On Being Revolting in the Modern Age

I was reading something about a battle in the American Revolution and it got me to thinking about what revolution would look like in the modern age. We tend to associate revolutions with mobs in the streets, disobeying lawful orders from whoever happens to be in charge. That’s part of it, for sure, but usually they have more formal elements as well as popular unrest. The American Revolution had a number well organized acts of rebellion like boycotts and peaceful resistance before we got armies in the field.

Revolutions have two forms, at least at the onset. There are the revolts within the ruling class and then there are popular rebellions. The former is more like a civil war played out on the small scale. For instance, a group of soldiers takes over the military and then sacks the civil leadership. The English Civil War is the best example. The latter is when the people get tired of their rulers and rally around a leader or cause (or both) and force out the old rulers. The Bolshevik Revolution is the most obvious example. The American Revolution is unique in that it has both elements.

In the modern west, a military coup is unlikely as the civilian authorities have done a good job over the last few generations of selecting against the sort of ambitious men who tend to lead military coups. In Europe, the military is simply too weak to pull it off. That and the rest of Europe would either send in troops to restore civilian rule or have the US do it. Then you have the fact that there’s not a lot of popular support for the military in much of Europe. A coup would result in massive protests.

The US is a different animal in that we have a big competent military, but it is mostly stationed overseas. That’s not an accident. If the invade the world types are purged from the ruling class, the next step is a great demobilization. There’s simply no way a civilian leadership is going to allow a massive high tech army to be garrisoned at home. Even so, the military culture in the US has long selected against the sort of men that lead military coups. It’s the one thing we have no screwed up yet.

I think if we are going to see a soft civil war or a revolution from within, it will look a lot like what we are seeing with nationalist parties across the Continent. The first wave will be less than professional politicians demonstrating the power of popular discontent, followed by a second wave of real professionals who take control of those new parties and lead a reform movement. This is not so much a revolution or revolt, as a process of internal reform tapping into popular will to overcome internal resistance. It’s not exactly how democracy is supposed to work, but it is not a terrible result if it leads to peaceful change.

There’s good reason to be pessimistic about this possibility. We saw how the Austrians rigged their election and a lot of people suspect this US election could be loaded with shenanigans. Even if Trump overcomes the Clinton crime machine, he will most likely face a ruling class unified against him. In America, we may have crossed the Rubicon in the 1990’s when it became clear that the ruling class could no longer police itself. Their inability to purge their ranks of the Clintons was a sign that the rot had reach a point where reform is no longer possible.

That leaves popular revolt. Certainly voting for Trump sends a message, but messages need a sender and a receiver. If the people on the other end refuse to acknowledge the message being sent, then it’s not really a message. The Olive Branch Petition was the last ditch effort by the Colonist to avoid a breach with the mother country, but the King’s refusal turned it from a message to him into a message from him. That message was clear to the colonials. They could either submit unconditionally or prepare for war. A Trump win followed by a unified refusal by the political class to cooperate would also be clear message.

A few bloggers on our side of the divide have noted that what comes after Trump is, if history is a guide, going to be much worse. Instead of an amateur politician, who still believes in the system, the next guy to rally the troops will be a professional who does not believe in the system. Instead he will be a guy that looks at the system in the same way Turkish strongman Erdoğan looks at democracy. That is, it is useful only as a vehicle for taking the leader to where he wants to go. “If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it,” said Julius Caesar.

That may be true, but it will still require popular support. What we are seeing with nationalist insurgencies in the West is they are running into the massive power that comes from owning the mass media. A little girl skins her knee and there is a news team there to blame Trump in a four hour TV special. Hillary Clinton is caught running a pay-for-play scheme and no one can be bothered to ask her why she went to the trouble of installing an illegal e-mail system in her bathroom. Even the most cynical and savvy insurgent campaign cannot get past this problem.

It may be that the custodial state has reached a point where rebellion is no longer possible. Or, it may simply be that the method of revolt will have to adapt to the modern age. If the rulers no longer have the consent of the governed, then the governed will have no reason to voluntarily cooperate. Perhaps the cord-cutting movement is one of those acts of rebellion that makes sense only in a mass media age. Publishing the private correspondence of rulers, obtained by hackers, is certainly a very modern for of rebellion.

