Being in a state of war doesn’t justify terrorism and doesn’t require reckless self-sacrifice

To see the background context of this article read:

Why we are at war

My greatest worry is that a politically inexperienced activist, militia member or soldier is going to make some rookie mistakes when reading that “cultural conservatives are at war with the libertine woke Big Tech surveillance state”.

Firstly, don’t attack the enemy where he is strongest. Fighting the riot police, for example, will just get you arrested and you accomplish nothing. Instead be creative when searching for the enemy’s weak points. You decide the battlefield, where and when to fight. Take advantage of the element of surprise. Quickly withdraw right before the enemy receives backup. The goal of asymmetrical attrition warfare is not to win all battles but not to lose a war, though no victory after 2030 will entail defeat, since Big Tech AI is getting stronger every day.

Secondly, remember that all large resistance groups will probably have been infiltrated by at least one undercover officer or have at least one informant, even at the highest level. Therefore stay away from these groups and only act alone or together with 1-2 very good friends you trust 100 percent. If you are in doubt about somebody having your back, then you are not in doubt about excluding him/her from an operation. Abort if your op sec has been compromised. Better safe than sorry. Don’t waste your life on doing something stupid. You are not cannon fodder, a true hero is not expendable, but only takes very calculated risks (after having been trained as a professional to accomplish a mission).

Thirdly, I personally only support nonviolent sabotage, but if you choose this method of operation don’t destroy any parts of Big Tech infrastructure which are critical for securing the life and health of innocent people. Don’t cut the fiber-optic cable to a hospital. Do research on this before destroying anything.

Fourthly, in 99% of all cases terrorism simply doesn’t work. War is politics by other means, so it will only backfire politically and hurt the resistance if anybody attacks innocent people, including low-level Big Tech workers. I’m not saying this because I’m “softhearted”. I’m just coldly assessing my instruments. In 4th- and 5th-generation warfare you almost never win by using terrorism as a method. It’s like doing surgery with a jackhammer. One of the main rules in this kind of warfare is to realize that when corporate media gives a lot of attention to “extremists”, “angry white men” and terrorists it’s because it serves their political interests to put all that on the front pages of their propaganda newspapers. So don’t walk into this trap.

If you decide to reject nonviolent sabotage in favor of war, follow the rules of the Just War doctrine. Big Tech has built undemocratic surveillance states in the West, and their online infrastructure is used by criminals that violate everything that cultural conservatives and moderate liberals support in a constitutional democracy, which from this perspective do in fact justify the following acts of war: sniping the senior management of Big Tech and their most talented scientists or engineers. I’m not saying however that such violence is objectively the right thing to do. I personally only support nonviolent sabotage.

But if you have already decided to use violence, for the reasons described in the article “Why we are at war“, then act in accordance with the Just War doctrine, by only attacking 1) those leaders and scientists/engineers who destroy our democracies through surveillance, and 2) those who facilitate serious crime by their online infrastructure, the leaders of Google for example, as long as they don’t stop this crime.

Collateral damage

What about collateral damage? Is it morally justified to kill a Big Tech leader like Jeff Bezos, who cooperates with the military in order to develop AI that will undermine humanity, if the attack also kills innocent bystanders? As a scientist I can only state as a matter of fact that it depends on your perspective. I personally will never support it. My viewpoint is that nonviolent sabotage is sufficient if only enough militant activists use this method. However, it’s just a simple fact that this kind of collateral damage can arguably be justified from the perspective of the Just War doctrine as it has been applied by the leaders of Western democracies since WW2. Collateral damage of this type is gruesome, and I will therefore not support it, but it’s just a tragic fact that it’s nevertheless within the ball park of what the Just War doctrine can allow, cf military attacks on industries directly related to enemy weapon production. And take into account how Western forces have assassinated nuclear scientists in Iran. Ultimately, it depends on your own conscience. I don’t have the conscience to act in this cold-blooded manner even though I’m capable of it if I had been willing to live with a bad conscience for the rest of my life afterward. It’s therefore a personal decision. Though it arguably makes no sense to condemn it from a Just War perspective once you accept that we are in a state of war. That’s simple logic. But keep in mind that the enemy will of course not see it that way.

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Only use violence if nonviolent methods are not a realistic option. I’m convinced that nonviolent sabotage is a realistic option if we just mobilize enough activists. That’s a big if though. However, it’s almost equably doubtable that it will be easier to mobilize enough domestic people required for not losing an attrition war against Big Tech.

Today, because of the NSCAI report, the libertine wokeness of the globalized Big Tech infrastructure is good enough reason for even moderate cultural conservatives to declare war – real war – against Big Tech, but keep in mind that this justification is not something that moderate liberals will accept. Morally it therefore has much less universal validity compared to starting a war to stop surveillance and stop the crime facilitated and spread by the infrastructure of Big Tech.

It’s tragically inconsistent however when conservatives have been willing to risk their lives in wars abroad while not daring to risk the same in order to protect their own culture and society at home.

Finally, you may wonder why I have shifted from only defending nonviolent sabotage to reluctantly writing that we are in a state of war. The short answer is the NSCAI report, discussed here:

After reading this article it should be easier for cultural conservatives to make an informed decision about whether to support war or not. It’s up to each one of us: follow your own conscience. And act independently, without being pressured by others. Just calmly assess the facts and make up your own mind about what is right. Since the resistance has no hierarchy you can’t blame others if you make a decision that you regret later. You can’t lean on me either. I’m not an authority or expert on anything. The only rock or solid foundation that can support you in this case is just facts and the conclusions that can arguably follow logically from the premises of moderate cultural conservatism. If that is not enough for you, then don’t participate in this war.

And listen to other cultural conservatives than just me before going to war.


The good news from a Big Tech perspective is that we all know by now that domestic conservative rebels probably don’t have the manpower and firepower to win the culture and surveillance war. Most users on Gab and Parler will probably instinctively retreat from my talk about war.

The bad news, especially from a Big Tech perspective, is that all drug cartels, all terrorist organizations and all authoritarian regimes will be motivated to intervene and try to destroy Big Tech if domestic forces in the West don’t do it. It might then involve hyper-terrorism. Which is demonic. But it’s a fact that there are many very resourceful and morally insane people out there willing to think like Curtis LeMay.

Since there is a war between cultural conservatives and libertine woke Big Tech it will be easy to frame domestic militia in the US after foreign forces have attacked Big Tech in Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and Seattle/Bellevue.

All cultural conservatives in all states of the world hate the libertine wokeness content (and worse material) spread via Big Tech infrastructure, so on a global level it will not be difficult to recruit terrorists who are morally insane because they are disgusted by the current state of Big Tech in the West.

We might therefore see a major catastrophe only because Big Tech cared more about libertine woke surveillance than saving lives by depolarizing the culture war in America and Europe, a depolarizing which is easy because it only requires that one returns to the moderate liberality of John Stuart Mill.

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