The Art of War

[Vlarg]

So I've started reading Sun Tzu's The Art of War, and have found it to be insightful. Especially in terms of revolutionary strategy. Has anyone else here read it?

[Darrin Knode]

Would you care to relate some of the contents to counter economic activity for us? I have not read it myself

[Vlarg]

I'll analyze my notes and bring up what I think is most important after I finish reading the book. In the meantime, you can read the text online here or search for another online text or place to purchase from which to purchase a hard copy.

[Vlarg]

But there is one, previously quite obvious message that is pounded by Sun Tzu's The Art of War relentlessly that I believe applies to this site: secrecy.
“Those who are good on the attack maneuver in the heights of the skies, making it impossible for opponents to prepare for them. If no one can prepare for you, then where you attack is unguarded. Those who are good on the defense hide in the depths of the earth, making it impossible for opponents to fathom them. If you are unfathomable, then what you guard is not attacked by opponents.” -Zhang Yu

It's a recurring message, and I think it applies very well to this site. If the Agorist movement is to ever become anything more than theoretical babble, we must move strategic communication (everything but advertising) to a truly secure, anonymous, and secret form.

For example, we could set up a website within the Tor network, and furthermore making the communication within that site encrypted, secret, and knowable only to members of the site. Membership would be invitation-only amongst people already on this and other public sites we may decide to set up. Generally, you need to use Tor to access these sites within the network, although one can use tor2web, but this does not protect the anonymity and security of the individual accessing client that visits the website.

This would effectively provide the sort of "unfathomable secrecy" necessary. Seeing that Western nations all over the place (i.e. Australia, Italy, etc.) are now starting to (or thinking of) practicing internet censorship, and places such as Sweden and the United States already log all electronic communications, the necessity of such secrecy is a reality. It's basically a cat-and-mouse technology game.

And don't forget: installing a site within the Tor network makes it easier to communicate with people in heavily censored countries, such as China.


btw - as a tech note, I would probably not host the graphics of the site within the Tor network, but have them merely provided offsite, as onion routing is slower than regular internet access, so it would be slow and pointless to make people have to load more than the secure content itself through the network.

[Daniel Shorthouse]

I have the Tor software installed on my computer, and I honestly have no idea how it works. People (all people, in all fields) have a tendency to assume that everyone else knows more than they actually do about the subjects about which they are passionate. One of the first steps would need to be some sort of a layman's primer to using such software so that people who are interested in participating are able to do so.

Although I think a better idea would be to develop a proxy network or darknet geared specifically towards Agorist activity, for now we just need to learn how best to use what is available.

[Vlarg]

In addition to Shava Nerad's comments, if you use Firefox, I'd recommend using the Foxy Proxy extension with the newest version of Tor. Foxy Proxy, when you first use Firefox with it installed, will go through a step-by-step process of setting things up with you, and will provide instructions.

[Shava Nerad]

re: how to use the Tor software (and other good hints)

May I recommend http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15012 for a primer on some good practices for privacy and anonymity?

I'm former executive director of the Tor Project, and your discussion showed up on my google alert for Tor related posts. You should be aware that ning lets all this discussion be spidered by Google, making it archived and searchable.

If you want to know more about laws relating to how information is required to be archive by governments, a search on [data retention laws] and whatever country (or the EU) will get you a lot of information on this.

Yrs,
Shava Nerad
Tor Project volunteer

[Vlarg]

I know that the EU has higher privacy laws than the US (the EU has overridden the internet laws of its individual member states), as its supreme court ruled that an IP address is protected, private information that requires a criminal case to obtain.

If Talley is interested in the creation of the next website as a Tor hidden service, would you be willing to work with him?

PS: I think I'll stick with the Tor solution, rather than Invisiblog, which seems too much of a hassle for a theoretical advantage. Tor has yet to be truly broken. And I've set up GnuGPG, but no one else I know uses it (probably because it's too technical for most users).

[Shava Nerad]

Honestly, as Tor admin, I don't know a thing about setting up hidden services more than is on our faq and wiki and such. But I understand there's a helpful community around that in IRC and such.