Whether any of it works is open to debate


70 thoughts on “On Being Revolting in the Modern Age

  1. “The American Revolution is unique in that it has both elements.”

    The “American Exceptionalism” bullshit never ends, does it?

    The recent Egyptian Spring revolution had both elements, as did many others.

  2. I came across that Caesar quote a while ago and it didn’t sound right to me, so I tried to track it down. It’s all over the internet without any specific citation. I had no great luck then, but I’ve figured out what’s up.

    This evening I first found that it’s earliest attestation (so far as I could discover) was in a book from 2003 by William. B. Whitman entitled The Quotable Politician. Then I tracked down the origin from which this garbled quote comes.

    It’s from a passage in Cicero’s De Officiis Book Three, in which he argues that it’s impermissible for anyone to act unjustly in the pursuit of power. He likens such people to Caesar, who was even willingly (so says Cicero) to take on as his father-in-law the person through whose outrageous behavior he would acquire power. This of course alludes to the deal whereby Caesar married his daughter Julia to Pompey as part of their arrangement in which Pompey helped Caesar gain the consulship of 59 BC so that Caesar could then help Pompey get his way in legislation (though retrospectively Cicero interprets their actions more broadly as a take over of the state).

    As for the quote, it actually is attributed to Pompey, and it’s in fact Cicero’s own translation of Euripides, Phoenissae, ll. 524-5. In the play, Oedipus has cursed his two sons and to get around this, they cut a deal to alternate in the kingship of Thebes. Eteocles gets to be king first, but when his year is up, he refuses to give way to his brother. In the Greek, what he says translates as, “If it is necessary to act unjustly, it’s best to act unjustly for power. In other regards, it’s necessary to act piously.”

    Cicero’s translation (by his own admission a bit clumsy, but written for clarity) goes: Nam si violandum est jus, regnandi gratia / violandum est jus. Aliis rebus pietatem colas (3.82). “For if right must be violated,it’s for the sake of rule that it must be violated. In other matters you should cultivate piety.” That’s pretty close to the Greek.

    As for the English quote attributed to Caesar, it’s reasonably close to Cicero, though it does have a rather different conclusion. In any event, as already stated, Cicero attributes that thought not to Caesar but to Pompey. And while Cicero says the lines were always “in his mouth”, no doubt he’s simply attributing to Pompey the idea expressed by Eteocles in Euripides’ play. I doubt very much that Pompey was constantly muttering these unsavory lines of Greek to himself (and the translation is overtly Cicero’s).

    Whether the misattribution and modified sense are to be ascribed to that Whitman guy or precede him, I have no idea. But this is an example of the frequent phenomenon on the internet where a quote that’s either entirely made up or garbled is attributed to somebody famous and gets repeated again and again without a proper citation.

    Anyway, Caesar never said anything of the kind.

    • Anyway, Caesar never said anything of the kind.

      But he should have and that’s what really counts 😉

      • Well, I guess then you’d agree with Thucydides’ strange methodology re the speeches he gives in his work: “I have therefore put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them” (1.22). Myself, I’m not sure what the point of sticking our own thoughts into the mouths of historical characters is. If we’re just having them say what we wish they’d say, we may as well simply say it ourselves.

        As for the real Caesar, his account of the civil war he started shows him to be nothing more than a mendacious self-justifier. He would never have been as open about what he was up to as that quote suggests (and I don’t think he actual had much in mind when he crossed the Rubicon apart from saving his own ass!).

        Anyhow, I didn’t mean to start a disputation about Caesar’s motives. Just setting the record straight about that quote. (It’s a hobby of mine to track down suspicious quotes, and the internet is strewn with falsely attributed ones.)

        • Ha. The Venerable Bede can confirm.

          The funny thing is I heard that line attributed to Napoleon so I looked it up and the results were Caesar so I just assumed it was one of those examples of how people attribute clever lines to people who they would have said them. I was right, but also wrong.

          I used to attribute all such quotes, even when I knew the correct person who said them, to “Hitler reportedly said” just as a gag. But, people started believing me so I stopped.

