Self Preservation and Irreversible Decline [was: Electronic Freedom Foundation selective in support of freedom]

coderman coderman at gmail.com
Sun Jan 10 04:50:35 PST 2016


On 1/6/16, Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org> wrote:
> ... I've found myself self-censoring quite a lot more
> since my kids were born.


this topic has been on my mind recently,

"You know, It would be a lot easier you just didn't do X"
"This wouldn't happen if you quit annoying Y"
"If you accept, Z will pay nicely and protect you."

where X is FOIA requests, security research, PET development, etc.,
 Y is some powerful entity like FBI, NSA, Verizon, Intel, etc.,
  and Z is some convenient but forever bound by position requiring a
clearance and suspension of moral qualms.

when you've got the world to loose (nothing more encompassing than
your own family!) preservation is near irresistible.  simple fear of
harm might be compelling enough for the majority to cower compliant,
even.

---

when i was young, these questions of "do i do right? or do i stay
safe?" were abstract and applicable only to foreign backwaters or past
history. a modern, free liberal democracy need never exercise such
restraint - we have Blind Justice which always finds in favor of the
righteous!

over some years i lost this innocent faith in perfect justice, saw
abuses of power against the less fortunate or less familiar, accrued
things dear to me like friends and new family, and became comfortable
in a lifestyle with all needs met.
.
.
.
now USA in a state of perpetual war, executive power at record levels,
surveillance staggering in breadth and invasiveness, censorship and
suppression of speech creeping ever further into the centralized
systems dominating over our way of life, it's not good...
 and yet we're not rounding up foreign-born citizens and their
families for incarceration at detention camps (like Japanese during
the war).  not to mention that much of the rest of the world would be
killed or imprisoned leading my kind of  life in another jurisdiction!

when people are being killed for exposing corruption or injustice, it
seems ridiculous to complain about annoyances resulting from optional
activities i have chosen to undertake willingly - not out of dire need
or coercion.  with all my needs still met.

---

all of which made me wonder, what did the every day German or Italian
citizen see before fascism ravaged sanity? what did they see that felt
disturbing, but not overtly threating and could be ignored? what did
they see which told them all legitimacy was lost and only resistance
remained?

the #YallQueda rebellion staged their last stand in my state, with
land use abuse the straw upon their broken backs. perhaps loss of
livelihood a better Rubicon?

---

then another "If you quit doing that, it would all be much easier..." was said,
and i wondered if this was the key sign of trouble i was fearing to
see. when lawful activities performed for the good of the public draw
unjustified scrutiny and disruption from the state, has the state
itself become corrupt?

how far must this corruption spread before it cannot be stopped
without destruction of the state, no matter the size and vehemency of
public protest?

can the tools of technology and manufactured consent provide the state
ability to become completely corrupted without detection, nor
resistance from the public?

---

i don't know the answers, and i am curious to hear opinions.

i still live a rich life with needs met and i don't think we're on the
brink of a fascist nightmare future. maybe hell on earth is closer
than i think...

thoughts?



best regards,


NOTE: i am using the terms fascist and fascism explicitly, not capriciously.
'''
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to
prominence in early 20th-century Europe...

Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes
in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent
of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down
the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military
citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the
military in some manner during the war. The war had resulted in the
rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to
serve on the front lines and providing economic production and
logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority
to intervene in the lives of citizens. Fascists view World War I as
having made liberal democracy obsolete, and regard total mobilization
of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to
prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to
economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader — such
as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the
governing fascist party — to forge national unity and maintain a
stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence
is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence,
war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.
'''
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism




More information about the cypherpunks mailing list