https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-secret-undercover-army-1591881
The stage for all of this was set in the aftermath of 9/11
and increasingly as people no longer consider the surrendering of their privacy
and data to be anything controversial, and as generations of lock-step, wave
the flag, support the troops, my country right or wrong nationalism has come to
dominate – this story isn't even controversial.
In many ways the fact that such revelations are not controversial
is the story itself. This should be a major headline. It has made the news but
everyone has yawned and moved on. It's already old news. So many of these
things were revealed to us by whistleblowers throughout the first two decades
of the twenty-first century, they no longer can generate a response. And people
don't listen and they quickly forget. The implications of the leaks is too much
to take in and the idea that you might want to consider changing your lifestyle
– that's unthinkable. They've been properly conditioned. The whistleblowers are
villainized, in prison or in hiding and life goes on. Really the only thing
surprising about the article is the scope of what's happening.
The Establishment is preparing for the fragmentation of
society and as the US enters a new Cold War with China and Russia, preparations
are being made for a dirty propaganda war, a cyber-war, and to address the
danger of lone wolves who have been groomed on-line – sometimes groomed by US
law enforcement looking for a 'win'. This current generation (the social media
generation) is the most socially isolated in history and people are easily
influenced. Additionally because the social consensus is in freefall (which has
good and bad aspects to it) there are all kinds of doors open to those who
would subvert the power and influence of the state.
Hyper-individualism dominates American culture. It is the
logical and degenerate state of Classical Liberalism placed within a
capitalist-consumerist context. The state cannot eliminate it and is quite
willing to tolerate it as long as it's superficial. If individuality is limited
to things like body modification and ostentatious self-expression, then that's
fine. As long as the people will continue to sell themselves to the larger system
and support it, then faux non-conformity isn't a concern. But the state is
prepared to clampdown on serious dissent, dissent that questions the
foundations of the order. I did not say its ideals. Things have moved well
beyond that. There are ideals in the narrative that are paid a kind of lip
service but at this point the order is about raw power and the state is
erecting an apparatus that can turn authoritarian at the mere flip of a switch.
They have a generation of pliant flat-thinking people that are willing to serve
this order. Some are brainwashed ideologues that never think deeply enough to
discover their deep contradictions. Others are opportunists, and there are
always the sadistic types who migrate toward such opportunities. They are
everywhere in government service. Some wear uniforms, some don't.
I was pleased to note that Arkin at least has the integrity
to point out that these programmes are of the same type and order as those conducted
by China and Russia and that the US is (to some degree) hypocritical to call
them out when it clearly is engaged in the same kinds of activity.
This also identifies the nature of the conflict. The Pentagon
has told us as much. The War on Terror is now only utilised when the
nomenclature is convenient. Doctrinally speaking the Pentagon has moved on and
we're into Great Powers Conflict now or as others have rightly identified it –
Cold War II.
The first Cold War destroyed many lives and built
infrastructures that tore apart societies including its own. The same will be
true this time. The ideological lines are fuzzy. It's really a struggle for
power and (though it won't often be packaged this way) for natural resources.
The Resource Wars are already well underway but one thing we've learned, they're
not going to be marketed that way. Few are going to be willing to die for great
deals and low prices, or even so that there's sufficient supply to meet
economic demand. Such realities always have to be packaged and dressed up in
the language of ideology and moral conviction.
Given the current nature and divisions within American
society it must be said that we're entering a sad chapter which may prove to be
this political order's swan song. As relationships break down, social consensus
evaporates, simple things like trust are beginning to disappear. How much more
when you have to start worrying about who's recording you or reporting on you?
