Samizdat Strategies 2 - The Worse

From tyrannical governments to tyrannical business monopolies.

Over the past month, Americans have been slowly realizing that they no longer live in "the land of the free, and the home of the brave."  We are no longer free - at least, we certainly aren't free to openly speak the truth about our corrupt leaders, their crimes, or even the reality of science and biology.

Say the wrong thing - which is to say, the right thing - and you face acute dangers of having important elements of your life destroyed by the reigning cancel culture.  Even worse, our ruling tyrants are exercising technological powers unknown to the tyrants of the past, to keep you from even being able to view or discuss the truth.

We aren't the only publication who're worried about this - even the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee warned about the problem, though true to form they didn't do anything about it.  More pointedly, Hillsdale University described the history of Google's manipulation of search results and their plans to control all future American elections, which so far are going swimmingly.

American Thinker described many ways your important individual rights can be restricted without recourse; this is a small part of it:

The more insidious problem [than deplatforming Parler] that occurs to me is whether my browser and other tools can be made to be uncooperative.  Lately, my Windows system seems to be getting sluggish.  The wifi signal is unreliable, disappearing and reporting that it is connected to the router but does not have Internet access. My phone's app freezes when I open my Bible for the daily reading. One of my email accounts is through Yahoo, which gives me a phone notification that I have email - e.g. the Geller Report - but it doesn't show up when I open the Yahoo app.

If the browser starts being a source of censorship, then typing in a URL will not help me.  If email apps won't let me read my email, then signing up for daily updates where possible will not be effective.  If the Kindle app I use to get to digital books bought on Amazon is modified to allow the reading of only certain books, then I am denied access to my purchases. ...

Typing in a URL can be followed by bookmarking the page.  Apps aren't needed, but an agnostic browser is.  I think there's a market niche there.  Someone will fill it. [Someone has.  We describe it in the next article. - ed]  [emphasis added]

Deplatforming Governments

In addition to canceling the President of the United States and many of his associates, Facebook has decided to cancel the entire Australian government.  The Australian government debated a law that would require Facebook and Google to pay publishers when they display news articles to their customers.  Since Facebook's entire business model depends on selling ads placed next to information people post for free, they were having none of this.

Thus, Facebook changed their code to prevent any Facebook page anywhere in the world from displaying any Australian news article.  No Aussie news displayed, no fees to pay!

The New York Post reports that Facebook included government publications in its definition of "news article" for which it did not wish to pay:

Within hours of Facebook's announcement, the Facebook pages of Nine, News Corp., and the government-funded Australian Broadcasting Corp., which acts as a central information source during natural disasters, were blank. So too were the Facebook pages of major regional health departments, where a quarter of the country's 25 million people regularly gather information regarding COVID-19.

As bushfires rage across the country, the Facebook page of the Bureau of Meteorology was also wiped clean. Regional Department of Fire and Emergency Service offices were prevented from posting emergency bushfire warnings.

The extent of Facebook's power allows it to threaten a country's government by holding hostage massive amounts of its social infrastructure. What we are witnessing is hardly a contractual dispute, but a power struggle between a sovereign self-government and a private corporation so dominant, it exists as a hegemon in its own right.

Who, though, is taking advantage of whom?  It was far cheaper for a government agency to set up a free Facebook page than to host a web site for which they would have had to pay some provider, or set up servers of their own.  To name but one benefit, Facebook is a lot better at web site security than most governments.  The implicit bargain is - you take advantage of Facebook's free data hosting service and global reach, and you let them make money selling ads off of your content.

Of course, like anyone else and like the Federal government in the U.S., the Aussies could have chosen to do their own hosting - but how long would it take for all these agencies to create web sites and tell everyone where to find them?  As it turns out, Facebook restored the government's pages - but has now taken down pages maintained by the Myanmar military, since pretty much everyone Facebook cares about thinks the Myanmar military are nasty, dirty people.

And perhaps they are - but they are a sovereign government with control of tanks, jets, and other paraphernalia generally associated with governing.  What should governments do about this bullying by an organization with no tanks, nukes, or bombers?

This isn't just relevant to tinpot dictatorships: the State of Florida is considering legislation to fine social media $100,000 per day for de-platforming a Florida political candidate.  Either the Tech Lords control governments, or governments control the Tech Lords.  As we see it, it's too bad they can't both lose, with the possible exception of the generally well-intentioned Florida.

It's Worse Than That

Governments, at least, have things they can do to make Facebook uncomfortable, though the jury is still very much out as to who will come out on top.  In the meantime, we're all the losers: Aussies cannot find data where they've previously known it to be, and becoming aware of Australian news is now that little bit more difficult for not just Aussies, but for you too.

