I am not a paranoid person in general, and many times laughed at those whom I perceived to be such because they gave me the creeps, but now I can see why as far as internet stuff goes. Have you been watching the news? Do you believe everything you see on TV happens exactly the way they tell it? Do you think there might be a reason? Do you get that they are going to be increasingly ‘cracking down’ on groups, individuals and the sites you are used to going to for information and socializing – or acting like kids that wish they were still in school or for a parent-figure who might teach them how to behave or lecture them on the social graces they were not ‘privileged’ enough to grow up with- that this all might be gone soon? At one point, I think They -as in ‘They Live’ thought that that majority of internet dissent was a good thing, as it kept people busy, and most of the time, did not lead to any real organizing or actions. Now however, they can and will try to say that internet material- and they will start with the most blatant of course- leads to events such as these little skinhead kids becoming a threat to The Candidate.
Point is, they are ceasing to see the internet stuff as a release valve and a joke/distraction/entertainment, and knowing that The Powers That Be have no intention to do anything the people want- say the border problem for example- they know that the net is the resource for people who are disgruntled and looking for information on how it all fits together- people who are starting to find out about how things really work- maybe they don’t know much and come in through some unrelated issue-no matter- The ‘Theys’ are starting to see ‘net-hate’ or whatver they want to call it any given week as no longer a haven for the disenfranchised, the disgruntled and/or writers about such. The more tame if the bunch, who only dance near the subject or look at things in a philosophical or coded way will obviously not be first. The main thing is HOW this will come about. If they cannot take away what is commonly known as free-speech to shut you down, they will try to arrest and make an example of you, whether you actually broke any actual law or not-
“I didn’t do anything, I didn’t say anything, I watched what I said, I never advocated, I never named anyone specific, I never published anyone’s information..” You don’t get it. Yes it is better not to do those things, but not doing those things does not exempt you. The only way you don’t get on their s4-list is if you are part of Them, one of Them, or bought/owned by Them. Now is the time for the people who have put themselves out there in some way or another- who might not be completely anonymous to take stock and count who their friends really are, who they know and whom they can really trust – maybe you will have to go through a middle person, who knows the third person- maybe because of infiltration you will have to set a cut-off date ‘no one who came around after X date/year’ or some other criteria ‘ Person X is trouble, they have (whatever) no one who is tight or connected to Person X. Period’. Point is, try to set some kind of criteria or way that they have something to lose, some way to verify who they are, etc- I have accepted the fact if things get really bad here, I’m dead.
Right now you are better off keeping a low profile and not joining up with stuff, but taking stock of what you still have. If you are reading this, you may take it for granted, but you still have your freedom. You can see what is happening before your eyes, right? You might think you are ‘safe’, but in truth, you are not. Concentrate on your own life, outside and away from ‘internet activism’ or whatever you want to call it, you and yours will be better off, believe it. People operate under the illusion that internet stuff counts as the ‘Great Ubiquitous Doing Something’, but your own regular life counts much more. You are putting yourself at risk, and if you think they won’t contact you or find you, think again. The heat or spotlight is about to be turned up mega-high on anything or anyone perceived as ‘hateful’ or ‘threatening’.
I have tried to warn people. You stand to lose an awful lot, whatever the level of involvement , who you think you know and trust- you could be wrong. You could go to prison, you could do irreparable damage to your own life, your kid’s lives- all the while thinking you are doing this to make their lives and their future better, you are ‘Doing Something’ but the price you might pay is very , very steep, and don’t think when it happens, that people will care. They won’t. Look at what has happened already to people we ‘know’, even if we don’t really know them at all. Is it good for their kids to have a parent possibly go to prison?
Understand that you cannot have a real trusted group based on anonymous identities. This is what I have heard, being privy to how regular, ‘legit’ groups work , groups that say don’t have anything to do with WN, but have a functioning structure and agendas all the same: small, basically closed networks, then>> peripheral people who are either considered helpers or info-people but not let in close, they only get superficial contact with one member , at most two, and peripheral person may or may not be even aware that they are helping , then >>anyone outside of these camps is pretty much considered either supporter or opposer, and not let anywhere near the periphery or close-in level. I was either perceived as level one or two by the group I am describing the workings of, and thus when they had one meeting in a public place, only two of them this time, though I had met them several times before- we can call them Gary and Katie -after movie characters, not even close to real names- neither one acknowledged or recognized me- perhaps it had been too long, maybe I have changed a little bit since then and they didn’t recognize me, or perhaps Katie did not want to let on that she knew me to the other, though I knew both of them – though only on the peripheral level-which brings me to ..the ones who are on the trusted level like these two were made a point of sharing information regularly with each other- these people did their homework, they did not get info strictly from their ‘friends’ or chat boards-they had looked stuff up on their own- about individuals, who supports what causes, and so on. It was clear Katie knew Gary very well, and whether she remembered me or not, she wasn’t bothered by my sitting there.
