Oppression Has No Flavor

Surveillance is not the issue. The only time surveillance is a real threat is when the forces behind it are big enough to be a serious problem to those they snoop. But the victims of surveillance vastly outnumber the snoops and whatever is behind them. So in many ways it does not matter if TPTB snoop on us, because they simply cannot possibly control us.

But TPTB will try. A great many of them honestly believe they can. They make an honest mistake in thinking the fearful masses are an overwhelming majority, and that dissenters are really few. But the significant reservoir of folks who aren’t afraid is far larger than TPTB realize, because they often make little noise until it’s time to fight. Plus, some of the masses in the middle will be easily swayed to follow the fearless once things get going.

Keep in mind that I stoutly reaffirm the future of conflict within the West in particular is information. While there will certainly be bloodshed, what really matters will be a matter of information warfare. That’s the field of battle; all the rest is subsidiary action. Given the nature of things in our society at this time, that means mostly a matter of Internet warfare. But try to understand that it’s not so much a battle over the Internet. It will seem that way to many, but the warfare is over content and traffic, not the physical infrastructure.

The primary means of warfare is not the technology; that’s just the weaponry. The tactics and strategy is focused on access to information. The primary means of attack is denial of access. That’s partly a matter of censorship, but it’s far more. There’s a vast effort to steer public perception itself. It’s all one big PsyOp (psychological operation), AKA perception management.

That’s how it was all the way back in the Old Testament. Military victory wasn’t killing the most enemies; it was having your troops stay in formation and making the enemy flee. And flight was a matter of perception: If the enemy sensed they were vulnerable, that their deities weren’t supporting them, they fled. This information warfare today is hardly any different. Whomever remains totally convinced of their message will remain standing against all onslaughts, and will continue to get their message out.

Despite all the rhetoric about what’s actually true, objective reality isn’t that important here. It’s a matter of your convictions, and how firmly they hold you to your course. The people who are causing the most trouble here are those who want to create a bogus social expectation that makes people flimsy and variable in the face of social pressure. Victory is defined as holding yourself to your convictions and letting the world go to hell. This is what we must project onto the field of battle.

Some will try to distract you by pointing to something they believe is worth preserving. It’s a lie; what they point to doesn’t exist. There is nothing to preserve except your own sanity. The world most certainly is going to hell, but that’s happened lots of times before. Don’t try to save the world, because you cannot. What you can save is your own persistence in following your convictions.

As this Internet battle takes shape, we already see that those who own the primary sources of traffic are on the evil side. They don’t actually own the Net itself, but they own the mainstream of attention. They own the infrastructure of attention which stands on top of the physical network. The way to destroy it is to draw attention away from them. Their defense will be seizing tighter control over the infrastructure of attention, and pushing the dissenters out of their venues. So the dissenters are having to create their own venue for attention, and they are way behind the curve. A few have begun to succeed just a little, and the forces of evil are using every possible trick of law and commerce to destroy those initial efforts.

My prophetic gift tells me that the biggest changes to the Internet are just ahead of us. I lack the expertise to see enough details to predict the particulars, but I can sense a dramatic shift coming. Laws and customs can’t change the Net itself, but genuine technology shifts can. We will see some major technological changes. I foresee a kind of virtual splitting, a polarization of how things are done on the Net. Efforts at silencing dissent will provoke the rise of a different kind of networking using the same infrastructure. It could even go so far as requiring a whole new range of devices, if those who control access to the Net are stupid enough to take sides. I suspect that will happen.

And as you might expect, the OS and software market will also be split along with the device market. I know just enough at this point to suggest that, in the long run, Open Source will be the primary advantage of the dissenters. Their interests will generate a whole range of cheap and open hardware devices that do things mainstream hardware and software won’t do. Now, because the current Open Source software community is seeing a rise of censorship within the existing organizations, there will surely be a major division there, as well, probably in the rise of an underground that has always been there in the background. A lot more people are going to learn how to code simply out of necessity.

While there is some money to be made in supporting dissent, it’s not enough to draw the Big Tech companies. Some of them will pretend to stand neutral, trying to make money from both sides. They will be under tremendous pressure from the oppressors to cut off the dissenters.

What I see isn’t going to answer a lot of questions. It’s not that kind of insight. It’s purpose is to make you more aware of the battle. You don’t have to declare yourself on one side or the other, but I can assure you that the Radix Fidem message depends on the rise of this underground dissenting mass. The mainstream hates us already, when they bother to notice us at all. Don’t make the mistake of thinking this is left-versus-right; that’s just misdirection. This is oppression versus liberty. It will split both left and right, because both of them include oppressors and the oppressed.

The drive to oppress can take on any flavor, but it won’t change the bitterness.

About Ed Hurst

Avid cyclist, Disabled Veteran, Bible History teacher, and wannabe writer; retired.
This entry was posted in sanity and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Oppression Has No Flavor

  1. Benjamin says:

    I’m surprised *diaspora hasn’t had a stronger take in light of the censorship we are seeing on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, etc.

    Maybe it still has a future ahead, or something very much like it.


  2. Ed Hurst says:

    The primary failure of Diaspora was not making it as easy as the mainstream. It was that easy at first, but when the operation was sold, the underlying technology was changed and it’s no longer so simple to use. The reason those other services are mainstream is the lower entry barrier. Now that people are spoiled, they aren’t going to go back to something that is more difficult, unless the original services are simply shut down entirely. Also, those original services have the big advantage of being first on the scene. People resist change, once heavily invested in something. The sociology of human response to networking is a very challenging subject, and very few people have a grasp on why the masses do what they do online. I’m still trying to grasp it myself.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.