In addition to being blocked from information you desire, you may be locked out of any form of economic activity at all as cancel culture spreads its destructive net wider.  In 2018, the New York Times observed, "If banks and credit card companies were to stop doing business with gun shops that sell assault weapons, the supply of such firearms would be greatly reduced," and sure enough, the Wall Street Journal shortly reported that banks and credit card companies were looking for ways to identify gun purchases in order to block them.

More recently, Reuters tells us that the New York State attorney general has filed suit to dissolve the National Rifle Association, in effect driving them from the state via a strategic bankruptcy brought about by abuse of state power.

Taking these ideas a step further, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has proposed basing your credit score on your "personal Internet history."

Instead of using traditional methods of assessing a customer's credit risk, like assets, income, and marital status, banks are now looking to tap into the vast swathes of data collected by Big Tech companies like Facebook, Google, and YouTube for marketing purposes, to make risk assessments.

That's the sort of financial weapons our MSM has been urging the financial system to use against gun owners and their supporters.  It's precisely how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses Big Data and Artificial Intelligence to monitor pretty much every activity of each of China's 1.4 billion people to determine each person's "social credit score."

Citizens with higher scores have had an easier time getting bank loans, free medical checkups and discounts on heating. Points have been deducted for traffic violations, selling faulty products or defaulting on loan payments. In some cases, people with bad social credit scores have been barred from buying airline or train tickets[emphasis added]

Some American jurisdictions used the threat of virus being spread by touching all that filthy cash to force everyone to use credit cards instead.  Every transaction is examined by the card company's computer as it occurs.  For the moment, the fact that you pay your bills on time means that the card company will approve the transaction, but as you can see, discussions are underway to find ways to deny you goods or services which the Powers that Be think are undesirable.

If the IMF has its way, and we're sure that the Biden administration will go along, the fact that you browsed a conservative web site might lower your credit score enough to block otherwise-approved transactions.  The Black Mirror sci-fi anthology episode "Nosedive" gave a graphic illustration of how that works, if you have the stomach to see your likely future.

As Prophets Foretold

Using implants for identification to enable commerce was predicted in the Book of Revelation nearly 2,000 years ago.  According to this apocalyptic work of Scripture, the one-world government, toward which our elites have been pushing for more than a century, will be brought into being by an evil leader known as "the Beast."  His economic policies are clear:

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.  Revelation 13:16-17 [emphasis added]

The CCP keeps people with low scores from traveling; how long will it be before they're stopped from buying food?  In the situation described in the Bible, nobody will be able to buy or sell anything, including food, clothing, or shelter, without having the Beast's approved implant.

Sure enough, CBS News tells us that microchips are being implanted in people:

[Tim Shank] had a small incision made in his finger so the tiny chip, which emits low frequencies, could be inserted inside. He programmed the chip to open his smart lock at home and control his smartphone.

These chips are being implanted in tattoo parlors; you don't even have to visit a hospital.  We have no doubt that the CCP will offer "China Joe" and his son a very attractive discount on the hardware and software needed to implement an American version of the "social credit score," implantable microchips and all.

Just think of the benefits of having your credit cards implanted!  No risk of theft loss, just wave your hand at the device and payment is authorized even if you're in a swimming pool.  Your wallet will be slimmer, and of course, good citizen and well-behaved, financially-responsible person that you are, there would never, ever be any reason why the credit company would deny your purchases, not even by mistake...

Given that the cancel culture and our social media sites don't care whom they attack, banks are looking for ways to harass gun fanciers, and heavy-hitting organizations like the IMF are proposing that your "credit score" include all of your online behavior, now is the time to start hiding your activities from our new "authorities" to the best of your ability.

How We Got Here

There's one simple fact you must understand - whenever you get anything for free, you are the product.  Ordinary Russians who lived under communism eventually caught on:

"Free cheese can only be found in a mouse trap."

~ Russian proverb about the cost of government 'gifts.' 

They should know.

When you use Gmail, Yahoo mail, Microsoft mail, or any of the others you don't pay for, they read your email to learn your interests so they can target advertisements to you. Google also identifies you by your search patterns and uses their knowledge of what you click after each search to supplement their knowledge of your preferences.

Every time you click an ad, or if it merely pops up, Google or Facebook gets money.  They're selling the fact that you saw an ad.  That's what we mean by "you are the product."

It was this way long before the Internet.  What we paid for old-time newspaper subscriptions just about covered the cost of the blank paper.  We paid for the medium, but advertisers paid for everything else: gathering news, printing it, loading the trucks, and delivering physical papers.  Newspapers bragged about their daily circulation so they could charge more for ads.

You didn't pay for collecting or printing the news, you paid part of the cost of delivering it.  You were the product.

