This is very long, so I’ll have to split it into at least three parts, as the forum character limit is 30k characters.
It’s in my usual singalong-storytelling style, which might not be everyone’s cup of tea.
It’s an expression of ideas, as opposed to solid beliefs, I’m sure much of it can be successfully challenged.
The box paradigm.
We live in a golden age of boxes which are used to identify and sort, but mostly grade, humans either logically, physically or both. A few of them are prehistoric in origin, some are old, many recent, most new. We mostly define them among ourselves, and we willingly sit in the ones we feel that we belong to, or try to escape the ones that we don’t. It is often shared via conventional or institutional wisdom that there are hardly any boxes really, and that practically all tendencies and characteristics exist on a continuous spectrum and there is often free room for movement along it. This is patently untrue in most cases, especially in the areas of origin, wealth, power, discrimination and freedom.
Society likes using boxes because they are a pretty straightforward and unobtrusive system to use and understand, even if we don’t realise that we are using them. Most people use them every day, especially when online, at work or down at the shops. Power structures absolutely love boxes, because they are a great way to monitor or influence people and outcomes in a strategic way. Things have been this way for a long time almost everywhere, but the modern internet has really sent it all into hyperspace, and now boxes are being hastily constructed for the most obscure reasons imaginable. There is often an agenda behind this however, and it is often hidden.
We are frequently told that we are all individuals and are all special in some way, often by those close to us, but also by popular media, business leaders, politicians, or some other source of impersonal authority. This is usually very disingenuous, and is often used simply to placate, but also sometimes to reduce social cohesion or break down traditions. We really are all very special and unique, especially in the eyes of the system, because we all belong to a unique set of boxes and this can be used to identify and categorise us, and to target, herd and manipulate us. Other than that the power structure is largely uninterested in the lives of ordinary people, especially regarding their personalities, hopes and dreams, and sometimes even welfare (they are laser focused on peoples fears, however). What takes priority is that we are observable, group-able and manageable.
I suppose all this would be fine, but they simply can’t resist using technology to constantly exert influence over specific areas of the population and their ideologies. They simply love doing this, and are like a kid with an ant farm, or someone playing a god game on a computer. They are not always very adept at it, often misguided, impatient, or just totally unscrupulous or unethical. It has become a relatively trivial task for the “experts” given the breadth and depth of the data available (provided mainly by social media, but also other sources), and the ever evolving tools at their disposal, which are much more capable than most know. An often used method is to sow and stoke division or plant ideas that lead to those outcomes. If people are fighting or arguing amongst themselves, well that keeps them busy with that, and opens up a new world of possibilities for the societal fudgers, who are now plastic generals overseeing a virtual war, albeit with real world consequences.
The resulting crisscrossing levels of division in society quickly become super Mondrian and fractal, and people are now (mostly online) arguing or fighting over the most stupid and pointless things imaginable, or simply ranting about their level of disgust so as to be validated by fellow disgustees, without a potential solution in sight (or even being suggested). The system already knows your box set, it likely just hasn’t examined it in detail or for any specific purpose yet (especially if you are an ordinary person or are otherwise perceived as being unimportant). It can at any time however, if so desired, know almost everything about you, at least what the boxes can provide. You have already unwittingly been an factor in many highly crafted searches and resulting datasets, which you will rarely be aware of, or ever know the true purpose of.
Databases have grown mind-blowingly big, the algorithms used to fill them ridiculously greedy and opaque. Data is harvested at an alarming rate (very alarming if you knew exactly from where, and what it is eventually used for). This process is principally funded by marketisation and results are most often freely sold as products to the highest bidders, but naturally also retained for the use of the business leaders and their subordinates, who always have full and unfettered access. AI is constantly working on chopping up this data into arbitrary cross sections, looking for trends or providing situational assessment. They simply have to retrieve and assemble the data in a specific way to answer almost any question. This can be done for any person, family, group, club, movement, ideology, or sewing circle that has a physical or digital footprint (of practically any size). Sometimes the politicians or journalists themselves are targeted or controlled using the harvested data, mostly without their knowledge, but never the business leaders; they are the platform builders and tool makers and the ultimate beneficiaries, and have full control over the entire process.