[Talley]

Vlarg:

I support this initiative and welcome anyone who wants to make this happen. I'd suggest that we keep this and other fronts open so we can recruit from them. I don't have much extra time these days but please let me know how I can help.

[Charles]

Great book and it apply's to everyday events in life and business. "Not just War." Read more then once you will not be disappointed for sure. I have recommended it to a lot of people through the years.

[Jake Witmer]

First, I suggest that you read the books "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party and "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. They are good introductions that place a realistic level of seriousness on the subject, and don't underestimate the enemy, as "Atlas Shrugged" did. If one is more inclined to nonfiction, then "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" and "The Ominous Parallels" are good places to start.

What are some other possible ways of making an agorist community with a good balance of security and population-penetration?
There is no way to make a system secure that doesn't sacrifice naive innocents. Therefore, I suggest coordination via accepted political discourse and political activism, first. The level of dedication and professionalism that anyone brings to the cause will make it clear whether or not they can be added to your personal "trusted file".

Of course, even when it comes to defensive violence, anyone who trusts anyone else is a fool. This is simply a fact of limited human intelligence operating within a completely compromised communications network. (There is an exception at the highest echelon of human intelligence and knowledge of trustworthiness. For instance, if two computer science, physics, and encryption triple-majors both had witnessed each other kill federal agents, and they had both talked at length for many years, and both had similar psychologies, THEN they could perhaps trust each other to engage in serious counter-economic activity together, up to and including retaliatiory action / self-defense. Even then, though, they could not rely on the other one protecting his information if he were compromised and tortured, unless they had a superior and uncompromisable communication network, built out of "leading force" new technology (See: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=8 ). Rand relied on "leading force" technology as a literary device for avoiding the difficult discussion of individual freedom, and the freedom movement has drastically suffered as a result of her movement's overly-literal and quasi-conformist nature.)

Every single person alive can be compromised with enough state effort, and their money is umlimited. (The limiting factor is the number of people they can hire with the skill and willingness to spy on Americans who have committed no crime. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of these unprincipled people, but not an unlimited number.) This is why Samuel Konkin is totally wrong in his "Movement of the Libertarian Left" to suggest that "agorists" AKA "libertarians" should oppose the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party can provide something that is incredibly valuable to the market (I also detest the snobbish word "agora/agorist" ---it's idiotic to use a little-known synonym for a word that is already in non-mutually exclusive heavy use with its proper meaning. "Market" is better in every growth-oriented way than "Agora".)

There is a way around state infiltration: Make each "node" (person) in the true free market network highly strategically intelligent as possible, and encourage massive public adoption of even minimally-libertarian ideas (generate oceans of "white noise"). There will likely never be more than 3% active support for any pro-freedom movement anyway! So let those who can become wraith-like encryption ninjas go ahead and try (good luck! If you're even slightly aware, they're probably already sniffing your keyboard 24-7.). ...There should be nothing harmed by them doing so. (They can already be accessing these posts ONLY from public computers, wearing physical disguises, for brief time periods, with anonymous email addresses that were similarly created, with access purchased by cash or pay-as-you-go SINGLE USE credit cards.)

My strategical work-around? Hide in plain sight. Cloak everything that is innocent or harmless with maximum encryption and anonymous email addresses. Assume free speech, and let the enemy know that you will be a dog in court, if they arrest and frivolously charge you (You shouldn't even begin to speak in public until you are familiar with Marc Stevens' legal approach, as well as the Fully Informed Jury Association).

There is a company that is dedicated to counter-economics. It is called "Paladin Press". I strongly suggest that everyone here purchase copies of all their books. Preferably, order multiple copies to mainstream conformist's houses. Let the state watch them all! (Not family members! That allows a cloud cluster to easily identify you and reassign a higher priority to you.) Purchase "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross, and "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party (Ken Royce). These books contain modern encryption and counter-surveillance techniques as part of their story lines. (Then again, so do many of Tom Clancy's books, so there's no place for the police state to draw the line, without admitting that there is no freedom of speech.)