Today, we pay an ISP for a connection and buy a device to go onto the Internet to seek information.  We pay for the delivery medium, but advertisers pay the cost of research, entering the material, and serving it to us.

Google and Facebook brag about their click counts so they can charge more for ads.  The difference is that while newspapers of old had no way to tell which of their ads you saw or what articles you read, Google knows what you look for and what you read, Facebook knows what you like and share, Twitter knows what you re-tweet.  They justify collecting this information so they can show you only ads for items you're likely to buy and charge more for each click.

It's a short step from using data about you for advertising proposes to using it for political purposes.  There were hints of this in both of Mr. Obama's campaigns, but social media unarguably crossed that line by banning Mr. Trump and many of his well-known supporters.  Given how the social media have shown themselves to be our enemies, we want to communicate in other ways to deny them as much revenue as we can and make it less likely that they'll want to cancel us personally.

Replacing Our Entire World-View Will Be Difficult

There are many flaws in our society that should be addressed and altered, but does 'canceling' everything flawed serve society's best interests?  Does a single pencil mark on a piece of paper mean the entire page is lost and useless?  Should we destroy all flawed organizations, or address their flaws?  And, who gets to decide what constitutes a flaw, or what the proper changes might be?

Should we destroy all flawed or handicapped people next, as many pro-abortion Democrats seem to believeThe last nation to try that did indeed save a tremendous amount of money on (not) caring for the disabled, but the other societal costs turned out to be egregious in the extreme.

Where does it stop, and who is the judge?  The US was created, founded, and fought for by those who would not follow unreasonable laws whose creation and enforcement didn't serve the interest of the people!

Is the answer to a flawed system, to destroy it and replace it with the same system so many came to the US to escape?  Freedom of speech, thoughts, actions, and beliefs resulted in the creation of the greatest country, as proved by its accomplishments, the world has ever known.

When is a good time to destroy what We the People people created?  We should use our reason to make things better, not worse, for our country and for the entire world.

Are the Tech Lords who're driving the cancel culture seeking improvement, or are they focused on gaining power over other people to the exclusion of any thoughts of the damage they might cause?

All of us need to immediately implement ways to make things more difficult for them to cancel you.  It's not practical to disappear completely - nor should you, as that in and of itself would arouse suspicion - but by taking a few precautions, you can hide a lot of your activity.  This won't protect you should we end up in full-Gestapo Amerika, but with a little luck, may buy you some time to prepare in other ways while you use our suggestions for separating truth from falsehood.

For the really important or leftist-triggering, be prepared to go back to old-fashioned snail mail - the BBC tells us that the Ugandan government shut down their entire Internet just before an election to "stop the spread of misinformation."  The Internet was restored after the election, but social media remain blocked.  Jack Dorsey's immense frustration and his Tweets about this assault on freedom of speech were pretty amazing in the light of what he and his minions had just done to Mr. Trump and his associates.

Even with snail mail, some precautions are warranted.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the outside of an envelope is public information.  That makes it OK for the government to ask the USPS to give them all the addresses of people to whom you send mail and the return addresses of all mail you receive.

It may be prudent to drop letters in boxes a long way from your home and not to use return addresses so the authorities won't know your addressee got a letter from a deplorable like you.  If they do the same in return, no computer will be able to correlate the correspondence; only old-fashioned gumshoeing can do that, and even the Feds have only so many of those.

In due time, even this won't be enough, so the last precaution is to form the habit of inking an X or two across the sealed flap of every envelope.  Bad actors can steam your letters open and re-seal them, but they won't be able to line up the Xs properly without a lot of extra work, a characteristic not notably common in government employees.

You can't stop them from opening your mail, but the X will let them know you're aware they're watching you... and misaligned ones will let you have confidence in the eternal truth that, indeed, even the paranoid have enemies.

Most of us have entirely forgotten the art of letter-writing or never learned it in the first place.  In the next article in this series, we'll take a look at some technologies that can be used to provide a partial layer of protection from those who seek to silence your freedom to speak, think, write, and communicate as you choose.

Will Offensicht is a staff writer for and an internationally published author by a different name.  Read other articles by Will Offensicht or other articles on Media.
Reader Comments

Great article Will.
Two comments
1. If I would have read this same article 2 years ago, I would have brushed it off as the author having a vivid imagination and some outlandish ideas.
2. Reading this article today, all I can say is that the speed with which the entire government structural basis the United States is built on, and that has now been dismantled and subverted, is breathtaking.

February 23, 2021 8:26 PM

You've understated the degree to which Democrats are showing their fangs.