All boxes have an (un)equal and opposite box, even if as seemingly insignificant as who does or doesn’t like a certain book, movie or product, for example. There always has to be ways to stoke division or seed promotion after all. In terms of vicinity and accessibility, the opposite box can be anything between nearby and accessible (with easy crossover), to distant and firmly locked (with no crossover at all).
Many people generally form a quick opinion of each other by discerning which boxes the other person has apparently chosen or been put into, before deciding where on the “spectrum” they are located, if they have boxes in common. If required, this can be explored in more detail, almost ad-infinitum if there’s enough apparent information or willingness to share. Here are some examples of commonly used boxes and their counterparts:
1. Rich / powerful or not rich / powerful.
2. Beautiful or not beautiful.
3. Preferred race or not preferred race.
4. Preferred religion or not preferred religion.
5. Criminal or not criminal.
6. Threatening or non threatening.
7. Has means / value or no means / value.
8. Well educated or not well educated.
9. Able or disabled.
10. Preferred gender or not preferred gender.
11. Preferred sexual orientation or not preferred sexual orientation.
12. Homemaker / family or not homemaker / family.
13. Left or right.
14. Angry / violent or not angry / peaceful.
15. Renewable / conservation or combustion / consumption.
16. Vegan or not vegan.
17. Conspiracy theorist or not conspiracy theorist.
18. Unacceptable Drug user or not unacceptable drug user.
19. Member of group or not member of group.
20. Useful idiot or not useful idiot.
…
25. Supporter of preferred sports team, not supporter of preferred sports team.
…
184. Chemtrails or no chemtrails.
…
As you can see, this can potentially go on for a long time, and descend into a unique, detailed and somewhat eclectic selection of boxes. The order is of course, highly subjective, but the first four or five are usually on point. On the surface though, we are unfortunately instantly judged by others depending on which major boxes (sometimes purely in their opinion) that they think that we belong to. There’s likely little or nothing we can do about that, apart from try to divine which boxes we have been placed into and why. It’s often the perfect ice breaker, but sometimes ends with levels of division or separation that can rarely, if ever, become reconciled.
Perhaps inside one of those boxes there is some form of internal organisation and hierarchy, and a clear spectrum of sorts, perhaps with rows of chairs, so people can sit down to indicate exactly where they are on it. Meanwhile, in the opposite box, nobody cares about any of that. They frequently don’t like you much, sometimes they even hate you, sometimes with a passion. At best they are tolerant or indifferent. If you are in the opposite box, then there is usually a severe lack of compromise or understanding from your counterparts. Rarely is anyone from the opposing box trying to understand your point of view or reach out, they usually just want to either deride, confuse, convert, find and exploit weakness, or simply just “win” an argument (which usually just increases division, is infuriating or frustrating for the “losers”, and the outcome often decided and then gleefully spread through bias and ignorance, further enhancing division and polarisation).
If most issues, ideologies or stances existed on an open spectrum, free from barriers or heavily polarising division, then distribution would be more natural and we simply wouldn’t argue or disagree so much; we might actually discuss our differences instead. This is something the system absolutely does not want to happen without its explicit prior approval, a unified public presents a considerable threat to the status quo, and is hard to manipulate without an accompanying opposing force to do the dirty work.
I’m going to shut up about boxes soon.
(Or preparing yourself for anarchy).
To be a successful anarchist, you are going to have to think outside the box(es). That means tearing yourself away from the box paradigm as much as possible and being open to new ways of thinking. It will take time to rewire your brain and use it differently, but for the anarchist, this is often a self fulfilling prophecy. You will have to consume information from various sources without displaying judgement or emotion. There is going to be a lot of things you need to learn about, but all the required information is out there somewhere, and libraries and search engines exist. You will need an open mind. You will need a healthy level of tolerance and patience. You might need an iron will, or even a strong stomach. You will need to increase your attention span, especially if you are used to flash-produced, disposable, high frequency media and opinions. You will have to patiently read or watch entire articles, essays, books and videos as objectively as you can, and pick out and remember relevant details. You will sometimes have to take copious notes, and share findings with allies if and when appropriate.