  3. The minute we all go to a fully cashless society, it’s over. Even barter has its limits and if you think being “off the grid” is going to protect you, guess again. I challenge any of you to not file your taxes for a year or two and you’ll find out just how quickly you show up on the government radar regardless of how far “off the grid” you think you really are.

    If you want more proof of what’s around the corner go back and watch a few videos on the Branch Davidians and how quickly they were put down. It’s really just that simple. As I recall that event occurred under the watchful eye of President (Mr.) Clinton – one can only guess how this same situation would develop under President (Ms.) Clinton.

    As to the US military bases around the world, it follows the old Roman rule of not bringing troops across the Rubicon. Same idea, different century. The American government keeps them abroad for a reason, and it’s not to keep the peace elsewhere in the world. The US government fear of its own military is well documented after WW1 and again after WW2 when several million battle hardened troops came home – the reality of open and armed revolution was not lost on politicians who quickly realized the potential threat.

    To quote the Borg from StarTerk “Resistance is futile”.

    • Yes Karl, you are most definitely right. In the US the most heinous, liberty theiving, freedom stomping event that occurred was the individual income tax- the 16th amendment. And then later(1943)we were given the final nail in the Coffin O’ dissent —> “income tax withholding”. The people were left defenseless with NO way to say NO. That is no way to peacefully say no. The only recourse left —> is violence.

  4. There will be no revolution. If there were going to be one, it would have started by now.

    Our biggest problem now is that the politicians (from “both” sides) and the media have watched the shenanigans of the Clintons and Obamas and said to themselves, “My God! Look at what these people have gotten away with! And not only has no one been shot, most people don’t even care! We can get away with ANYTHING!”

    And they’re right: many people actually support the criminality of the political elite, but most don’t care and aren’t even aware that it’s happening. Idiocracy is here.

    It’s why Republican politicians finally dropped the pretense of caring about what their base wanted. They know that they can do pretty much anything that they want to as long as it doesn’t go too far against their Democrat/Media masters.

  5. I think the big X factor is the economy. 60% of the citizenry is currently pacified by welfare checks, social security, and government jobs. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

    But if there’s a 1929-style stock market crash followed by a Great Depression and the transformation of the dollar to toilet paper, then all bets are off. I think this is why Ron Paul focused on auditing (and hopefully ending) the Fed. If the Regime loses the ability to bribe citizens with money created out of thin air, things go south quickly. Taxes would skyrocket just as austerity measures are put in place. There will be violent conflict between the dependent class and the productive class. Everyone would blame elites. THAT is the environment for revolution.

  6. @Z Man: You never cease to amaze me with your subjects and spot on analysis including possible outcomes and solutions! I wish you could join Sundance at the Treehouse – another person who is similar in his opinion and likeminded honest analysis. Thanks for another great post!
    Having said that I think the majority of citizens have finally caught on that something is really amiss while having also discovered how truly corrupt our political class in DC is. There are no longer two parties because all we have is the Uni-Party.
    It is that reason that most citizens want a DT but as you’ve said so correctly – if he wins he would most likely be sabotaged from within. It is also no accident that more and more of our military soldiers are being sent into the middle east and Europe – not only keeping them at bay but also to continue to fight the oligarchs dirty wars/deeds for control. Our soldiers – active and retired – are those who make great leaders in a proper rebellion or populous uprising based on their skills and methodical skills. They are the only trustworthy force we have.
    Looking at the 5 different individuals – all affiliated with the DNCe and Clintons – knocked off in just one months is alarming enough. WikiLeaks and Guccipher2 are exposing the necessary info that only helps but also causes alarm how far we have sunk and lost control.
    There is more to come from both of these courageous sites although Assange may also is in danger of assassination. While the propaganda media continue to attempt demonizing Vladimir Putin – he is the only leader on stage that is trying to tell the truth about the agenda playing out on the world stage. The US sponsored coup against Erdogan has finally sunk into this misguided man causing him to realize that his collusion with this administration/Hillary and sponsoring ISIS was his biggest mistake. He too is dispensable and he now knows. There is a reason that he is seeking out Putin and his advice.
    We really don’t know how it will all end but what I do know is that people across the world are uprising after awakening to the sellout of their political class all in favor of the oligarchs who have no use for us. We are dispensable to them.
    Thanks for your thought provoking post this morning!