Just because someone has an mp3 player earphones on and is on a computer, doesn’t mean they aren’t listening. Like that saying ‘all who snore are not sleeping’. I wondered if she knew more about me since our last meeting and that is why she didn’t acknowledge me. I know for a fact ‘Katie’ , because of her particular line of work, could be putting herself at risk for having an alliance with Gary. I also know she doesn’t agree with all aspects of her work. But she could be putting him even more at risk. Maybe that is why their talk was very to-the-point and they didn’t linger long. It is hard to imagine he didn’t know about her work and connections. Her friend Gary, was not known to be an easy-to-get-along with character-he could be perceived as somewhat belligerent when provoked, but not dumb by any stretch. Neither was Katie, for that matter. Having seen Katie work behind the scenes before , I knew she would protect him, whether he knew it or not. At her age, she was well past the self-centeredness of youth, unusual for someone with no children, whatever their age. From his expression, it almost seemed as if he were being patient with her- tolerating her, but his posture and movements suggested he was not worried he would be betrayed.
When they left, each had a new mission or task to do or find out, whom to talk to about whatever- then they planned when they would next meet. It was clear there was a sense of reciprocity and interdependency, which are probably two ingredients of any group that is truly cohesive and solid- that the members need each other and help each other in one way or another, that they don’t fear or look down on one another, that this was an economy of trust-almost familial rather than “what do you have I might want? how can you benefit me? what’s in it for me? ” Without a sense of interdependency and reciprocity, there is imbalance and heightened risk for some of the participants, little-to-none for others. Listening and watching them, It wasn’t as if one was the Fearless Leader and the other was the minion who did all the actual work. No one said anything about the internet or screen names.
I wouldn’t post this if it were at all a joke or make up stuff to scare people for no reason. The dangers are more than what you can see, and in the end, you will be asking yourself, “was it worth it? What, if anything, have I achieved versus what I lost? Have I caused or suffered more harm than whatever good influence came of it?” Please don’t write what I am saying off and laugh, because it isn’t funny at all. Why do you think people disappear? Don’t take this as saying I am against you or have turned traitor, I am not talking about that- I am talking about dealing with people that are probably not what you are used to in your own real lives. I am not saying you are a bad person for what you, me and others believe. If I say there is a real threat out there that is going to increase very soon, you can believe me or not, and keep doing what you want, and pay what I say no mind or think it’s real ha ha entertainment. When you go from having a relatively normal existence to every day living in fear of what will happen next to you and your kids, it is not ha ha funny. As I said, most people , when times get rough, are going to look out for only themselves. Some will do that even if things are not rough.
Remember what I said, that your own life counts much more towards what you believe in, and no matter what problems you have, you could make them much worse in trying to make things better for others. And they will say “you brought this upon yourself, ” and whether that part is true or not to a greater or lesser degree, they will blame you entirely to protect themselves and they will not be around to help you when the chips fall, regardless of anything said before when times were good. You may not understand how people can operate, because maybe you yourself don’t function that way, but we are not talking about the Golden Rule here. When you find yourself worrying about how you will survive, you really think about these things, and about what I said, that keeping your own regular life separate from a land of virtual people that may or may not learn a lesson and turn that lesson into something elemental- a tool forged of iron and blood, intellect and passion. Others might turn a lesson into a weapon against you. You just don’t know what you are dealing with. It is akin to the game shows of old that had the three mystery doors from which you could choose except for the fact that there’s never any prize behind them.
You might be a person new to the ‘scene’ reading this and think “oh how negative, she must be really dumb or a really messed up , disturbed person or she wouldn’t be saying all this”. No, I’m none of those things. It doesn’t benefit me any to write any of this, but it might help you. It might give you pause, before it is too late. Not because I am an ‘anti/traitor/fed/jew/whateverwhatever’. I’m writing this because I am not, and I know there are probably some left who are not only not those things, but still have some semblance of conscience and sanity left. Who knows, maybe someone’s parents will read this, and they might take it in a different way, they might think that they have to really involve themselves in their children’s or even their adult children’s lives and be supportive to them, not cast them out or work against them. Maybe the parents might offer the child they rejected another chance rather than write them off. Maybe the parent would take a moment and even call their son or daughter they haven’t spoken to for a long time and try to set things right and that parent would realize that their own blood is important and not to be so disappointed that they believe this or that and give up on their own kids.