You will need to be able to communicate with almost anyone of almost any box set, so you’ll hopefully soon learn that the boxes themselves just get in the way. There is really only one “box” now as far as you are concerned, and that is your cause, and you will often need all the like minded allies you can find to get in there with you. A suitable box may already be pre-built, if so then that’s often a better option, but be aware that you may be jumping into a game in progress and on a harder difficulty level. There will inevitably be an opposite box, which will be sooner or later be populated from various sources with the express intention of distracting, defaming, sabotaging or infiltrating your cause by any means available. That’s just how the system works (at least it’s predictable).
The perils of social media (part one).
You will have to be willing to alter your behavioural patterns, especially online. You can no longer just let strangers wind you up in public spaces and fire back angry and highly visible responses, often alerting the world, and always potentially the system, to your presence. You will have to accept that outside of your circle of family and friends, engaging with social media (especially the most popular platforms) is for the most part little more than a reassurance and validation seeking exercise, but also largely pointless and fruitless, and most others on there are either vain, greedy, attention seeking, smugly authoritative, angry and emotional, ignorant, gullible, manipulative, misleading and simply trying to beat their own personal high score at every opportunity.
What is deemed popular or interesting on those platforms, is apparently (but there’s no real way of knowing without being an insider) democratically selected through up-votes and engagement, and often spread far and wide. This content is usually widely accepted as being highly entertaining, the absolute truth (or downright lie), or the most agreeable possible opinion (or the most outrageous and offensive), at least to relevant, interested box dwellers. Such popular content attracts comments and engagement like barnacles to a ship, and this is the quickest and easiest method for third party opinions and additions to become instantly visible to many, and perhaps incite more detailed levels of discussion and feedback, if anyone cares to engage further. The content itself will often become irrelevant or stale and uninteresting before long though, and most people (after having perhaps taking a bite or two, and gossiping amongst themselves or arguing with the service), will soon have moved on to other items on the menu. Fast food chains do not serve gourmet meals; the food is delivered at lightning speed, is cheap and cheerful, and the selection colourful and varied, but ultimately repetitive, superficial, artificial, unsatisfying, and instantly forgettable compared to what a real restaurant has to offer (it is also rarely, if ever, good for you).
Most people are fully addicted to this entertaining, but disposable and forgettable junk information (in common with a sizeable share of the global population), and now they don’t want to miss a thing, or arrive late to the party, when others might have moved on, especially the big movers and shakers. However, exposing ourselves to very high frequency, random chunks of content is not good for our noggins, and can easily degrade judgement, independent thought, imagination and powers of reasoning. It also often provides a frequently ill informed shortcut to forming an opinion, and the most popular takes often make up people’s minds for them, requiring scant diligence, patience, discipline, discernment or foreknowledge. It reinforces which boxes people have selected or fallen into (which the system loves), and opens them up to a world of potential (but often temporary and fleeting) allies, foes or detractors.
The entire process is disorienting and confusing, and largely without tangible benefit, but most people will not admit this, especially to themselves. They often truly believe that they can comfortably (and skilfully) digest reams of largely unrelated information and discussion, which rely on sensationalism and popular support to attract, engage, spread and propagate. They usually have little or no idea how this actually affects their minds, especially their attention spans, and how confused, impatient, polarised and often generally ignorant or conformist they have become. Actually learning and retaining anything this way (apart from opinion in the aggregate) is difficult or impossible without further investigation further afield, no matter what others might say. Our brains simply don’t work like that, and attempting this is a surefire way to learn or handle many things quite quickly, but very badly, and be easily distracted or thrown off track, and inevitably forget most of it before very long.
Are you an anarchist?