  7. “Even the most cynical and savvy insurgent campaign cannot get past this problem.”

    Alternate media, including twitter and the comments section of mainstream media reaches a vast audience. For twitter, especially check out : @Ricky_Vaughn99
    Reading his tweets will lead to many others who hate what our nation has become, and are looking for ways to address it.

  8. Don’t forget ‘events’. as in unanticipated disasters incompetently dealt with. The two biggies preceding most historically recent revolutions are losing a war and economic debauchery, particularly of the currency. Usually these have been related. We are well on our way towards both, particularly with the Fed’s ongoing Wall St. Welfare.

    The preference cascade for revolt always begins with protests under ripe conditions of repeatedly demonstrated elite incompetence plus economic hardship. Once the cascade hits the military the fun really begins. The scenario has usually gone along the lines of the Romanian Revolution of 1989: Ordered to fire on the crowd, the soldiers suddenly turn on those so ordering. As we used to say, if you give an order and 1 guy yells BS, he’s in deep kimshi but if hundreds yell BS you’re the one in deep kimchi (so be careful what you order).

    Don’t forget, though, that there is already an attempted revolution underway right now. That’s what BLM is all about. Their ‘problems’ are that however much foundation money they have to spend on community organizers:
    A. It’s hard to start a preference cascade for anarchy first and then the ensuing hardship; Usually the majority hardship comes first and then the anarchy (see Venezuela).
    B. You need to mobilize the majority against the (elite) minority, not vice versa.

    As usual, because everything is backwards in Obamaville, BLM are one the verge of doing just that, unexpectedly. What better example of elite incompetence is needed_? I pray that they fail.

  9. It’s obvious to me that the rule of law, that is, the concept that the laws apply to everyone, including the government and the so-called elite, no longer exists.. This is what I believe Z means when he says we turned a corner in the 90s when the ruling class stopped policing itself. The problem I believe is that not enough people either recognize or care about this loss. Our college kids are a, joke who think that Karl Marx is running for president. They are our future. Only a calamity of massive proportions will be a catalyst for change. Half of me wants to live to see it, the other half doesn’t.

  10. Interesting post. The ruling oligarchy is now out of control and the rule of law is dead. There is but one way to right the ship and that is a major purge of the criminal element and strict enforcement beyond that, of the rule of law.

  11. I can think of half a dozen ways to stop a rebellion from getting started with no violence whatsoever. Big Pharma (Christian Bale was in an awful movie called Equilibrium that explores this idea, but with shoot em ups. Call it “the first FDA-approved metabolism booster;” we’ll all tranq ourselves). A few “natural” disasters cutting off food from problem areas (as a commenter suggested above. This is also how to stop ghetto riots btw). Caesarism has worked great since WWII — the DemPublicans stage vicious electoral fights; meanwhile stuff that upwards of 75% of Americans want don’t get passed, and vice versa (because it’s not working now is due to political-class complacency, not a design flaw). Fast-forward the robot future. Hell, Guaranteed Basic Income will probably hold the fort until the glorious robot future arrives. Wikileaks by the government against Joe Public (have you ever picked your nose in front of your laptop camera? The NSA knows, my friend, and can email it to all your friends). Yep, we’re boned.

  12. The hacker insurgents who publish the private emails of the power elite – those elites who break the law to seize power, as Caesar taught – are relying on the threat of shame for leverage in the arena of public opinion. What a quaint concept, I’m sure Hillary is feeling chastened. What if, rather than raiding inboxes, the next generation of activist hacker used their skills to shut down – say for example – the grid on the east and west coasts, for a few days? Now that is a modern revolt for you. Talk about mobilizing an enraged, motivated mob.

    It may be a nightmare but….Don’t forget to vote.

  13. Many civilizations have collapsed without having a revolution. And each one that has fallen, either by collapse, revolution, or conquest has been more technologically advanced and better organized than the last. No civilization has thus far lasted forever, meaning that collapse, revolution or conquest is inevitable at some point.

    • “…collapse… inevitable…”
      Last week, while attending a Jewish funeral, I heard the Rabbi recite, in Hebrew, a 3,500 year old prayer, which may or may not last forever. Then again, 3,500 years ain’t bad.

