Militant resistance bogged down in information overload

All the info you basically need to combat Big Tech is mentioned in the first two featured posts on the front page of this website. If the information about Fusion AI surveillance isn’t enough to convince you that resistance is justified, then probably nothing will.

I cannot scientifically prove that the following is true, but if I had been a Machiavellian, a corporate member of the upper echelons of Western states, I would have supported a strategy which leads to centralized power and prosperity in addition to pacifying almost all potential rebels who reject CorpState surveillance:

1) create a globalized and high-tech society which is so complex that nobody can know for certain whether they really understand this society even if they have five or ten PhDs. It’s analysis paralysis.

2) create an academic overclass that will intellectually “bully”, i.e. verbally ridicule (in a subtle way), any rebel who is not as educated as the elite, thereby tempting many young rebels to spend their fighting years (18-28) on becoming over-educated, until they are old and tired, accustomed to a comfortable life, but with a large student loan.

3) create newspapers, publishing houses and social media where rebels can vent their discontent and feel that they have contributed to the rebellion without actually having done anything.

The above pacifying strategy works like this: a student or worker spends eight hours at the university or in a factory/office, before returning home, tired and exhausted, making it tempting to either relax with some braindead entertainment or read a lot of rebellious information published on social media and websites like mine. If doing the latter, you may (slightly) feel like you have done something worthwhile, that you are one of the enlightened ones, but then you realize that it’s already late in the evening and you have to go to sleep, in order to repeat the same procedure tomorrow.

Today, I’m somewhat caught in the same trap myself, especially because I now got debilitating narcolepsy, but you can’t create a website like this one without being prepared to defend your case in court. Words can get you jailed in our “liberal” times, but not even the most pro-CorpState judge can criminalize this website here without simultaneously revealing that the court thereby clearly violates its own standard of rationality and science, because nobody who claims to be “liberal” can make it illegal to create a website based on the premise that: no militant activism will occur if Big Tech actually has better arguments than those presented here in a free and open debate.

I’m not dogmatically opposed to Big Tech. I love science fiction. I recognize the advantages of building cyborgs etc. And I have used the services of Google and Microsoft the last two decades. It was only after Snowden and reading The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Zuboff, plus The Shock Doctrine by Klein, and seeing Amazon’s ban of Parler, that a kind of “paradigm shift” occurred in how I relate to Big Tech. I’m still not dogmatic about it however. I have invited dozens of critics to please refute the arguments presented openly here, but so far they have not done it.

Intelligence services know that the science-based attitude expressed in the last paragraph above is genuine. And they know I can easily prove it in court. That’s probably why I, and everybody else who respects the better arguments in a scientific/academic debate, will not be criminalized (at the time of writing, as long as Fusion AI tyranny is not yet at full power). The proof of that is that I’m not arrested, and this website is still not banned (almost a month after it was created).

Remember that it’s not illegal to claim that “militant activism is justified in my opinion”, and it’s not unlawful to present arguments supporting this opinion. But some statements can be in a legal borderland, depending on the subjective assessments of particular judges, if speech appears to get closer to an incitement to commit crimes. For more on these boundaries (in the US) see this article here by Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who helped Edward Snowden:

“To illustrate this point, I have often cited the crucial and brilliantly reasoned Supreme Court free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. In the 1960s and 1970s, the State of Mississippi tried to hold local NAACP leaders liable on the ground that their fiery speeches urging a boycott of white-owned stores “incited” their followers to burn down stores and violently attack patrons who did not honor the protest. The state’s argument was that the NAACP leaders knew that they were metaphorically pouring gasoline on a fire with their inflammatory rhetoric to rile up and angry crowds.”

“But the Supreme Court rejected that argument, explaining that free speech will die if people are held responsible not for their own violent acts but for those committed by others who heard them speak and were motivated to commit crimes in the name of that cause …” (…)

“The Claiborne court relied upon the iconic First Amendment ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a KKK leader who had publicly advocated the possibility of violence against politicians. Even explicitly advocating the need or justifiability of violence for political ends is protected speech, ruled the court. They carved out a very narrow exception: “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — meaning someone is explicitly urging an already assembled mob to specific violence with the expectation that they will do so more or less immediately (such as standing outside someone’s home and telling the gathered mob: it’s time to burn it down).”

I do claim that it’s time to nonviolently sabotage Big Tech infrastructure, right now, but only if critics don’t present counterarguments which prove that my claim is not in the ballpark of being ethically justified.

It’s the underlined subsentence in italics above which makes this website protected by the standards of science and moral philosophy instead of being an illegal incitement to outlaw activism.

One reason I have published so many articles here is not for rebels to read all of them. Instead it’s to get supporters of the globalist neoliberal regime in the West to think twice before dragging us to court or subject this website to standard deny and disrupt procedures.

Without going into other details let’s just say that the police here in Norway don’t want me in court (knock on wood). If I ever leave Norway the situation now will probably be different, because of the undemocratic and very illiberal new “War on Domestic Terrorism”. I’m not even sure if Russia wants me if I had moved there, to be a forgotten unknown in the same country as Snowden.

Norway is still governed by the rule of law, with an (updated) 1814 constitution in the 1776 tradition, and we have one of the best police forces in the world, including our intelligence service, despite CorpState wokeness and a recently politicized, globalized and tyrannic Supreme Court imprisoning nationalists who exercise their right to free speech.

In a small country like Norway it’s not easy to imprison a locally known militant activist who not only supports Western constitutions but also welcomes a court hearing if that is necessary to determine the ethical validity of using nonviolent sabotage to stop a surveillance dictatorship in the West.

A resistance movement needs lawyers and intellectuals who can verbally defend militant activists after an operation. This website is partly created to be a resource for those who are intellectuals. But we scholars are utterly useless if words never lead to action.

The words in the Wired article about Fusion AI surveillance are enough to justify militant resistance. The intelligence community knows that. The IC is aware that it’s basically pointless to ban “hazardous info” already available in Wired and books such as The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff. And maybe that’s why they, at the time of writing, reluctantly tolerate my website, because there are much worse types of militant websites than one encouraging activists to 1) respect constitutional democracies, 2) listen to science, and 3) have at least the same professionalism and moral standard as the best cops in the West.

I speculate that NSA is not yet 100 % determined to crush this website because many (of the old-timers there) see it as a positive side effect that it forces more people to debate this:

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

For a counterargument to NSA’s important view read this article here; an article which shows what’s at stake in 4IR, the fourth industrial revolution.

Just don’t get bogged down in never-ending debates and studies. Do something. Be as pro-active as the NSA and Big Tech.

And maybe create a (dark web) mirror of this website before it’s banned too. Feel free to “steal” everything I’ve written and publish it on your own website, without giving me credit.

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