be drug cartels, terrorists, and (factions within) non-Western intelligence agencies, since the surveillance power and AI of Big Tech is an existential threat to them.

But at the moment of writing (March 04, 2021) it appears like cartels and terrorists are not aware of the fact that they are “endangered species”, on the verge of extinction. If this ignorance continues, it will only be a matter of time, maybe 1 – 3 years, before nobody will be able to stop Big Tech.

Given the global scale of current Big Tech infrastructure, and how 4IR sciences have to a large degree replaced physics and older natural sciences as the future of major discoveries and innovations, making the next decades the century of the 4IR sciences, with millions of academics and engineers working globally on 4IR tech – while nobody is actively fighting this worldwide megatrend – it’s probably safe to assume that billions of cultural conservatives are neanderthals that will basically disappear in transhumanist surveillance regimes within 25 – 50 years.

If the age of 4IR one day stops it’s probably only because of some apocalyptic event caused by new WMDs, a horrible accident (“error-ism”) or Cold War 2 spinning out of control.

I don’t have kids, so basically this whole 4IR mess is not my problem, at my age. Can therefore wipe out this entire website like it was a Tibetan sandpainting and continue to live a good non-engaged life in Norway. But how parents today don’t stand up and prevent their children and grandchildren from growing up in a robotic Brave New World is beyond me, though it’s no surprise. Humanity is absurd.

Isn’t nonviolent sabotage now better than risking all the extreme violence predicted by respected scientists if we are not lucky when playing Russian roulette with 4IR tech?

In theory, many will say yes to the above question, but in real life they remain inactive, daunted and scared by reality: the monster of global Big Tech. Which probably explains why radicals remain disengaged, in disillusioned hopelessness and learned helplessness.

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