    • Tpdoc, what do you think would happen if someone was to steal this election?
      If the Trump backers, of which I am one, were to find that the Clinton machine had played fast and loose with ballots do you think riots would turn into revolution?

  14. Comfort confuses, calamity clarifies. There will be no clear reason for revolution without, first, calamity.

  15. I remember signing up here a while ago under this same handle but don’t recall doing it with Disqus or Google, and social media platforms disturb and frighten me…

  16. One quibble: current military posture only has about 1/3 or 1/4 of our troops stationed overseas. This was the “peace dividend” from the 1990’s playing itself out. More accurately, and to your point, we have drawn down our military to under 4 million people (including DoD civilians). http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014

    To some extent, rightly so. Large, standing, armies are not healthy to a Republic. Where the military is struggling is under the burdens of the Ruling Class where the rapid pace of social change being forced upon it, combined with a real, and growing, entitlement/welfare system that has grown up around the military, is creating a bunch of Government Party automatons. Listen to the Generals talk about social-welfare programs in and around their bases, and you’ll see what I mean. There are very few places in this country where you can never see a shot fired at you in anger, but “retire” at 42 at half-salary, full healthcare (for life), and then walk through the revolving door and pick yourself up a $110K salary as a government contractor. That’s a problem. The longer you’re in that system, the more you are corrupted by it, and the Government Party knows it.

    Not really the point of your column, but wanted to slice that piece out and focus on it a bit.

    • Yep. We have our Soldiers and Marines more concerned with pretending women belong in combat units and learning to “accommodate” trannies – than actually winning battles.

      • Well, I think their civilian bosses and ladder-climbing senior officers care a lot about that stuff. Those who don’t share that view will be forced out.

      • Don’t blame the “soldiers and Marines.” It is Obozo and his hand picked minions pushing the transformation through the military. Commie/Socialist agenda and he told everyone flat out what he intended to do. But everyone was too stupid to listen (those that voted for her, anyway)

    • Actually, hokkoda, it’s only about 12% of US forces stationed overseas: about 1.2 million active duty in the US, and about 162,000 stationed overseas. I have no idea where you’re getting the number of 4 million– the actual strength, counting everybody (including Coast Guard, DoD civilians, academy cadets, people waiting to go to basic training, etc.) is just over 2.3 million. By comparison, the total “eligible” population (non-criminals, not disqualified medically) would be about 60 million males, 59 million females.

      I’m always amazed at the odd views that civilians have about the US military. Like talk of a coup– I can honestly say that I never, once, in 24 years of service, ever heard anyone in uniform ever talk about a coup happening in the US. Talking about coups in other countries, sure– hell, we might be taking a trip to visit it, after all. Talking with coup-plotters and coup-participants from other countries, sure– they’re our allies-du-jour, or enemies-du-jour (frenemies? enallies?). But here? Nope. I can’t imagine a situation where anybody would follow a general or colonel who tried it, nor a general or colonel who would actually come up with that as a solution.

      (But to be fair: I’m not counting the Duffle Blog article “‘Military Coup’ wins poll of troops in a landslide”… which is as funny as “Coast Guard using seized marijuana at morale events”, “China builds artificial island in the middle of Pearl Harbor”, and “Nine Dead at Pokemon gym located in Sergeant Major’s parking spot”, among other fine news bulletins.)

      • That’s why I posted the link, wasn’t too interested in precision beyond a total force that is below 4M, and a minority of troops overseas. I figured people would look it up if they wanted more exacting figures. Your numbers just illustrate my point further.

  17. I’m not convinced that’s an entirely fair description of the events surrounding the Olive Branch Petition. I usually like to pick apart the description of history in it and the grievances ultimately listed in the Declaration of Independence [mainly the parts that consider such ‘grievances’ as British provision for the administration of Indian lands or Quebec, territories not part of the 13 colonies], but apart from that:

    a) the Congress the next day passed their proclamation on the necessity of taking up arms
    b) even before the Olive Branch Petition, Congress had authorized and launched preparations for the invasion of Quebec [aka Canada], a neighboring British province not part of the colonies represented at Congress and demonstrating no interest in becoming one

    By the time the Olive Branch Petition reached London in August, the government’s response of issuing a proclamation of a state of rebellion was both wholly justified by the facts and entirely reasonable.

