West Coast Action
Open in Telegram
This channel is educational and does not advocate for illegal activities of any kind. Groupchat link (NOTICE - you will be contacted for vetting): > https://t.me/+fPridSLbOuMxOGMx< contact us > https://t.me/wewhoslaydragons?direct < https://telegr
Show moreThe country is not specifiedThe category is not specified
246
Subscribers
+124 hours
+17 days
+130 days
Posts Archive
This becomes even clearer when we consider London’s willingness to use psychological engineering to stop businessmen from destroying forests.
Obviously, psychological engineering cannot accomplish this until the establishment can be persuaded to carry out the appropriate program of engineering.
But if the establishment can be persuaded to do this, then they can equally well be persuaded to pass conservation laws strict enough to accomplish the same purpose. And if such laws are passed, the psychological engineering is superfluous.
It seems clear that here, again, London is attracted to psychological engineering simply because he would like to see the general public share his values.
Previous Page
Next Page
Private AI surveillance company Flock is producing police drones that on top of all the capabilities of previous Flock cameras, including:
- reading license plates
- recognizing car make/model/color
- logging and tracking every appearance you make on a camera to build an understanding of you
- logging conversations heard on camera
... will now also fly freely in the sky, recording you and collecting data without you even leaving your home.
Nearly 100,000 Flock cameras are already set up across the United States.
What will you do when your enemies are in charge?
The fact that liberal intellectuals and many others get far more excited over violence than they do over careless driving would seem to indicate that their antagonism toward violence arises not primarily from a concern for human life but from a strong emotional antipathy toward violence itself.
Thus it appears that London’s proposal to eliminate violence through psychological control results not from practical necessity but from a desire on London’s part to engineer some of his own values into the public at large.
Previous Page
Next Page
It is true that “there must be some limits” - on violence, for example - but the threat of imprisonment seems to be an adequate limitation.
To read about violence is frightening, but violent crime is not a significant cause of mortality in comparison to other causes.
Far more people are killed in automobile accidents than through violent crime. Would London also advocate psychological elimination of those personalities that are inclined to careless driving?
Previous Page
Next Page
My first objection to London’s scheme is a personal one. I simply find the sphere of freedom that he favors too narrow for me to accept. But his solution suffers from other flaws.
He proposes to use psychological controls where they are not necessary, and more for the purpose of gratifying the liberal intellectual’s esthetic sensibilities than because of a practical need.
Previous Page
Next Page
However, on the grounds that “there must be some limits” London advocates that behavior control should be imposed by society in certain areas.
For example, he suggests that people should be made to abhor violence and that psychological means should be used to make businessmen stop destroying the forests. (NOTE: I do not currently have access to a copy of London’s book, and so I have had to rely on memory in describing his views. My memory is probably correct here, but in order to be honest I should admit the possibility of error.)
Previous Page
Next Page
London’s idea is, briefly, this:
Let us not attempt to interfere with the development of behavioral technology, but let us all try to be as aware of and as knowledgeable about this technology as we can; let us not keep this technology in the hands of a scientific elite, but disseminate it among the population at large; people can then use this technology to manipulate themselves and protect themselves from manipulation by others.Previous Page Next Page
Now we come to the question: What can be done to prevent all this?
Let us first consider the solution sketched by Perry London in his book “Behavior Control.” This solution makes a convenient example because its defects are typical of other proposed solutions.
Previous Page
Next Page
There is an ironic beauty to this.
In an effort to quash resistance to AI influence and the construction of data centers in your backyard, the US government has quietly grouped all efforts to showcase, talk about, or resist technological expansion under the label 'Anti-Tech'.
Thousands of people have woken up today to find that they are likely being monitored and logged by private surveillance companies for so much as posting memes that paint the tech system in a negative light. Normal people are rushing to google, eager to find out just what kind of folks they've been grouped in with - making now the perfect time to spread the AT message.
This is our call on Anti-Tech channels - now is the time to agitate and spread your message to new ears. Now is the time for Action!
We are not citizens. Technology does not exist for our benefit.
We are hostages.
Private surveillance companies are flooding your groupchats and channels with bots, scouring for words and phrases that may indicate your lack of support for Artificial Intelligence, the construction of data centers, and the system as a whole.
When found, you are automatically grouped in with domestic t*******. Regardless of whatever other beliefs you may have.
Spencer Reynolds says that, despite the real if limited threat posed by these groups, a category like “anti-tech extremism” could be drawn so broad as to ensnare peaceful data center protesters, AI skeptics, and anyone with a bone to pick with technology that permeates modern life. “As people continue to organize for a better future, we're likely to see more surveillance and criminalization of this opposition, just as we have of Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, and environmental movements in recent decades,” Reynolds says.
Lubrano's book identifies followers of “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, German anarchists, Mexican eco-extremists, and far-right fascists in the Terrorgram Collective as distinct but aligned components of an emerging tech extremism movement. In Lubrano’s analysis, these groups are united by the fact that they have all plotted or carried out acts of violence in furtherance of their ideological goals.
The zeroing in on anti-tech activity by federal agencies is evident in an invitation to a lecture by extremism researcher Mauro Lubrano circulating in fusion centers across the country. Lubrano has emerged as one of the foremost experts on anti-technology extremism. He is the author of Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Technology, which describes three main strains of a newly minted threat matrix: insurrectionary anarchists, eco-extremists, and ecofascists.
