Here’s why isn’t inciting illegality

On the website of Cornell Law School you can read what it means to incite illegal activity:

Brandenburg test

“The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:  

1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND

2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.””


Brandenburg v. Ohio

“…the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the government may forbid “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building).”

At first glance it may appear like (DSI) is inciting illegal activism when claiming that people should nonviolently deactivate or sabotage the infrastructure of Big Tech, but even a relatively quick reading of the articles published on our website – the Introduction at the front page for instance – will reveal that DSI is only inciting the following:

1) study the arguments in favor of nonviolent sabotage of Big Tech in addition to also carefully study all counterarguments presented by supporters of Big Tech.

2) independent of all group pressure – cf Milgram, Asch (and Zimbardo) – and of your own free will, based on rationality and empathy, in accordance with science and common sense ethics or deeper moral philosophy, you should only engage in nonviolent sabotage of Big Tech after having carefully studied the pros and cons of such illegal activism, see 1).

DSI will therefore incite you to contact our critics and listen to their best arguments before deciding to nonviolently deactivate or sabotage Big Tech. For example, reach out to:

Robert D. Atkinson, the President of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

“Atkinson’s books include Big is Beautiful: Debunking the Mythology of Small Business (MIT Press, 2018) …”

To fact-check the DSI website contact:

If you fear that DSI is “radicalizing” you, or if you belong to a group that is actually using social force, lies and other manipulative techniques to push you into participating in militant activism, then contact any deradicalization program in your vicinity. For more specific contact info maybe ask the Journal for Deradicalization:

Going up against Big Tech – and its associates in NSA, Pentagon and private military companies – requires great discipline, genuine conviction and resilience, so for op sec reasons it’s in the self-interest of DSI to not encourage anyone to become militant activists unless they are fully aware of all counterarguments, based on facts, logic and common scientific methods/practices, cf Popper and Polanyi.

Be skeptical of DSI by contacting The Skeptics Society:

Study pro-Big Tech arguments like the ones we present here:

I Work for N.S.A. We Cannot Afford to Lose the Digital Revolution.

What does it actually mean to incite someone to break the law? What does that imply and how is it psychologically possible in real life? This is a relatively philosophical question. For example, if a rational individual – with a good education and normal empathy – is as autonomous as humanly possible, how can he or she be incited by others to engage in illegal militant activism? If a person is actually independent it follows logically, per definition, that his/her activism will be motivated by his or her independent reasoning. It will not be based on anybody else inciting him or her to become a militant activist.

It seems like the ban on inciting violence is intended to stop leaders who exploit weak-minded persons or hardcore fanatics who are prone to blindly follow orders (in a mob situation).

I’m a hyper-individualist, an outcast with little energy because of narcolepsy, so if anybody views me as a leader I will sue for defamation or just dismiss it as a misunderstanding, made by a primitive individual who obviously doesn’t know me.

My only leader is Jesus. If you don’t like that, go walk to the beat of your own drum.

Just because a contrarian like myself supports nonviolent sabotage of Big Tech, if nothing else works, doesn’t mean that you should view my words as orders. I will not even order you not to follow orders. Go do your own thing, join a group or live like a hermit. But take responsibility for your own actions. Don’t blame others by claiming “I only followed orders”.

To avoid infiltration by undercover operators, DSI encourages leaderless resistance and cell-based activism. A small cell of 2-4 individuals will not be large enough to trigger irrational crowd behavior, though it can create an echo chamber if the cell is closed and withdrawn, but DSI explicitly says that if you are a genuine militant activist, with a sound conviction, guided by facts and logic, cf Thomas Bayes, then you welcome criticism in an open and free debate.

If you really want to do good, it follows naturally that you will always try to avoid destruction unless it’s clearly necessary in an emergency situation. This means that you will also never be emotionally attached to militant activism, but only view it coldly as one of many possible strategies which should only be relied upon if legal methods don’t work.

There is still reason to be concerned that DSI may one day be dragged to court, because the globalist elites ruling the West today are known for operating with definitions of “terrorism”, “insurrection”, “torture”, “nationalism” and “racism” which serve their own interests:

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