  18. The one hopeful thing I’ve seen lately is what Mike Cernovich is doing. He took a cell phone with extra batteries, went out and filmed the protests at the DNC and uploaded them using the Periscope app. We have the tools to get around the mainstream media, if we will only use them. Think about the issue of Hillary’s health. That’s not being raised by the mainstream. It’s coming from the Alt-right and we don’t know if it’s true or not. But it has gained traction.

  19. I believe there are now too many divergent interests in the USA to have a contiguous force for change. You have the blacks, the Hispanics, the LGBT gang, communists, capitalists, Muslims, and others who all have differing agendas. America is now the land of the fat and the home of the confused.

  20. I’m pretty sure we’re already passed the point of no return, and it’s depressing as hell. If you had asked me in my 20s, if it became known that a president had weaponized the IRS and used it against enemies, and snarked about it on TV, would you rebel – I would have said, “of course there will be widespread rebellion.” Yet here we are. That it became public that a presidential candidate rigged the primaries? “Of course.” Etc. etc. etc.

    We have become too desensitized by the constant flow of audacious outrages.

  21. “This isn’t Vietnam, Smoky, this is bowling. There are rules”. The tipping point will be when the middle decides rules no longer apply. I think we are close and Wikileaks-esqe disclosures are reinforcing the belief that the ruling elites truly “rule” and don’t “govern” as intended. While technology may help point the way towards turn-key totalitarianism, the counter will be the example of ISIS, which has learned to operate without the highly organized cell structure that doomed Al-Quaeda. That, plus a better realization that my of our systems may be efficient and effective, but they are not resilient. But once the first item occurs…the decline could happen very fast. In the world of the American Civil War or Revolution, dependencies were scarce enough that many could effectively still sit out the conflict and still feed and clothe themselves. Not so much in our age.

  22. An army marches on its stomach and so do revolutions. In the past revolutionaries at least ate well. In agrarian America food was produced literally in people’s backyards. In our modern, division-of-labor society food and the distribution of food is controllable. And he who controls it, controls the population. You want to see how a modern revolution progresses — or doesn’t — look to Venezuela. Starving revolutionaries don’t march against their oppressors. Instead like zoo animals they waste away in endless lines behind government food trucks for hours on end waiting to be fed by their keepers.

    • I think you need to watch the latest version of “Wolverines.” You supply yourself with the enemy’s stuff.

  23. Maybe rebellion just looks different these days. I think of Greece, with the some the highest and most intrusive taxes and regulations in the world. Greeks simply ignore most of them. They pretend to work for the government / corporations all day while napping. Then actually work for cash at night.

    Do modern rebels just ignore, dodge, and avoid government wherever possible? My blue-collar friends seem very accomplished at maximizing their cash and minimizing their taxable income.

    Here is the Greek government’s move to counter these acts of rebellion – Greeks will have to declare to tax office even cash below 100 euro.

    This will be fun to watch.

  24. We will know things have gotten serious when media people come under concerted physical attack.

  25. See William S. Lind and fourth-generation warfare, as well as John Robb on open-source insurgencies.

    Most analyses of western revolt that I have read are predicated on the traditional goal of replacing the current rulers with a new set, and the very real difficulties inherent in that idea in the modern age. What is not addressed, although I believe it to be more practical and more likely to succeed, is to largely ignore the rulers (while watching carefully what the police and military do) and concentrate on rendering the country ungovernable. This can be accomplished at the local level, without centralized command and control, and in fact with little or no coordination to detect or disrupt. The long-range goal here is to render the central government irrelevant and to create space for local governance to reemerge.

    • That sounds more or less like what the Amish, Mormons, Moslems in Europe, and so forth are doing.

      The establishment of alt-wing communes, perhaps? Solar for power, computerized gardening/farming, local intranets, etc. 3D printing is going to return a *ton* of means of production back to the common person. A divergent culture would be essential, precluding widespread Internet use and public education. So too would control of the food supply, hence the necessity of agriculture.

