How to be an InformationWar Activist - Part Two, Morality (Resteemed and Updated)
This is a resteem from three months ago. The nice things about revisiting old posts is that they can be updated and tweaked, corrected and finetuned. Commenter contributions can be added as well as the insights the author gets from his commenters. I will be reposting the series in full while I work on an OSINT primer.
It's important to talk about the ethics of fighting the war before you get moving. In Part One, I said that the most important decision was whether to risk your family or not; this is why the bulk of that post was related to anonymity and operational security.
I also noted that I would not discuss illegal modes of fighting the war; the decision to fight the war in that mode is your choice to be considered on your own ethical grounds. I'll touch on using the fruits of illegal activities in a moment.
An example before we start
In the runup to the 2016 election, I noted the use of a propaganda attack against Clinton based upon the Podesta ring's Spirit Cooking activity. Although I did not either verify the information OR particularly consider the matter to be more important than Clinton's many felony security violations, I went ahead and disseminated the information (propaganda) anyway.
If you have read my critical thinking writing which focuses on politics, you would understand that this is highly uncharacteristic of me.
So WHY did I do it?
Realizing that I put my own moral credibility on the line, I made the decision to jump on the Spirit Cooking tag for these reasons:
- Clinton would have been the end of America, and thus the Free World (I understand there is a LOT of disagreement on the second point, especially considering that it is a propaganda point of the neocons and their own corruption, please allow me to address THAT at another time so we can focus on the main point)
- The use of that propaganda attack was hugely successful...if you go by anecdotal evidence (there is a scientific saying that anecdotal evidence...isn't). I'll just say that from my impression, the use of the attack swayed many religious people who were on the fence, and who would NEVER admit that was a factor to a smug liberal pollster.
- I considered the loss of my own moral credibility was an acceptable risk if it prevented Clinton from becoming President
- I understood that this was not a tactical situation that I would choose to do so that occurred frequently, or even occasionally.
I'm sure that you have heard of "situational ethics", or the "fluidity of ethics". I am not justifying my decision to abandon my ethics to you; I am pointing out an example of moral choice in action.
So, regardless of what I tell you is moral or not, it is up to you to make your own choices
The first moral point - most people don't want to get involved
The point of this is that you should not browbeat or shame people into getting involved, or even into just hearing your propaganda. Folks have a huge range of reasons from not wanting to risk their own families to just plain cowardice.
That is their decision, not yours.
User @thelightreports made a valuable comment in the original version of this post about the level of commitment people can have(...or lack ;> ) in activism; my reply was this:
it takes little personal effort or risk to repost memes...
You can also look at this as a pyramid, however
people on the bottom are those that do nothing
the next level are the keyboard warriors
the next level up are folks that research and share information; that create memes as well
then as you move up and up you have folks that finance, recruit, organize and so on to the top where there is the least people contributing...but with the most effect!
User @Denmarkguy contributed this idea:
most people also don't have a deep enough understanding of the political process and system to truly grasp what they are supporting
Which is good to understand for the propagandist; you have to target your message for the level of knowledge AND commitment that your audience has, remembering that most people don't want to get involved!
People inclined to be minarchists(me) or anarchists really don't understand that most people don't want to be responsible for their own actions, and "need" a leader or a standard of behavior (like a religion) to follow.
Something to consider past the moral issue is that badgering people who just don't want to hear it can be counter-productive.
You should consider that a lot of Trump voting was generated from people that were tired of being badgered by the Left for not mouthing the appropriate Narrative
Morals have a purpose: which is to get to an end in a structured way. That is why abandoning morals can lead to issues. It is also why ethical behavior is not as cut and dried as we want it to be.
The Second Point - Target responsible individuals and organizations
I personally say "the leftists" do THIS or do THAT far too often. If you look at leftists as ALL part of the same organization ALL the time, it is a moral attack. But I do think that is an incorrect judgement. I suspect I have lost propaganda points by doing so.
The targets of your operations should always be responsible for the actions you are working against.
Moving back to leftists ;>, let's look at the internet lynch mobs the left conjures so often
Matt Taylor was attacked for a sexy shirt he wore
Now, this was an effective propaganda attack, but IMHO opinion an immoral attack. Taylor was not responsible for any evil action, and was in fact advancing science.
But here is the reason I feel correct in attacking leftists in this case:
In the leftist view, bourgeois behavior in any context must be destroyed culturally (See Scuton, Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left)
From a leftist viewpoint, attacking Taylor as an individual is moral because he becomes an example to others to toe the Narrative line, not because he himself was a political opponent; in one sense, he is not even being attacked as an individual, but as a symbol of (snort) "oppression".
The Third Point - Use of illegal materials
At the start, I used my own example of using the Spirit Cooking attack; this attack developed out of the hacks of the DNC and Podesta's emails which bought up the question of PizzaGate as well.
This information came to light from illegal means. Updated comments here- it is likely that most of the DNC emails were not hacked, but rather leaked to Wikileaks by Seth Rich.
And while I do not publicly advocate that illegal actions be undertaken, I have to support the use of such material when it is brought to the public's attention.
Between Judicial Watch's FOIA requests bringing Clinton's criminality into the open, and all the Wikileaks' efforts in publishing Democrat communications, it appears that the illegally gained material of Wikileaks had far more effect on the vote than the evidence of Clinton's felonies.
Do unto others
Your targets are corruptocrats at the least; potential members of a kakistocracy (I am not making any claims as to how many corrupting agencies or conspiracies there are, or their level of cooperation/coordination; see Parts 5, 7, & 8 in the series ). They are known to have murdered people, to use propaganda; and to silence dissent.
Should you use their weapons against them?
In the Repairman Jack fictional series, the hero says that it is moral to lie to liars, to steal from thieves, and to kill murderers.
Conclusion
At every step in this post, I have brought up examples of morality versus efficiency.
Personally, I think that morality is a good bet over the long term; honesty, truth, and dedication to fair means...and yet I have conducted myself dishonestly at points.
I have talked about the complete lack of any moral adherence on the part of the tyrants and their front groups.
Morality is a very personal thing. Moral decisions are up to the person making them; he alone is responsible for that.
My purpose here has not been to tell you what is right for you to do, but to make sure that you understand that there are moral choices to be made in the Information War.
This series index:
So you want to be an InformationWar Activist? - Part One (UPDATED)
How to be an InformationWar Activist - Part Two, Morality (UPDATED)
How to be an InformationWar Activist, Part Three: Is the Information War Winnable?
How to be an InformationWar Activist - Part Four: What the heck IS Information War?
How to be an InformationWar Activist - Part Five: The American Deep State
How to be an InformationWar Activist - Part Six: The Personal Price
How to be an InformationWar Activist - Part Seven: Who Might The Players be?
How to be an InformationWar Activist - Part Eight: Making Sense of Multiple Levels of Corruption
Steemit writers contributing to understanding the Information War
@originalsimulant
@dragon40
@lifeworship
@shayne
@thedeplorable1
@phibetaiota - Information War, OSINT
@fortified
@dodecahydra
@krnel - Critical Thinking/Cognitive Bias
@richq11
@dwinblood - Critical Thinking
@rebelskum - http://pizzagate.wiki
@nachtigall
@kushfreeman
@aggroed
@ausbitbank
@titusfrost
@canadian-coconut