Democrats Send Insane Letter to Cable Carriers and Big Tech, Demanding a Ban on Conservative Media

In a letter to the CEOs of AT&T, Hulu, Alphabet Inc., Altice USA, Cox Communications, Dish Network, Charter Communications, Comcast, Apple, Amazon, Roku, Democrat Congressmen Jerry McNerny and Anna Eshoo are essentially demanding contracts with right leaning outlets be terminated and therefore, deplatformed.

"Our country's public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies. These phenomena undergird the radicalization of seditious individuals who committed acts of insurrection on January 6 , and it contributes to a growing distrust of public health measures necessary to crush the pandemic. We are concerned about the role AT&T plays in disseminating misinformation to millions of its U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV subscribers, and we write to you today to request additional information about what actions AT&T is taking to address these issues. Nearly half of Americans get their news primarily from TV. However, not all TV news sources are the same. Some purported news outlets have long been misinformation rumor mills and conspiracy theory hotbeds that produce content that leads to real harm," they wrote. "Misinformation on TV has led to our current polluted information environment that radicalizes individuals to commit seditious acts and rejects public health best practices, among other issues in our public discourse."

"Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?" they continued.

February 23, 2021 10:08 PM

Forbes writes: Amazon Responds To Republican Sens. On Book Ban, Says Won't Sell Books That Frame LGBTQ+ Identities As Mental Illness

Amazon will not sell any books on its platform that portray transgender, other gender identities and sexual orientations as mental illnesses, the company explained in a letter to three Republican senators who had sought an explanation from the e-commerce giant about its decision to delist a book written by a conservative author, as conservative politicians attempt to challenge the Biden administration's efforts to expand protections for LGBTQ+ people.

In a letter to the senators, Amazon said that the company has "chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness," the Wall Street Journal first reported.

The letter was in response to Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who had sought an explanation from the e-commerce giant on its decision to remove the book "When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment" from its storefront last month.

The book in question was written by the conservative author Ryan T. Anderson, published in February 2018, and caused outrage over its anti-transgender claims.

In response to Amazon's letter, Anderson tweeted: "Everyone agrees that gender dysphoria is a serious condition that causes great suffering. There is a debate, however, which Amazon is seeking to shut down."

Amazon has declined to comment on the issue.

Last month, Amazon quietly removed Anderson's book from its storefront including the ebook version from the Kindle and the audiobook version from Audible. The delisting of the book outraged several conservatives who saw it as censorship. A few days later the four Republican senators wrote to Amazon saying its decision to remove the book was a signal "to conservative Americans that their views are not welcome on its platforms." Anderson's book has been at the center of controversy ever since it launched in 2018. Critics have argued that the book quotes "junk science", which focuses on negative stories and is far removed from acceptance of the transgender community. Anderson's previous writing has also pushed anti-LGBTQ+ stances including challenging the acceptance of same-sex marriage in his book 'Truth Overruled.' The issue of Anderson's book emerged as President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress pledged to push sweeping protections for LGBTQ+ people and pass the Equality Act. But the measure has faced stiff opposition from Republican and religious conservative groups.

March 12, 2021 3:29 PM

In arguing that the Supreme Court ought to make it easier to sue media for publishing false information, Federal Judge: 'One-Party Control Of The Press And Media Is A Threat To A Viable Democracy'

The control of major media by one political party is a dangerous threat to the country, a federal judge warned in a blistering dissent that called for courts to revisit libel laws that generally protect the press from being held liable for their reporting.

"It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news," wrote Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit for the Court of Appeals. "It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy."

Silberman argued that it's time for courts to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, which has shaped press law in favor of media outlets for more than five decades. The New York Times and the Washington Post "are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction," Judge Silberman wrote in his March 19 dissent.

He said that orientation also controls the Associated Press and most large papers in the country, including the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe. "Nearly all television-network and cable-is a Democratic Party trumpet," Judge Silberman added.

Silicon Valley also has "enormous influence" over the distribution of news and it "similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party," wrote Judge Silberman, highlighting the shocking suppression of stories about Joe Biden and his family when he was running for president.

In that case, Twitter and Facebook censored media outlets that reported accurately about the Biden family's dealing with foreign entities. Twitter suspended users, including sitting White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, for merely sharing accurate information, and prevented people from sharing the information privately on its platform. Facebook said it would censor coverage of the Biden family corruption pending a "fact-check," an unprecedented privilege given to Biden in the closing days of one of the closest presidential elections in history.

Only a few major media outlets are not controlled by the left, Silberman noted, citing Fox News, where this reporter is a contributor, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal. "It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News," he wrote. CNN hosts and other leftist activsts are currently on a campaign to deplatform their rival.

"Admittedly, a number of Fox's commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left," Silberman wrote in a footnote, in a dig at reporters inserting their extreme partisan views into news stories.


March 23, 2021 2:37 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...