The Shadow State that was created in the aftermath of World
War II returned to the shadows during the 1970's. Stung by its exposure, it was
forced to scramble and re-organise in the aftermath of Watergate. For many
years it no longer had the backing of the Imperial Presidency. Under Reagan
these forces were once again turned loose but it's clear that one of the
methods by which they operate is to create parallel and redundant bureaucracies
and since Reagan there has been a strong push to outsource and rely on the
private sector. Intelligence agencies have always utilised shell companies but
after 2001 the web grew so complex that shell companies and contractors were
being used by shell companies and contractors. Many people within these sectors
don't actually know who they're working for. This kind of compartmentalisation
is basic to intelligence work but it's been taken into the stratosphere.
It's a sign of a culture in trouble and at war with itself.
It indicates a government that is increasingly weak and limited in what it can
accomplish via official channels. This is the road to dictatorship and the
collapse of the republic. When people want security and for things to get done
they'll happily dispense with protocol and official channels. They want someone
who will 'get the job done' and if even congress is bowing to this pressure, then
the door is open – and yet who will step in? Who has already stepped in? We
don't know. We don't know who is actually pulling the strings. The president
certainly wields no small amount of influence but the equation is much bigger
than the White House.
The floodgates were thrown open in 2001. The beast that was
unleashed has taken on a life of its own. Total Information Awareness (TIA) was
revealed by the Bush administration. There was a public outcry, something
almost unthinkable today – so profoundly has society changed over the past
twenty years. TIA was canceled but as Snowden later revealed it was (just like
in the movies) fragmented, re-named, and implemented anyway. In 2001 a lot of
the technology wasn't there yet. Since then we've seen the appearance of social
media and the Smartphone. Now these things are being integrated with homes,
cars, and every aspect of life. In 2001, it wouldn't have been possible to
imagine such things. One wonders if the truth in this case does parallel the
fiction – if the state itself has played a role in not just funding the
development of these technologies but in marketing them to the public.
Truly the American experiment in democracy has ended. It
ended long ago but the pretense of it is even becoming ridiculous. But once again,
people still clamour for their political candidates, weep at their speeches,
passionately throw themselves into the cause wishing and hoping that something
will change. And yet it doesn't but two years or four years later they fall for
it all over again and convince themselves this election matters or that it's
the most important of their lifetime. It's sad, comical, and certainly amazing
to watch.
The article also demonstrates that you can't trust anyone or
anything. The Internet is as much a realm of lies as of truth. I would hope
people have realized that by now. I still look back to what I consider the
Golden Age of the Internet in the 1990's. There was only a fraction of what's
out there now, but the quality was of a different order. It was exciting and
yet how quickly it soured. It's a shame to fall into such cynicism but when it
comes to the world and the information provided by the powers that be – we have
to be. We're not going to overthrow them but we shouldn't simply take their
word as good coin. We cannot.
That said, I do not advocate the kind of crazed incoherence
that seems to exist out there and is presently running amok in Christian
circles. I hate to sound like a broken record but if you want to avoid losing
your way, pray, read the Scriptures carefully and rightly and read lots of
history. I am convinced the majority of Christians don't do any of these things.
Prepare to be a criminal. Don't think like one in a sinister
way but think in terms of living under the radar. It's much easier if you
abandon your mammon-based hopes. When you don't care about your stuff and your
financial portfolio it's pretty easy.
No one is after me but that may change especially as I see
law-breaking as inevitable. In light of that, no, I don't want to give up my
data, social, biometric or otherwise. It's appalling to see what's out there on
the Internet about us, how much information is public knowledge. I do all I can
to cloud and confuse my profile and I recommend others do the same.
And finally in addition to knowing the Scriptures we would do well to read Church History. The stories of the Early Church, and dissidents persecuted by the pseudo-Christian order that replaced it, and even those who suffered at the hands of Magisterial Protestantism is inspiring and informative. Soft Persecution continued in many places well into the nineteenth century and as we know there are many inspiring stories to be found in the twentieth.
The story continues and the Church of the twenty-first century will make its own contributions and as before – there will also be a great deal of confusion. Even now many suffer for their political activism and confuse their punishment and disobedience (to the New Testament) with genuine persecution. Discernment is required and yet there's little to be found in this time of corruption and deceit.