Politics

Beware Of The Coming Surveillance State

140 Comments

Looking through old family photo albums, I’ve noticed an unmistakable trend.

Each generation has more and more snapshots to show off. Of my grandparents, there are only a handful of pictures. Of my parents, there’s somewhat more—important occasions like their graduation or their wedding day. When I was 21 my grandmother sent me a thick photo album filled with dozens of baby photos, and I’d say there have to be at least a few hundred photographs of me in existence, many of them on social media.

Then there’s the current generation growing up. Half my cousins are busy making babies right now, and rarely does a day go pass I don’t see some new photos or video of them posted to Facebook. Anyone can see the increasing prevalence of cheap portable cameras, computers, and hard drives. In just the last fifteen-odd years we’ve gone from PCs to laptops to tablets to smartphones, but this trend is far from over.

We can only imagine the level of scrutiny our children and grandchildren will be subjected to. Already there are estimated to be as many as six million surveillance cameras in the United Kingdom alone—one for every ten people. But what comes next after a picture-taking smartphone you can carry around in your pocket? Lately there’s been talk of Google glasses and watches, but even that won’t be the end.

The era of neural implants

Already, we’re on the verge of developing implants which can link directly to a person’s brain. At the moment the technology is still rudimentary—meant for dealing with certain medical conditions and so on, but mass marketed versions will be coming soon. Already, scientists are developing the technology to scan and read people’s thoughts. Such implants would be connected to the internet and capable of constantly recording not just what your brain sees and hears, but perhaps even what it thinks.

To those still skeptical of this future, you simply have to look at the way social media has taken the world by storm in the last few years. South Park already had an episode on this last year. Neural implants would take a similar route.

Initially, they will be something only real “nerds” will be into, like the internet back in the ‘90s. Then, however, that rich kid down the street gets one, then somebody at your school. You start begging your parents because all the cool kids are getting them. Pretty soon, politicians are calling for implants to be provided for all schoolchildren free of charge.

It won’t stop there. Big corporations will spend billions saturating the media with advertising. Customers will stampede through the doors of shopping malls on Black Friday 2030 hoping to snap up the next generation of cyber implants. The dangers of having inserted an all but irremovable tracking device into your body will be dismissed at the time.

Sure, they’ll be a few holdouts here and there. Maybe the Mormon Church will come out against them, but within five to ten years this process will be complete, at least here in the west. The rest of the world will take a generation or two to catch up.

The older generation (i.e. us) will complain about the dehumanization of our children as they are changed more than ever into a race of group-thinking zombies, but “health experts” paid off by the government will stress that the implants are safe. Like the internet or a mobile phone today, soon not having an implant will be a serious liability—one employers are hardly going to overlook.

The implications

A one terabyte hard drive can store several hundred hours of video. A thousand terabytes could store a whole lifetime.

If ever-present surveillance truly becomes the norm, this transformation will dramatically affect our day-to-day lives. For our children and grandchildren, this would mean the end of almost all privacy. From infancy to death, every second of their lives could be monitored and stored away for future inspection. Gone are the days of kids playing alone away from the prying eyes of their parents. It could also be the end of sub-cultures where like-minded people can gather and converse in their own private world. Every word they ever utter would be subjected to political correctness.

Eventually, if you live in a major western city, it will be all but impossible to leave your front door without someone in the Department of Homeland Security potentially watching you. Even wearing a full burqa, biometric identification will give you away instantly. We will be told that this intimate knowledge of our thoughts and daily routines is still safe from hackers, but like naked airport scanners, this promise eventually proves hollow. If you value your privacy, moving to the countryside or a non-western country may soon be the best option.

Of course, there may be some positive effects. Our society already seems to have decided that the health and safety benefits of such constant monitoring alone will make it worthwhile—it would be the end of losing your kid in a supermarket. Many would also cite combating crime as a major benefit. Certainly cases of “he-said, she-said” will become rarer, hopefully reducing the number of false rape accusations. Recent examples show that just because something is caught on tape however, doesn’t mean justice will automatically follow.