In the 80’s I had a friend who would go to AA, and though I luckily didn’t have any kind of substance problem myself, I went with her for support. No, she wasn’t a drunk, she was a rich kid into chipping at heroin and speed. Some of the language and belief system of those meetings included bumper-sticker philopsophy like ‘one day at a time’ and ‘let go and let God’ but I also remember them talking about ‘making amends’. That is a tricky thing, making amends. In order to make amends, one must admit one went wrong. Some people just can’t do this. I suppose that is why there are programs like AA to get people to even understand that stuff they did wasn’t right, and to try and repair it, if they can. As I sat there and heard all these horror stories, at least I thought, these people are trying to make their lives better, and at least they even care to try and set things right. Sometimes amends don’t count for much than making the addict feel better about themselves. Perhaps when people are under the influence they can’t think straight, maybe they know this on some level, but it prevents them from taking ‘credit’ for things they do or stop them from doing things they do. It was very hard to be this girl’s friend. I don’t even know if I can honestly call it that.
There would be times I thought she was getting better, she said all the right things, looked and sounded to be doing OK, then would secretly backslide and make everyone else who cared for her miserable. It was always all about her, regardless of how fun she was, how talented or charming- in the end it all boiled down to what she could get, her advantage-her payoff- your loss- and if you threatened her way of life or criticized her in any way, again, you would become the traitor, she would talk about you then deny it, she would talk about one person one way, then talk about you poorly to that same person. In retrospect, I can see how expert she was in playing with people and discovering their weaknesses and vulnerabilities in order that she could better exploit them. For those who didn’t waste their time garnering merit and high test scores using a skill-set based upon what will soon become a dead language- that means she was a user, as in Usery. When I hear about how we should all become like this to survive, it just sounds pathetic,and is a sad statement about ourselves. Yay, let’s all be self-centered, non-altruistic takers just like the enemy! Celebrate Defectiveness, glory in becoming Just Like Them-because being like that IS a form of defectiveness. If you are in a scenario where you have to be like that, even among your own, something is very, very wrong. Only one thing- Are they your own?
I don’t think she even cared how it affected her parents, how the stress of her addictions may have contributed to their splitting up, how her brother was affected- she just didn’t care- it was all about her. In her case it was fortunate they had money as her dad was some bigwig in a local huge company and thus, despite all the emotional trauma they went through, no one in it suffered that way. They knew I tried to help her, keep her away from people who would keep her sucked into that stuff, and hopefully be a good friend and influence on her, but they knew I was limited in what I could do against the demon addiction and the accompanying lies, and apssive-aggressive nature of the thing itself. I kept going to school and working, and we lost touch. I hope she is alive and doing OK. About 15 years ago I sent her a letter in care of her parent’s place asking how she was and telling her about my own life , but never heard anything back.
It truly is an awful feeling to love someone and not be able to talk sense into them, not be able to help them, not be able to reach them- to have anything you say or do make sense to them, even when you are trying to protect them- often from themselves but sometimes from outside forces- they don’t listen, they come to be paranoid and mistrust you, make you the bad guy- and in this process you end up getting very hurt yourself, and just to make it all worse- maybe the friend you cared so much for is angry at you for trying to help them. Are they angry because they knew you were right? Are they angry because being mad is easier than an apology? Can they just not bear being wrong ? Do they hate themselves and thus you , when they call you cowardly , or other names and blame you for things they did? Do you try to keep helping them because you care, despite others calling you even more names like ‘codependent’ or ‘loving too much’? Despite the fact they will take from you whatever they can get and then laugh at you? When they appear to be far more interested in rebelling/revenge-seeking against their parents, who from all accounts appear to have given them a good life and only wanted the best for them? They turn away from their family, you, or anyone/anything who has the reek of sanity and normalcy as contemptible, boring, ‘sell outs to to The Man’- and they go right back and choose darkness because darkness is all they know. Is this all they think they can do or deserve ? I don’t know. That kind of mentality is far from my own. I really hope you take what I am trying to say seriously. This story isn’t quite woven out of the same cloth as the one I opened with, but it is stitched together with the same needle.
- “warning,” c.1375, from O.Fr. monition, from L. monitionem (nom. monitio) “warning, reminding,” noun of action from monere “to warn” (see monitor).
