You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] onegin ago 

I lean towards thinking that "SJW/Feminism/PC/Anti-white racism" propaganda is internal. I think that the US is doing everything it can to figure out strategies to manage the internet. Build up an arsenal for discrediting, increase public support for censorship, increase public support for tracking/telemetry, sockpuppetry/astroturfing, backdoors in software and social sites (e.g. kill-switches and selective filtering), propping up and funding individuals who will parrot a narrative that is useful to them (this can be done 2nd or 3rd degree as they talk about in the artice-- so e.g. Sarkeesian or somebody like that just thinks they are getting donations from like-minded people when in fact the money originated in an intelligence agency and was "cleaned" by passing hands a few times), intelligently picking their battles in order to give the illusion that free discourse is still happening (that other site still appears very progressive and critical of the establishment by some measures-- if that had shifted too rapidly people would have known what was up), vote brigading (quite possible that with the skills and resources available they could even automate such techniques-- gov' controlled botnets, captcha solvers to mass generate sockpuppet accounts etc). It's not hard to spin these things all in a positive way-- you can easily argue that the government, and central control in general, are best able to keep the nation secure, and that propaganda and domestic spying are just tools to make sure the public behaves in a way that aligns with their current strategies. It is really a shame though because, while it might be effective in the current architecture, it 1) sets the stage for totalitarianism, but perhaps not until 1 world power has prevailed and no longer has any outside threats, 2) it poisons art, culture, and discourse with an agenda. This has sort of always been the case; churches controlling and censoring art, even sometimes using artists who are atheists or otherwise critical of the establishment (similar to OP's article), dictators funding huge monuments and works of art for nationalism etc. It is just sad, since I definitely used to be naive enough to think that internet would be much less susceptible to manipulation than it has proven to be. I think there are very intriguing technologies on the horizon which will make it harder and harder to manipulate the internet (there is a whole host of research and development going on in crypto, anonymity, decentralization etc.). But it has a long ways to go before a lot of it is going to be viable-- assuming it is even allowed to get off the ground. I guess this is why it is always a race between the gov't and the people, and it sort of maintains a balance this way. I just wish they wouldn't fuck with art. At least there are always niche areas and tiny little corners where it is not worth their effort to penetrate, and that is where you have to look for pure art, and free discourse. Voat seems to be an okay example so far, although I am constantly doubting everything online these days. Even things that are anti-establishment can actually be baiting techniques by the establishment. Baiting extremists and building cases against them in order to be able to take them down if the need arises. Egging on and propping up extremism as something to finger-point at in the mainstream media, as a way of discrediting a particular group or source. This stuff gets infinitely layered and complex, and the short of it is that they are going to be craftily mucking around in all of it, because like you point out-- they can do this stuff as full time jobs. They have the resources and the unity of agenda in order to have a great breadth and magnitude of influence. I guess the lesson is, keep seeking out those niches where freedom still apparently exists, stay mobile and keep your wits about you. Don't get complacent and just dial into one source for the rest of your life, just because a lot of other folks tune in to the same source and because the production values and availability are high-- that's a guarantee that you are being manipulated (i.e. mainstream media is anything that is big enough for the gov't to care about, since apparently they are resourceful enough to influence media regardless of new emerging formats like social and aggregation sites). That's a guarantee to a boring and unexamined life, in my opinion. Seek out those niches, never trust anyone, make art and honest discourse locally and at a smaller scale etc. As much as these propaganda and tracking mechanisms get revealed to the public, they seriously don't care. They are happy being dialed in to the mainstream theater. In fact, the best way to fight this might not be to aggressively counter it, but to mainly tune it out but subtly sew seeds of truth among people when opportunity arises. This would also mean to tune out of the dissident communities as well, as good as it can feel to participate in what feels like a populist movement. It requires accepting that world politics is on its own course and that there will be a way to recover from totalitarianism if and when it becomes oppressive or unbearable. It's too bad we can't just opt out, by not paying federal taxes. Oh, Ron Paul, won't you come and fix this for us?

That's my rant. I'm trying to come to terms with all this BS so I can get on with my life. It is so aggravating-- it is certainly very difficult to let go.