We all saw the chilling example of the Ray Rice scandal earlier this year. Here we have caught on camera an argument between two people—a man and a women, that escalates to violence. The women initiates physical contact first and is knocked out in retaliation. But who is charged with assault, has their career seriously damaged and their reputation dragged through the mud on national television?

Ray Rice

Pictured: An innocent victim minding her own business

The Eric Garner case is worth a mention as well. Here we saw police officers attempting to arrest a man who had apparently committed no crime (unlike the Michael Brown case) and upon meeting resistance placed him in a choke-hold, a nominally banned technique, that eventually killed him despite his pleas for them to stop. This is all on video, yet there was not so much as an indictment. What lesson can we draw from these incidents?

That even in an all-pervasive surveillance state, a women can still get away with assault—and the police can literally get away with murder.

Clearly, a dominant narrative can trump all the evidence in the world. If women are never responsible for violence, then by default it must be the fault of by men, regardless of the circumstances. Recording everything only makes it easier for them to provoke men and have them thrown in jail—a place they languish ten times as often—when they retaliate. Violence, being primarily a weapon of men due to their larger physical size, must be stamped out by every means necessary. Meanwhile deception, emotional manipulation, and shaming—primarily tools of women—are allowed to run rampant in the name of freedom.

We can only hope that cases like these are aberrations, and that this new, Orwellian reality remains beholden to constitutional limits and common sense. I certainly would not trust today’s generation of feminists, and the spineless politicians they are so good at cowing, at deciding how to use these emerging technologies sensibly.

Of course in theory either gender could suppress the other, but these days any criticism of feminism will see you shouted down in the mainstream press, no matter how justified. If unchallenged, who knows to what lengths women will go to ensure men are effectively castrated in our society?

So of course certain groups, women foremost among them, will support the surveillance state. In a society that refuses to judge them, and thus where they can do no wrong—what do they have to fear?

Read More: You’re A Monster If You Don’t Support The Welfare State

140 thoughts on “Beware Of The Coming Surveillance State”

  1. The weak always lean towards oversocialized nanny states because they know they would be at the bottom in a purely meritocratic, competitive society

    1. Very true. I was laughing the other day when I read a post from a feminist telling a guy that women have “worked hard and have earned their way.” What a joke. If that was true, you wouldn’t need feminism in the first place.

      1. Women who have earned their way are usually the first to say they didn’t need or want feminism. See Margaret Thatcher.

    3. It’s not a dichotomy. It’s not either/or. You can have a society that guarantees some safety without having to give up liberties. Actually, almost all liberties they want you to give up are NOT for you own good. They use terrorists and pedophiles as excuses to trick you into submitting yourself to their control.
      The terrorists aren’t coming to raid your town. The rulers are.

      2. Yup, you got it.
        What, you don’t want these laws? You must support terrorists and pedophiles????? How could you? Don’t worry, this is for the good of the group….I’ll just slip in the tip, you’ll barely feel it. USA! USA! USA!!!

      3. you would think so but our liberties are intertwined.
        if we lack the right to bear arms we can no longer defend our other rights. the government will have guns and we won’t. there is nothing keeping them playing by the rules.
        then free speech. and because free speech is something we would have had born to us there goes the ninth amendment.
        and we will have no way to protect ourseles from unlawful search and seizure. there goes number four
        then without free speech we can’t guarantee we won’t be persecuted for what we say or who we support. there goes democracy. and the fifth amendment. and because democracy is part of the checks and balances that runs the government, there goes number ten.
        no trial can be truly fair without protection from incrimination, so there go six and seven and eight.
        and finally number three because that is something that happens when you have a true police state.

  2. Wrong. People like computers and phones and such because it gives them an escapism. The Google glasses (and especially the cars) will never catch on.

    1. Haha, Google cars will catch on the moment it becomes more profitable for corporations (when insurance becomes stratified between human and robot vehicle operators). You really think they care about anything other than profit margins? You gonna pay an outrageous insurance premium just to drive? Doubt it. It’ll become a luxury of the wealthy.

      2. Even if true, people will never get brain implants in mass. It weird them out too much. People want to be able to shut it off.