      The pieces are all there just waiting for somebody to pick them up.

      • I think you forget that Obozo has given the keys to the internet over to the Brussels crew. They would shut down the internet in a heartbeat, or at least our connections, if they deemed it necessary for “national security.”

  26. Whether the enemies be Morlocks or Germans, I tend to favor the Englishman’s way with words when the time comes to rally the troops for neo-warfare:

    “We shall go onto the Web, we shall fight on the Internets,

    We shall fight in our basements, dens, and offices and from our kitchen tables,

    We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength within the ether,

    we shall defend our desktops and laptops, whatever the cost may be,

    we shall fight on the Twitter,

    we shall fight on the Facebooks,

    we shall fight in the e-mails and on the blogs,

    we shall fight using links and with great attachments;

    and we shall never surrender

    never surrender

    never surrender…

  27. “What we are seeing with nationalist insurgencies in the West is they are running into the massive power that comes from owning the mass media. ”

    This is the fourth time this morning that the theme of media control has appeared and the fourth time usually silent me has been moved to comment. Here’s some of what I had and have to say:

    Hilaire Belloc’s 1918 classic The Free Press is prescient in an era when six media conglomerates control mass market information dissemination. These conglomerates are in turn controlled by the controllers of finance who have inflated money to an extent that any meaningful media competition is for all practical purposes impossible to mount. The complacent, brainwashed citizenry that allows government to grow unchecked and thus allows for dangerous delusions of grandeur by those in power will eventually suffer the consequences, perhaps catastrophic consequences.

    Old habits of consent and obedience die hard. Look at all the Catholics clinging to a Church which any outsider can see has next to nothing in common with what it was just half a century ago and is now led by a pope who is nothing more than a creature of the globalists (political zionism), but they cling to wanting to “belong” instead of leaving the building or tossing out the occupants. European nations and the USA are much the same, but its the secular god of democracy to which they cling.

    I dropped out and left twenty years ago because I believe, as our host suggests as a possibility, “It may be that the custodial state has reached a point where rebellion is no longer possible.” What a shame that things have come to this!

  28. I’ve been thinking this for a while. Forget government. The war needs to be waged against the media giants. Take down Farcebook and Twatter. Destroy the New York and Los Angeles Times. Bust a major TV network. The current ministers of political correction are like garage band musicians with 50,000 watt amplifiers. The Right is sitting on a stool with an acoustic guitar. Who cares if the quality sucks. As long as they can drown out the opposing voices, they’re going to remain on stage


    • I’ve been saying this the entire election season. We need someone that can get past the hold the media has. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has been saying that the right needs to start buying up media companies, even if it’s something like womens’ magazines.

      • Or shut them down through regulation. Pass a law that every media story must be published simultaneously in 10 foreign languages. Make the media so inefficient, so hamstrung by rules, that it collapses or every move violates some law.

      • Why buy them when they can be shut down at their broadcast towers and computer servers? Shut their shit DOWN!

    • Probably not necessary or useful. When the the real violence begins, whatever side starts it will simply kill a few journalists, or imprison them, or their families or torture them. Journalists are mostly cowards and most of the survivors will fall into line as quick as they can. Those few brave individuals who do not give up can and will be hunted down.

      The communists of all stripes, including the Nazis have done this multiple times. Pravda.

      • Obama’s first election, at least two female local news anchors were beat to death in their own homes in Detroit and Little Rock.
        The journalists in the vulture seats at the victory seats were reported as some bored, some distracted, but most looked scared or anxious. None were cheering. Message sent?

    • Hypothetically speaking, of course, if I were to launch an effort to destroy the elite class in the US, I would ignore the political class, at least at the beginning. But a campaign of targeted assassinations against say, the top 30-50 figures in the US media (dinosaur and social) would certainly get their attention and sow a great deal of panic. We could argue about the names on that list, but we could all come up with one. Granted, some of these people might be hard to get at, especially after the first few killings had been carried out, but where there’s a will there’s a way.

      • We need an army of “Punishers” who work in a coordinated attack. We all know who the major players are. Just make a list of the Top 100. Why stop at 30-50? One shot – One kill.