If every ten thousandth sheep in the herd is really a wolf, that makes it vastly easier for us to plan politically. Moreover, if those who are very intelligent try their hardest to encrypt everything they do, and then they get caught, then they've tipped their hand, and leviathan's "T-cells" swarm them. If the most intelligent among us use only minimal encryption, and allow themselves to be "tagged" and "monitored", then they can ditch that "known level" of encryption when necessary.

The most mainstream guy who is the most harmless should always be using the most encryption. The guy with the most brains and ability should use almost none. WHY BOTHER, IF THE STATE CAN CIRCUMVENT IT ANYWAY, USING PHYSICAL MEANS? Do you really want to set yourself up for a fall when they allocate someone to you who can break into your home undiscovered and install a keyboard sniffer? How about when you're traveling, and want to access the internet from any unfamiliar network? With enough state resources, you are followed, and when you sign onto the network, it's a dummy network.

Now then, there are ways around even this, if you are smart enough. But that means you are part of only 1% of agorists that DEEPLY understands the concept of "demarcation points" AND is 100% informed on all new and breaking technological surveillance techniques. I know several people who make me look about as smart as a toadstool who aren't that suphisticated.

Or am I missing something and this isn't even a problem?
See above. Of course it's a problem, but it's one that has an optimax solution. I believe the solution I lay out above is the optimax solution, given the fact that none other take into account laziness and apathy on our side.

The rigor that is demanded of security experts is a very scarce commodity in the modern world. That said, we can beat the state's security experts when we try. Therefore, since they know that, it is always worth it to them to expend energy breaking our communications. Therefore, EVERYTHING that we do should be encrypted as well as is possible for the mainstream user (ie: PGP, anonymizers, the occasional use of both from anonymous locations while wearing minor physical disguises, such as baseball caps and hoodies with sunglasses and baggy clothes, and walking with a slightly different gait than normal).

how do you provide adequate security for a counter-economic market to develop, while simultaneously allowing new people to enter the community without undue hoops to jump through, thereby allowing for a large and vibrant market?
Wait for my forthcoming book for details beyond the following paragraph. As far as very general details: "Learn to be dangerous. Hold dangerous ideas (like the idea that the "will kill" is a dashingly good idea). Implement them. Make dangerous friends. Whenever you talk, assume the FBI is listening, and that they intend to raid you later on today. Think about what you want to say in court (especially during "voir dire" / "jury rigging"). Learn about dangerous animals (like attorneys) ...learn how to milk them for their venom (useful knowledge). Understand that venom is useless unless it is delivered (and that attorneys typically refuse to deliver venom to the system, lest the system they depend on disbar them). Collect dangerous weapons (the most dangerous weapons are weapons that don't even look like weapons, but rather appear to be harmless everyday objects, such as a diabetic's insulin syringe with its accompanying prescription)."

Just like laetrile/Vitamin B17/amygdalin and "cancer-hunting" white blood cells are relatively harmless to normal human tissue yet deadly to cancer cells, the concept of a free America is deadly to statist cells. If we are to be doctors, then we must do two things: 1) first, we must do no harm. 2) Secondly, we must make sure that the cure components outnumber the disease components. Some anarchists have cited cancer chemotherapy as an analogy for why their strategies that make the patient appear sicker at first are valid, because they cure the patient in the long term.

But a better analogy is the one that truly informed anarchists should be using: the best cure is the optimax cure, and there is often imperfect knowledge that limits optimization. First, do no harm. (First, do not ignore already effective cures because there is a disinformation campaign being conducted against them). Second, go to the source of the best heirarchical knowledge. (I want my doctor to be aware and respectful of the fact that I would prefer to never have my brain destroyed. Without this knowledge of eternal life, why would I go to any doctor who merely wanted me to live a few more years in a decrepit body? Anarchists should all be familiar with "Engines of Creation" by K. Eric Drexler --it is vital that we not see less of the BIG, BIG picture --long term view-- than the State does.)

Since our own minds themselves are a society, the analogy of a rebellion as "a thought in the mind of society" is valid. Let us think that thought through. When enough of us are thinking the same way, we will be able to act in concert almost effortlessly.