- c.1300, from O.Fr. garniss-, stem of garnir “provide, furnish, defend,” from P.Gmc. *warnejan “be cautious, guard, provide for” (cf. O.E. warnian “to take warning, beware;” see warn). Sense evolution is from “arm oneself” to “fit out” to “embellish,” which was the earliest meaning in Eng., though the others also were used in M.E. Culinary sense of “to decorate a dish for the table” predominated after 1693. Older meaning survives in legal sense of “warning of attachment of funds” (1585).
- “loud warning horn,” 1910, originally of cars, said to have been named for the company that made them, probably based on Gk. klazein “to roar,” cognate with L. clangere “to resound.”
- c.1626, from Fr. soldiers’ faulty separation of M.Fr. la munition, from L. munitio “a fortifying,” and at first meaning all military supplies in general. The mistake in the word perhaps was by infl. of Fr. a(d)monition “warning.” The error was corrected in Fr., but retained in Eng. Shortened form ammo is attested from 1917.
- 1297, avisen, from O.Fr. aviser, from avis (see advice). The verb preserves the older spelling. Advisory “weather warning” first recorded 1931.
- c.1325, from O.Fr. alarme, from It. all’arme “to arms!” (lit. “to the arms”). An interj. that came to be used as the name of the call or warning. Extended 16c. to “any sound to warn of danger or to arouse.” Weakened sense of “apprehension, unease” is from 1833. Variant alarum is due to the rolling -r- in the vocalized form. The verb is 1590, from the noun. Alarmist “one addicted to sounding alarms” is from 1793.
- c.1366, “sea nymph who by her singing lures sailors to their destruction,” from O.Fr. sereine, from L.L. Sirena, from L. Siren, from Gk. Seiren [“Odyssey,” xii.39 ff.], perhaps lit. “binder,” from seira “cord, rope.” Meaning “device that makes a warning sound” (on an ambulance, etc.) first recorded 1879, in reference to steamboats. Fig. sense of “one who sings sweetly and charms” is recorded from 1590.
- 1731, common name for the North American thrush (Dumetella Carolinensis), so called from its warning cry, which resembles that of a cat. Catbird seatis a 19c. Dixieism, popularized by Brooklyn Dodgers baseball announcer Red Barber and by author James Thurber (1942).
” ‘Sitting in the catbird seat’ meant sitting pretty, like a batter with three balls and no strikes on him.” [Thurber, “Stories from New Yorker”]
- 1494, from O.Fr. à “on” + board “board,” from Frank. *bord (see board); the “boarding” or sides of a vessel extended to the ship itself. The usual M.E. expression was within shippes borde. The call all aboard! as a warning to passengers is attested from 1838.
- step (n.)
- O.E. steppa (Mercian), stæpe, stepe (W.Saxon) “stair, act of stepping,” from the source of step (v.). Meaning “action which leads toward a result” is recorded from 1549. Stepladder (one with steps instead of rungs) is from 1751. Warning phrase watch your step is attested from 1934. Step-dancing first recorded 1886.
- 1401, “Psalm cxxxi in the Canon of the Mass” (which begins with the L. word Memento and in which the dead are commemorated), from L. memento “remember,” imperative of meminisse “to remember,” a reduplicated form, related to mens “mind.” Meaning “reminder, warning” is from 1582; sense of “keepsake” is first recorded 1768. Memento mori “reminder of death” (1592) is from L., lit. “remember that you must die.”
- notice (n.)
- c.1412, “information, intelligence,” from L. notitia “a being known, fame, knowledge,” from notus “known,” pp. of (g)noscere “come to know, to get to know, get acquainted (with),” from PIE *gno-sko-, a suffixed form of root *gno- (see know). Sense of “formal warning” is attested from 1594. Meaning “a sign giving information” is from 1805. The verb is attested from c.1450, originally “to notify;” sense of “to point out” is from 1627. Meaning “to take notice of” is attested from 1757, but was long execrated in England as an Americanism (occasionally as a Scottishism, the two crimes not being clearly distinguished).
- 1546, “senior pupil at a school charged with keeping order, etc.,” from L. monitor “one who reminds, admonishes, or checks,” from monere “to admonish, warn, advise,” related to memini “I remember, I am mindful of,” and to mens “mind,” from PIE base *men- “to think” (see mind (n.)). The lizard so called because it is supposed to give warning of crocodiles (1826). Meaning “squat, slow-moving type of ironclad warship” (1862) so called from name of the first vessel of this design, chosen by Capt. Ericsson because it was meant to “admonish” the Confederate leaders in the U.S. Civil War. Broadcasting sense of “a device to continuously check on the technical quality of a transmission” (1931) led to special sense of “a TV screen displaying the picture from a particular camera.” The verb is attested from 1924.