OK, I’m now done with the box paradigm (and social media bashing) for now. I hope it wasn’t as confusing to read as it was to write. There may be holes in the logic, I noticed some of them myself but was too lazy to fix them. So why become an anarchist? What is an anarchist? Ask anyone and get a different answer, but here are some that fit the purposes of this text, so I have shoehorned them in. An anarchist:
1. Is very dissatisfied / disgusted with the current system.
2. Wants to help build a fledgling, concurrent system which is viable and achievable.
3. Wants *much* less authoritative hierarchy and more equal dividends for all.
4. Wants fairness, cohesion and compassion instead of exploitation, fear, mistrust, division, and hate.
5. Sees the inherent value of decentralisation, and distributed systems and resources.
6. Recognises the importance of social cohesion and cooperation (even if rarely taking part themselves).
7. Wants to largely detach themselves from popular society in its current form.
8. Is willing to help design and build alternatives by using whatever skills are available to them.
9. Is sick of funding (and hearing about) the obscenely wealthy and powerful.
10. Wants to find others who share their philosophy, agenda and goals (but solo anarchy is also an option).
There are also some things anarchy is definitely not (in this context):
1. Smash the system! (using what? how? this is always extremely dangerous, difficult or impossible, especially if the system itself is largely intact).
2. Disobey the law! (many laws are just and necessary, even if some or many are not).
3. Cause chaos! (order is always required in some form, perhaps just not order in it’s current form).
4. Disruption, destruction or violence! (see chaos, hurts others, and makes you an instant target).
5. Forced coercion or indoctrination (that is already what the current system does, how’s it working out?).
Fellow anarchists can spring from almost any origins (boxes), but those who undoubtedly benefit from the status quo are not to be trusted as a general rule. It’s nice to eventually trust people, but astute to be immediately aware or suspicious.
Certain cults are examples of moderately successful acts of anarchy, but they often subscribe to obscure and sometimes self destructive beliefs and ideologies, which are most often forced upon prospective candidates prior to, or shortly after admission. A true anarchist would never accept those terms and conditions, being largely a free, independent thinker, but perhaps the cult model has some merits when sanitised and adapted for anarchic purposes? Belief can also manifest itself as the belief in change.
Using traditional methods to address injustice.
It is very often the case that if a person has a solid ethical and moral framework, they can easily observe how dysfunctional and unfair things have become around them. As a result of certain events or realities, they often become quite alarmed or distressed, and then potentially frustrated and angry. Sometimes they feel a certain level of despair or just become resolute and determined. Sometimes they just have a wee cry to themselves. These are usually the resulting emotions when witnessing corruption or injustice, or being on the receiving end. Some people can stifle or swallow these emotions and intentions and try to ignore the events which birthed them; they would rather remain focused on the parts of their life over which they have control, which is understandable, and it’s always a fair and reasonable position to take (and should be respected).
But certain individuals will want to take things further; to find a release for their anger and frustration or to act on their resoluteness. They may feel compelled to invoke change in the system, and there are different options available to them depending on their level of wealth, power and sphere of influence. Those with more of these things can effectively achieve more, and more quickly. But most ordinary people don’t have much (if any) wealth, power or influence, so what are their options? Here are some of the approaches available to them:
1. Verbal (those closest, out in the street, local group, online group, social media, directly to power or by proxy, write article, make video, contact media, give interview).
2. Physical (violence, physical intimidation, vandalism, placing oppressive or offensive items or symbolism).
3. Organised resistance (group, movement, physical gathering, protest, march, ngo).
4. Subterfuge (change or damage the system from within, steal and expose secrets, recruit insiders, leak information, encourage whistle blowers, hacking, data acquisition, unlawful surveillance).
If someone is not wealthy or influential, then any verbal gesture that is broadcast or otherwise directed against the system would have to be extremely articulate, inspirational and often planted in expert and timely way in exactly the right place to have any effect. Contrary to popular opinion, this is not easy, and if you are in the least bit ignorant of the facts, then the effect of sharing your opinions will usually give returns of net zero, negative or ridicule, unless you can find an appropriately negative, ignorant or indiscriminate audience (who will invariably be as much use as a fart in a spacesuit).