For instance: There is a scene in "Unintended Consequences" where a man finds the rotted hand of an assassinated federal agent in his yard (brought back by his dog, no less). Rather than being a "good citizen" his dutiful lower-level conformist-programmed brain thinks a higher-level anarcho-libertarian thought "The federal government has stopped fulfilling its function. It no longer protects me, if it ever did. I don't need federal agents snooping around on my property, finding my dangerous and slightly-off-code guns." ---He fails to report the evidence, choosing to wrap it in garbage and throw it away, thus preventing the Feds from finding a valuable lead that would allow them to narrow their search to the man's neighbor.

This is the kind of thing that spontaneously happens when everyone is really well informed.

People who were previously low-information nodes in the state architecture stop functioning as such, and add "white noise" to the picture.

Do I recommend having your friends and family read "Unintended Consequences" if they are not gun owners? Maybe, but probably not. Do I recommend having them read "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At the Federal Reserve"? ...Absolutely. (This gives them concrete facts that they can investigate for themselves, that all point in the direction of anti-collectivism and individual freedom, as revealed by the author. It is unphilosophical, until the facts have been presented in an orderly way. To the common man who has trouble with thinking critically, this is essential. When I state that most people are timid sheep, I don't mean that they shy away from defending their wives and children with physical force. Most men will do that, within the means of their knowledge. I mean that they shy away from thinking about things that make them feel bad about their past actions, or that would lead to them being cast out from the herd. Sadly, they have created immense threats against their wives and children in being so unphilosophical.)

People have been pledging allegiance to the flag for a long time in this country. Most people are completely brainwashed, just as much as Mao's citizenry was.

Even those on "our side" are often a complete disappointment. Often where you expect high-level knowledge, you are rewarded with people who basically clap their flippers together (like the lost penguin in old Bugs Bunny cartoons) when someone says "Capitalism is better than socialism". Yeah, ...I know.

But don't treat even these "halfway" sympathizers with freedom as valueless. They are super valuable! ...because the state is going to be spending a lot of time with them! Moreover, the state's efforts won't ever be rewarded with their efforts on those people, because those people BELIEVE in the system. They think elections make a difference. Therefore, when they get to court, they still fight like dogs (using FIJA and other "outside the box" tactics), and if the state prosecutes them, then they primarily succeeded in wasting their money and making themselves look bad --in addition to sending a message that freedom of speech and thought are not tolerated.

And if YOU really outwardly appear to believe that elections make a difference, and that incremental steps toward freedom are really worth taking, then you look just as "All-American" as they do. Moreover, if the freedom movement vigorously defends those who are the most radical (the most successful at opposing the state), then it encourages EVERYONE who is even slightly anti-state to be more radical, in order to hedge their bets. (I want the same multiple "outside the box" legal defense that the FIJA activists got, so I'd better be really effective at recording my actions, and posting the FIJA activism to youtube. I'd better be professional, so I look like a sympathetic victim, and don't make my defense work too hard to overcome my image problems. There is a happy medium. See:
http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=kooks&am...
http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id... -Some sympathetic cases
)

...The State never wants to battle All-American people who take part in (rigged) Democratic elections. Those people are their camouflage. As such, they also can make good camouflage for us.

We want to be rattlesnakes that look like sheep.
The fellow travelers of freedom (You?, Me?) want to be sheep that look like rattlesnakes. We want to blur the lines of public perception. Mainly, we want our numbers to be overwhelming we want everyone to be as radical as their intelligence allows. (Timothy Murphy was vastly less radical than John Galt, but John Galt is a fiction, and Murphy did what Ayn Rand would never do: He shot statists dead, before they could do so to him. Was it a preemptive "pro-war" strike? I say no. ....Here, let's bicker about it, in typical do-nothing anarcho-libertarian fashion.)

I'm just a stupid anti-drug-war, pro-gun "union Democrat" who woke up. For a serious and detailed video about my awakening process, please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGZFwKg5RZM (It's hard to tell which side represents the Libertarian Party in this cartoon, due to their emBARRassing tactics in 2008.)

