In more than just an abstract way, the plethora of illnesses currently killing western civilisation can be traced back to the digital evolution.
When we finally go to war, as the modern malaise of decadence and social insanity dictates that we must, it will be a fully Digital War.
Now, we know that digital technology will become a deciding factor in who defeats who in modern combat, but that’s not the point of our argument. It is the social dialectic that has failed to synthesise into unanimity of purpose; the application and those who’ve become oligarchs with the rise of digital enterprises imposing their ideology, or is it best to say, prejudices upon what has become revolutionary applications.
Twitter, for instance, amalgamates from a lineage between the telegram, the noticeboard and the newspaper. Newspapers have long had the imprint of their owners’ opinion stamped heavily on them, at least in the so-called free world, (see the masterful Citizen Kane) but journalism has (again in the West) managed to address disparities of right and wrong and expose corruptions. The state will always impress its line, that’s a fact of nature, but interwoven in the fabric of that imprint was the inherent right to challenge that inscription; that right has always been understood to be the essence of the civilization that the state services.
Again, we could site Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane, but bear in mind, while explaining the story of the newspaper baron Randolph Hearst it likewise had Hearst characterised by the film’s creator. The propagandist was propagandising against the propagandist.
The digital revolution has presented us with more diverse channels of information than before, at least in theory. Again, in reality, it becomes synthesized into a singular message. We see this with Facebook, and Twitter, along with YouTube. The traditional media, which was limited, is reduced once again when disseminated through these channels. Only in communication studies does any reference to Digital Utopianism exist and now simply in a historical context since all those wonderful possibilities that inspired radical futurists in the 1980s and 1990s and who naively predicted a revolutionary world flowering via the Internet.
Back then the discussion was about how ‘broadcast’ became narrowcast, which despite how it sounds meant that the passive audience up until then static would be removed from consuming a message on mass to choosing from a plethora of messages, or entertainments, individualised for them. Who would have thought that would once again turn inverse? For in opening up the audience it is now once again confined via social media. Once more the audience is captive. This is the result of a monopoly on technology as much as a commercial monopoly. Where the utopian once embraced cyberspace as a liberating dimension of freedoms, the dystopian anticipated a darker result. They appear to have won that particular argument.
To understand what we mean by ‘captive’ the reader needs to be aware that current media models, for instance, The Times, The New York Times, The Australian, whatever (newspaper or site) are no longer directly accessed by the consumer by and large, but by readers who select stories as chosen for them by the algorithms set by the social media giants in their direct marketing. So, in theory, someone who supports Donald Trump is fed stories agreeable to their sensibilities, while a potential Biden voter receives media items corresponding with their worldview.
In reality, social media giants are run by ‘entrepreneurs’ who impose their ideologies onto their organisations. As such, Trump supporters (in theory) receive less pro-Trump material, if any at all. Likewise, Facebook users et al are inundated with ideas and messages that correspond with the viewpoint of the platforms’ owners. This is a simplistic explanation but more-or-less correct. The truth is naturally less than black-and-white and empirical research (which finds the result it sets out to by reducing an argument to a mathematical formula) has not been tested by us in this instance. But this is generally accepted as the truth of the matter.
Following this, we can fairly say that the social media user is imprisoned in a worldview shaped by its creator. What of that worldview? We have seen how the consequence of ‘mass technology’ has diminished the quality of information (and arguably the concentration span of the consumer). It hasn’t broadened the mind, or the point of view, but enforced its narrowing. This is ‘narrowcast’ for sure, but not in terms of what it originally denoted. Social media and its forebears, newspapers, radio and television, these were all ‘senders’. They broadcast the ‘message’, and the audience received it.
Social media is a controller — and intervener — of and into that which is sent. It profits from it both financially and politically. Therefore, we can judge social media not only (as they have long resisted being ascribed) as not just publishers but as political entities, and hardly ‘social’ in a gregarious context. Those who use it to ‘share’ with friends and family still have their images and their words ‘owned’ by Facebook etc, and if vicissitude intervenes in the lives, those words and images can be exploited by their media ‘feeders’ against the user. Not only does it happen ‘all the time’, but certain media such as The Daily Mail looks expressly to social media to concoct stories, removing any notion that privacy is retained by reasonable degrees.
To recap, once upon a time that message went out to a mass audience, but now, in theory, the audience is splintered into a billion-dots of light and able to receive messages tailored specifically for their audience leading to a diversity explosion. We emphasise in theory because that isn’t the case. The only variety is in the subcategories of essentially two worldviews, the Left and Right (to posit it thus merely for the sake of efficacy). However, those on the ‘Right’ of the political spectrum have had the Overton Window slammed on their fingers. Social media has shaped what is ideologically acceptable and does so in tandem with the corporate sector and thence politically where it can be instituted (it cannot make everyone vote Green for instance).
Now, above we have reduced the political spectrum to Left and Right for the sake of ease. But the spectrum is not a simple plane, but three dimensional. Those nuances which remove it from an equidistant measurement are where the detail and differentiations reside. A nationalist, for instance, is neither prone to support capitalist absolutes nor the social vandalism of the Left. While the Left has been recast over the years into a new form that is militantly identarian.
The Right, as such, has existed traditionally in a reactionary field with a free-marketeer core. In the monopoly of corporatisation, the libertarian component that most conservatives regarded has transmogrified into a sectarian beast with a mammon’s purpose wearing the slogans and uttering the catchphrases of the barbarians. Is it not then seemingly illogical that a corporate entity (such as Facebook) should propagate anti-corporate sentiment and be championed by the corporate world? A good example of this is Black Lives Matter terrorists trashing Target stores in a U.S. city.
