Keeping Your Own Counsel

Full spectrum dominance is all based upon the complete predictability of a targeted population. A surveillance society is only possible if the captive public throws caution to the wind by divulging every inane opinion that comes into their heads, regardless of its value. Reverence for privacy must be reinvigorated if any of us are going to have a realistically meager chance at securing our Liberties.



Privacy is all about the control of information. Whatever you choose to discuss reveals quite a bit about your character. Contrary to popular belief, you retain absolute control over what you say, even if you are being coerced. Written text and verbal speech are proof that you are exercising volitional consciousness, for it requires at the very minimum some level of cognition in order to express yourself.

Those dissidents who ostensibly commit themselves to transparency and whistle-blowing (even to the extent of forming entire social movements revolving around it) should really heed the warning that not all truths need to be said. Pointing out the injustices that occur because of despotic individuals, organizations, and other institutions that have over-reaching effects into our lives is one thing, but airing your friend’s dirty laundry is completely different. While it may be possible to hook an audience with some salacious tabloid nonsense in order to reveal the true atrocities, conflating pertinent war crimes with sensationalistic garbage is counterproductive and divisive. Another reason for this is that when personal dirty laundry is recklessly gossiped about, it is subject to the common human frailties of being misunderstood, ineptly judged, or cowardly decried. Since time is finite, there is literally a natural limit on what can be said at any given moment, so why derail any potentially good outcomes with distracting nonsense?

It is understandable if some otherwise well-meaning individuals think that by stressing the importance of privacy, I am instead implying the virtues of censorship. Unfortunately, this too suffers from the effects of verbicide. If by “censorship” you mean the government suppression of “free speech, or of the press,” then of course I am firmly against that, for if I wasn’t, wouldn’t I be a hypocrite? However, if by “censorship” you mean “[t]he act, process, or practice of censoring,” with “censoring” being defined as “one that condemns or censures,” with “censure” in turn meaning “[a]n expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism,” or alternatively “[t]o criticize severely; blame,” why then yes I do, especially if you consider all the times I have publicly rebuked any dissident methodology that does not work. As you can no doubt see, it fundamentally matters what the specific meaning is intended behind the words used, especially when there are emotive attachments to some particular versions of it.

Speaking of terminology, acronyms are just as important. No doubt many of you are familiar with operational security (OPSEC), which has been popularized in dissident circles by James Wesley, Rawles. Although is it commonly understood that OPSEC entails the use of various privacy measures, the question needs to be posed as to what precisely is the active operation requiring copious security? The only one that is a good example of this was the preparation for the airing of Discovery Channel’s “Militia Rising” special, because it was something specific. Regarding day-in and day-out behavior, privacy measures are supposed to be integrated into your standard operating procedures (SOP) already, but if a more specific acronym is needed to label those privacy measures themselves, may I suggest information security (INFOSEC) as a viable substitute?

Snitching is the vernacular term used to denote the primary activity of those who are confidential or criminal informants (CI) for the government. Snitches are dangerous because what they say to agents of the State usually gets people in serious trouble (like being fined, incarcerated, physically injured, or even executed). Despite one conception of the term as only meaning getting someone hassled by the standing army over something minor that technically violates mala prohibita but not mala in se, I would strongly urge instead the notion that any willful disclosure of information about someone else to the tin badge gods be considered as snitching. If you think I am overreacting, I would recommend that you watch Professor James Duane of Regent Law School and Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department instructing law students that when they begin practicing law, to tell their clients to never, ever, talk to the police, pleading the Fifth if necessary.

When someone tells you something privately, you are expected to keep it confidential. Intimate or sensitive details can not only serve to hurt people with respect to government thugs, but also in terms of harming individual reputations or diplomatic relations (especially between dissident factions). Betraying confidences only serves to point out who deserves to be punished for ratting someone else out.

Regarding personal identity, limiting what you say can help keep you relatively anonymous. Now, I regret to admit that I have a propensity to talk a lot about a ton of subjects in private conversations; however, I am incredibly sensitive as to what I am saying, to whom I am speaking with, and what specifically we are discussing. There are important reasons why I’ve used pseudonyms, donned physical disguises, and never talk about my personal life or professional “career.” When I chose to become active within the alternative media, I have ever since been walking an uncomfortable tight rope between my cherished privacy and what needs to be covered publicly so as to move the cause for Liberty forward.

Despite the internal quibbling within Anonymous regarding their conflicting attitudes concerning, what I appreciated about Operation Facebook was how it elucidated that anything you post on this social networking website is archived forever onto their servers. This is made possible with the consent of users when they created an account that automatically made them subject to the Orwellian sounding “Privacy Policy.” When combined with the fact that Facebook has deep ties with the Central Intelligence Agency, it does beg the question as to why anyone in their right mind would voluntarily assist the secret police by providing intimate details concerning their personal activities and private thoughts?

As the old World War II idiom goes, “Loose lips sink ships.” To paraphrase my fellow dissident, The Anti-Terrorist, one of the golden rules for dealing with the police is to shut the fuck up. Two quotes of his that further reinforce this value are, “Fish are only caught because they open their mouths; keep yours shut,” and, “If you keep your lips pressed together, the silly words won’t fall out.” I hope you can see how this is also applicable as an entire way of life.

This entry was posted in Dissident Methodology. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Keeping Your Own Counsel

  1. Pingback: Modeling Threats & Analyzing Risk: A Rebuttal Against "Doom Porn" - Liberty Under Attack

  2. Pingback: Chilling Dissent: How Government Demonizes Americans | From the Trenches World Report

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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