What would you do differently today if you knew at the end of the year you were going to be raided by the unconstitutional government? Prepare for that, while kissing babies, praising constitutional limitations on government and waving the flag (none of this means that you can't also be practicing counter-economics, and talking counter-economics to those smart enough to understand). When you look mainstream, give radical positions. When you look radical, give low-key mainstream (libertarian) positions. Change the flag to the gadsden flag whereever you have the chance to point out that it is america's true flag, and that noone need ever swear allegiance to it, or any other flag. Otherwise, if you're running for local office, and you can't get elected without saying the pledge of allegiance, then go ahead and say it. Moreover, if you're a shit candidate, don't bother running, because you'll only embarrass us all, and waste people's time.

Push as mush intelligence into other people as their minds can hold, but err on the side of caution.
(Ie: don't try to sell someone on Lysander Spooner or Henry David Thoreau who isn't yet on board with even as much freedom as Ron Paul was promoting. Baby steps.)

Issue-by-issue baby steps, for those in electoral politics. At the same time, sure, push counter-economics. There is no irreconcilable conflict between the two, because that comes after the giant area of mutual overlap has already been achieved. Moreover, once more people have gone as far as tolerating their fellow man, it makes the leap to complete voluntaryism (to avoid going down the same path of failing constitutions) vastly more salable.

I think Freedom Force International is currently the best umbrella group for uniting the freedom movement. They are tolerant of anyone who wants individual freedom, properly defined in a mainstream way. They don't want to settle for less, or settle for collectivism of any kind. They are consistent.

But they are also socially tolerant. They don't exclude people who are religious, or exclude people who are un-religious. The mutual goal of freedom is their only unifier.

Even with a very good organization, I recommend assuming that everyone is untrustworthy except yourself, until they prove themselves. This does not mean that you should treat people as antagonists, but simply that you should expect to be let down, and enthusiastic and happy when they keep their word (most people fall short). Then again, I recommend trusting everyone with things that are worthwhile, but that wouldn't ruin you if the enemy found out. In this way, the enemy repeatedly works against itself (they hate doing this, and it grates on them to repeatedly help efforts that turn the public against them.). Typically, the enemy blows its cover to the perceptive in this stage. They simply can't keep this up for years at a time, without losing it.

This has "outed" several people in the Libertarian Party as either worthless, or informant. I urge those two things being put into the same category.

2008 has given us a long list of "worthless" people in the LP. (People who clearly don't care whether or not the LP maintains informational integrity, elects anyone, or ever says anything in defense of freedom that is more specific a defense of economic freedom than what Reagan said). I could name them, but you don't really need to know, unless you are going to actively work with the Libertarian Party. In that case, email me. Moreover, whether people are worthless informants or not shouldn't matter to party/movement organizing, because all information should be viewed as going straight to the FBI/KGB/DEA/ATF/SS/Whatever.

The kind of information that helps a movement based on transparency and freedom is information that hurts the state, no matter what. (There is no downside to propagating FIJA information, which is why the state fights it so hard. If we advocate FIJA, then we invite them to arrest us, or to help us spread the information. Those who spread the information in a silly way, and refuse to stop doing so are probably plants. But who cares? If they are silly, and you are serious and intelligent, then your movement simply looks larger. Moreover, when the seriosu people achieve better results, the silly people either stop, or learn to take the defense of freedom more seriously.)

Actual violent rebellion should never be considered in public, and violence should only be considered as something that is purely defensive. Ie: If you believe that some gang of looters/criminals might attack you, then feel free to prepare to the best of your ability. This says nothing more socially daring than what every rifle-owner in Arizona and Alaska already believes. You never have to tell those helping you whether or not you think attackers might come from the state or not, and volunteering that kind of information makes you a criminal (the all-purpose "conspiracy" charge), in the eyes of the illegitimate portions of the state.

Note that in the prior paragraph I didn't state whether or not I believe there are any legitimate portions of the state. Why would I? Such a statement would only divide those who were listening to me into warring factions.

...There is no need to do that, when our goals are the same. One of us might want to voluntarily go further down the path. Let's travel together until we reach that point, or part friends when we disagree about the best path to follow.

I can politely say "More power to the man who wants to hack through the brambles" and "I wish him luck", when I meet someone who wants to run for office. But I will simply allocate my resources more to jury rights activism, and grand jury presentment.

[NickyTheHeel]

I need to start checking this site more. Great post, Jake. Gimme a chance to devour all of this.