Whereas Target as a business spends millions each year on in-store and cybersecurity to safeguard its stock when BLM came along and wreaked the kind of havoc it could only estimate in a boardroom nightmare it responded not as it would to a shop-lifter, but donated millions to the movement. It then publicly declared its support for the movement and by doing so took an oppositional stance against its critics, who are, by-and-large, on the political ‘Right’, and elsewhere positioned in the more accurate three-dimensional political determiner. By doing so, it creates a mockery of ‘Leftist’ rhetoric concerning ‘capitalism’ and ‘racism’. In actuality, capitalism rides shotgun with the identarian ‘Left’ on all those issues that can more easily be conveyed by who they ‘hate’. It is telling then that contemporary ballots are voted on not by what people support but what they vote against.
Still, the ‘condition’ is not the technology, but it could not have come about without incubating from the Digi-verse. Take the ‘Arab Spring’; it was unleashed in the 2010s via social media. The individual units of technology (such as digital phones) have to be considered as weapons in this insurgency. They helped insurgents to organise via the social media platform but on their own had no use. They require ‘the matrix’ (if you will) to function to their purpose as much as they all depend on battery cells to power them. Had neither the phone nor the web existed then the true architects of the rebellions might not have been able to influence the possessors of the instruments (phones which provided the connectivity to the ‘message’). We speak of the Western agitators such as the CIA who were behind these proxy ideological crusades in the Middle East culminating in the stalemate of Syria.
The ‘Right’ is emasculated by the virtue-signalling corporate spherics. Others who share similar ideas but are divided by core principles are at the mercy of the corporate ideological police. The big four banks are quietly making un-persons of those it dislikes.
Last year, Dr Jim Saleam, President of The Australia First Party had his signatory facility on the party’s accounts frozen by Westpac. The excuses given were justified on a vague basis of laws governing terrorist money laundering. Has it declared AFP a terrorist organisation ahead of the federal government doing so? Would it care if the federal government disagreed?
Jim Saleam is not alone, many others not even in the same league as the nationalist godfather have been frozen out of their accounts. We know of many which we are not obliged to name. The number is growing, and the matter becoming serious. Bear in mind the hypocrisy of a corporation such as Westpac having been found to have behaved not only illegally but amorally. They are still embroiled with a watchdog over the facilitation of payments to producers of paedophile material. And these swindlers, shysters and profiteers then pass judgement on nationalists?
Dr Saleam took the matter to the NSW Council of Civil Liberties, who ignored him. This is one of the most significant violations – true violations! – of civil rights and they aren’t interested because they don’t agree with his political point of view. That would come as a shock to the old school American Civil Liberties Union who although both liberal and Jewish defended George Lincoln Rockwell over an important issue on a key point of principle. But these others lack principle and all else if a façade. Likewise, if he – or any of those others – took the story to Sky News, or complained to Mark Latham, they too would be ignored with a nervous, half-embarrassed turn away.
That’s the state of the ‘Right’, it’s terrified of its corporate virtue signalling masters and ultimately the collective of the ‘Woke’ have their nuts in a squirrel grip. They are as good as gone since ‘conservatives’ eventually have their conservatism eroded by the relentless waves sent rolling their way. Fancy Liberal MPs supporting gay marriage. Then again, think about those the banks are voiding for a moment. Are the banks so constricted with the conniptions of the Woke that they had to divert money and resources to a department charged solely with the duty of overseeing ‘undesirable customers’ and their connections? Highly unlikely and way outside their brief. Is it more likely that ASIO has put together a list of persons it wants to drive as far underground as possible, and ultimately, push out of the bounds of society? That does seem more likely. Then, what does that portend? It shows that the government of today is not prepared to countenance or invite any who are opposed to its core tenets to a discussion, as would be the case in a healthy democracy (that they are blaming the ‘Right’ and ‘extremists’ for infecting).
Having driven temporarily off the path, we return to our theme of the new technologies and their place at the heart of the collapse of civilisation. We do so not as Luddites, for we greatly admire the ‘white man’s magic’ that brought about such science but as augurs. The technology isn’t political, the evolution that brought about the science that delivered such creations wasn’t compelled by the sacred beliefs of identity politics. Indeed, the Internet came to us precautionarily as a military application if total war annihilated most of the human race. What we sound the bells about is that those controlling the technology (the tech giants) are driving us headlong into the most nihilistic conflict the human race has seen.
War is inevitable, otherwise, the political subjugation of the majority of the world is. Don’t discount either. Control the wealth, you control the stomachs and thence the hearts and minds of the masses. The Techno Oligarchs have that unimaginable wealth and power. Their auxiliaries are the foot soldiers of the BLM movement, Antifa, and all the vast panoply of groups, causes and individuals promoting a world in which the primitive (and women, or whatever, since gender is up for grabs, so long as it’s not natural in its order) must be elevated to primacy.
It doesn’t take a Nostradamus to predict what will become of that since the slogan ‘Go Woke Go Broke’ has already proved to be more than a common axiom. But who is going to stand around and let it happen? The two tribes that civilisation has been reduced to must come to war – and when we do so we’ll have been brought there by such unlikely accessories as our digital phones and the internet to which they connect. The next war – be it a civil war in America, in the West, or a War against China – will have had its origins in the digital technology that so holds master-ship over us.