Trying to get the business leaders or bigwig politicians to personally listen to anything you say can be a practically insurmountable task, especially if you are acting alone. You often need to at least find or inspire others and act cohesively as a team, and even then, chances are slim to none. Even if your comments, videos, essays or rants are generally well received and shared upstream, this opens you, and by proxy like minded box dwellers, up to argument, scrutiny or ridicule by opposition. This often achieves questionable results, and frequently just enhances the level of division and polarisation, feeding into and amplifying it. You may find that a lot of people agree with you, and that feels nice, but what lasting effect did your voice really have, either immediately or over a longer term? Will your contributions spread in a productive and effective manner? Did you at least help to convince some of those who didn’t previously agree, to change their minds? Will it all quickly be forgotten, requiring reiteration on a regular basis? Unfortunately, among millions of desperate and disparate voices and agendas, most of these outcomes are unlikely at best, especially if you lack influence or are not a natural public speaker.
You could instead join some relevant movement, forum or group which is more focused on the issues, but this may also do you more harm than good. Sometimes you will find little more than a level of shared disgust that is relatable and familiar, but often you have simply entered an echo chamber, which is very self reinforcing, but provides or receives very little useful feedback to or from the outside. Often, the level of disgust that builds in such a group amplifies the level of anger, which can then evolve into hate, which sometimes then leads to violent intention or acts. It can be a very circular system prone to uncontrollable chain reactions, snap decisions and unproductive group think. You are often not going to achieve much in such spaces beyond making contacts, gleaning which strategies might be useful, or finding reassurance and belonging. You can strike lucky, if you find the right group at the right time and you / they are sufficiently motivated and resourceful, especially if the group or forum has a very large and active member base with their own means of applying influence, or inflicting outcomes.
If you or your group elect to get physical (violence, vandalism, intimidation, fear and chaos), then the system and society at large will invariably notice you and neutralise you with prejudice (unless of course you are useful to their agenda). They might detect you in your planning phase and shut you down quickly, or they might let things play out because it suits their own purposes and greater agenda. Sure, a violent or threatening group can definitely have an effect, but it’s usually by spreading fear and alarm and becoming highly exposed to, and amplified by, the agenda driven media, which can always paint things literally any way it wants.
You may also have inadvertently joined a group of useful idiots, especially if they are careless, misguided, or emotional and angry. Misguided, emotional or angry people usually feel quite impotent and are often quite open to suggestion. That can be very useful to the system, which has no quibbles about first surreptitiously recruiting them, using them for their own purposes, and then completely disowning them at any time (and then often persecuting them for appearances sakes). If you choose violence, almost everyone outside of and ignorant to your cause will come to fear or despise you and your group, your cause, and other related groups and causes. Violence is a desperate course of action and while it can, and has, changed or even replaced power structures in certain situations (obviously with enough perceived injustice and willing bodies involved), the most likely outcome is that it will just consume you and your comrades, without leaving much more than a juicy shock story for the news cycle and a mess for someone to clean up.
Organising resistance takes time and patience, but is often the most effective, non violent option. It is of course easier to join an existing organisation with an existing member base, and that’s usually the best bet. You can use outrage to spread the word and gain new recruits at varying intervals, but it requires logic and a cool head to organise people and events, and excessively misdirected, shouty, indiscreet or emotional individuals are often unpredictable and can have a negative effect on the organisation. If your organisation grows and gains means, influence, and sources of funding, the system and its lackeys will invariably find multiple ways to stick a banana up your tailpipe, weaken your position, or otherwise counter your moves using skullduggery or misdirection. Such organisations have the potential to make a big impact though, and can incite and foster positive change and raise awareness. They often do, but in reality the returns are often meagre or modest, and provide only a slight counter to the dead weight of the corrupt system without having changed much.