    • Or “visit” a handful or two of the talking heads with overwhelming force and extreme violence and watch how quickly the narrative changes. They only lie as they do because they have no blood in the game, change THAT and everything else will follow! Imagine if the top 3 of ALL the major networks got a 3 AM visit from people with the skill and determination to “educate” them in the error of their ways, ALL at the same time, same for print media…that’s a message!

  29. “Or, it may simply be that the method of revolt will have to adapt to the modern age”
    SEE: Wikipedia, Wikileaks.

  30. We’re not at the point where rebellion is no longer possible, but we will be within the next thirty years. It all depends on how quickly certain technologies evolve, specifically the ones which will allow the state to cost-effectively interpret the data collected by a swarm of small surveillance drones, and produce Cylon-esque Boston Dynamics robot soldiers.

    I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest Boston Dyanmics video, but if you haven’t, you should. It really isn’t very far from what they have now to an upgraded version with a turret for an arm.

    • I have and to be honest, my bullshit detector was at 11 watching that video. It exploded when the company was quickly sold off soon after the video. I think we are much further away from the robot army of sci-fi than the proponents would like us to believe. I know a fair bit about AI and it is nowhere near close to Terminator level. As we see in theoretical physics, there seems to be a hard barrier that we can’t get past with current models. We can process massive amounts of data quickly, thus allowing the solution to some big problems, but there’s more to consciousness than adding numbers.

      That said, go to London and look at all the cameras. That’s coming to the US, along with things like facial recognition and biometric tracking. We’ll find some exception in the Constitution to begin tagging people so they can be tracked.

        • There are self-driving cars on the road right now. Google’s Streetview cars drive themselves everywhere; Tesla’s cars—hundreds of thousands of them—can drive themselves on the highway; there are semi-trailer trucks outfitted with technology capable on highways.

          I don’t see a technology problem. I see a government problem.

          • Google’s street view cars are not self-driving. Self-driving is only ”street legal” in two states, CA (with heavy restrictions, such as $5mil. liability coverage and must be able to be taken control of by the driver at any time) and FL. The other problem is they only do OK in good conditions – a recent fatal accident happened with a Tesla was in self-driving mode where glare from a turning 18-wheeler blinded the sensors – it literally couldn’t see the truck, and plowed straight into it. There’s not much info on how they handle bad weather such as heavy snow/ice either.
            What I could see happening with the ”big dog” ‘bot OTOH, is instead of AI (which I agree is many years away from being an issue) such a ‘bot is implemented as a ”land drone”, piloted remotely. Where the only risk to the ”drone pilot” is loss of hardware.

          • “he other problem is they only do OK in good conditions ”
            So, not like humans then?

            The bar is set ludicrously high at the moment- as to my mind it should be, lets force the safety issue

            Only 100% performance is acceptable.

            Compare that to 38,000 deaths and 4.3 million treatable injuries caused by human drivers.

      • All a robot soldier really has to do to be effective is be able to navigate a building and shoot everything that moves. I don’t know a ton about AI, but I’m fairly sure that’s possible right now.

        In addition, there are all sorts of interesting possibilities of using humans to augment the intelligence of a really physically capable robot. “Do shoot; don’t shoot.” How well can a robot track a human head? How well will a robot be able to track a human head in 10, 20, 30 years?

        I don’t think AI is the true limiting factor of robot soldiery. A totally automated full-blown robot army? Sure. But they don’t need a full-blown robot army, they just need a bunch of semi-autonomous (obstacle-avoiding) robot bodies scattered around the country, operated by a few hundred psychopaths sitting in a data center in Utah.

        • You don’t need a military or a police force or any physical act against a civilian population to control it. The Federal Reserve only has to shut down your bank account, freeze your credit cards, seize your property and you’re finished. Your house and car goes away, as does your electricity, water and without cash or credit, the ability to feed yourself goes away too. It’s all quite simple.

          Forget robots and drones – it’s all nonsense. Access to your digital bank account is all the technology they need and they already have it. Civil forfeiture is already in place and has proven itself quite effective in legally taking away whatever they want, whenever they want.

      • No Constitutional exception needed, we already volunteered. Every cell phone is a tracking device. Maybe not 100% effective, but close enough for Government work.

Comments are closed.