Just like the movies (but not really).
Infiltration or subterfuge is much more dangerous and difficult to engage in. Often the repercussions are greater than those of violence, because such events cause deep embarrassment to the power structure and make it look incompetent. You or others may already be inside, or have valuable contacts, but the risks are constant and the stakes high, and being discovered is inevitably a very bad outcome. If successful, it can be a very effective, highly productive strategy, but activity like this will always be hammered down on mightily by the system when detected, unless you are somehow useful to them without your knowledge and allowed to proceed (which is much worse, and might expose your inside contacts or whole team).
Most systemic institutions are quite or very well guarded and surveilled, especially their information systems. Employees or public servants are often strictly monitored (sometimes without their knowledge), and often regularly briefed on internal security policy and best practices. You would really need a good working knowledge of that policy and its implementation, and then be able to exercise a keen eye to find holes, if you need to work your way in. Either that or find yourself a particularly gullible or indiscreet employee or associate (perhaps slightly drunk at a bar), and extract all the information you can from them, or somehow get them to provide an in.
You could open up a line of communication with an insider and trade information through secure channels, but then most of the risk lies squarely on their shoulders (including prison or worse), so you would need to find a very selfless, brave kind of person (or alternatively find someone unscrupulous and have lots of money in your pocket). As you are probably aware, most insiders, data-leakers and especially whistle blowers are quite quickly caught, persecuted and exposed, first within the organisation and to affiliates, then sometimes publicly via the media. This usually happens after the data has been indiscreetly utilised by a third party, or when the the leaks hit the net or the news. Those from the larger or more critical organisations are exposed to much more risk, and can be very difficult to recruit (unless you strike gold, and find an suitable friendly looking old janitor who has been there for years, is an expert in whistling innocently, pretending to mop for a bit, then looking around theatrically before pilfering the documents and hastily stuffing them into his overalls).
You might think to bug or cam certain locations, which usually requires detailed knowledge of the layout and furnishings, sufficient access, or a willing insider who is confident and competent enough to perform this task for you. This can be effective, and you can potentially learn much, but you strictly can’t use the resulting information for anything official (because you broke the law to get it), and rarely anything public. Any captured recordings often have limited value beyond perhaps finding out how someone’s partner is, and what they both had for dinner last night, but you might get lucky if someone is sufficiently indiscreet. If your devices are discovered, you might get away with it for the most part, but the entire organisation will become guarded and hardened, making further surveillance or infiltration much more difficult or practically impossible.
Hacking into systems or stealing digital identities requires the talents of a technical expert, who also understands social engineering and the value of opportunism. Finding such a person is very difficult, and the job is very difficult, and it is pretty much always extremely high risk. This will in most cases, be very expensive, unless you get very lucky or already have a comrade or two who can competently perform the task (but don’t just take their word for it). If unable to directly access the network or systems somehow, potential weak spots are sometimes employees own personal devices, computers or home network, but these are often not fully trusted by the organisation, completely disallowed for official use, or supplied in advance and hardened by its own IT team and quite secure. Once again, if successful, you might only find out what someone is chatting about near or on their phone (which they might not be allowed to take to work), shopping for online, playing in their spare time, taking pictures of, or what they and their family and friends chat about together via regular messaging services. If you have sufficient time and patience, this can eventually yield useful results, but if the hacker is still on the clock and earning, you may need to sell your house and car to pay them, and the investment is far from secure. Often a hack or swipe can initially appear successful, only to be discovered somewhere down the line by a bored or fastidious network administrator, or by someone simply reviewing their own online activity. Down comes the hammer, if you or your hacker friend weren’t careful enough.
If you get caught infiltrating a protected organisation or asset at any stage using any methodology, it can result in any or all of the following for you, your team, or your contacts: defamation, scary threats, negative exposure, prison, being framed or falsely accused, interrogation, exposure of past indiscretions, very scary threats, exile, unlawful incarceration, torture or even murder. Not really recommended for beginners.
TBC.