        2. Doesn’t matter if most people get them, it matters that some people will get them and, after implantation, will become something dramatically more than those who do not have them. Imagine talking to someone who had an implant today and, while conversing with you could have Google searches running about the topic that you’re discussing. That person would appear to be the smartest person you’d ever met. Or could do math at a rate never before seen for a person; give me pi to 100 decimal points and they’d respond “forwards or backwards”.
          The issue is one of identification. We don’t feel bad killing cows today because we assume that because they are so much less intelligent than us, they aren’t able to feel the same things. When the elite have computers in their heads and all are all networked together; able to communicate with one another and make decisions at the “speed of computers”, what will they think of those who are unconnected? A “regular person” (one without implants) may appear as an dog does to us today, nice to have around, but totally incapable of understand the intricate world around it. Will we treat the un-enhanced as we do our dogs, or will we treat them as we do our cows?
          The stratification we will see in society when implants become readily available (but hella expensive) is going to be something straight out of Gattaca. Those without implants will simply have nothing interesting to say to those that do have them (they will already know it).
          I for one, look forward to the day we’re able to increase our intellect in this manner, however, let’s not pretend that it’s going to be without problems.

        3. The problem with implantable chips is that it is in fact highly attractive. I’d love to be able to ramp up my calculation ability and have the world’s knowledge just “there”.
          Fantastic post, I share your concerns.

        4. I’m not familiar enough with that technology but I can “see the writing on the wall” with my current position and I know the company would love for nothing more than to replace drivers.

        5. What scares me is, you think your thought is your thought when actually your thought is a manufactured thought and you cannot tell the difference of your own thought or the injected thought because you no longer have sole control of your thoughts.

        6. They have done exactly this at some mines in Australia. The drivers were asking for pay rises so the mine operators got automated trucks and told them to F off.

        8. Most people are short-sighted and have terrible abilities to prognosticate future technological implications. Then they will all be claiming, “I didn’t see this coming.” It’s pretty obvious to anyone in a position analyzing Cost-Benefit ratios. But many people don’t think of that.

        9. In the wonderful “World of Tomorrow” labor saving devices will ensure the elite can live a complete life of leisure knowing all the people they fucked over with automation.

      3. google is planning to sell it’s cars like mobile phones, no payment up front… so when you want to go to a restaurant the fucking car will drop you off at macdonalds or whoever paid for the traffic… you won’t be able to nip to the cornerstore the fucker will only take you to the supermarket that paid for clicks, and it will know everwhere you’ve been and what you want….

        1. Yep. But that is one avenue someone can get into an industry preemptively and profit from the growing technology instead of being automated out.

        1. I can’t see it taking more than 10 years. Once the technology is perfected, the insurance premiums on non-automated operators will be too high for any company to pay for. That will transition over into the civilian side quite quickly as well as the technology becomes more scalable. That will be ~3 million professional drivers gone overnight. Other positions, such as my current one and many other in management, will also be gone because 75% of what I do now involves resolving issues with drivers. So my position, and many others will be consolidated down. And there won’t be 3 million jobs created by this either. The reason technology is scalable is because the back-end maintenance requirements are lower than the current labor input costs. Meaning 100 drivers will be replaced with 20 technicians and 4 engineers.

      5. I wonder how bikers will fit into that equation? We’re millions and millions strong, they simply cannot ban the motorcycle and would likely face actual shooting resistance if they tried.

        1. Bikers already willingly pay much higher insurance premiums so I’m not sure it will be a huge difference. Also, much of the catalyst for that transformation will come from transportation companies. They don’t transport much with bikes.

        2. Sure, higher insurance, I was thinking more of how to integrate automated vehicles with actual free will possessing variables like bikers. Bumper to bumper traffic traveling at 80 mph in perfect automated precision sounds great, until you throw in a few bikers to shake up the equation.
          This is actually a concern of mine in a general sense. I’m certain that at first it won’t be a big deal because obviously they’re going to phase in automated cars, but eventually “everybody” will go the pussy path and be automated, except bikers. Then is when I think this will spur demands to “deal with the random variables that make our roads dangerous!” or some other such bullshit public relations slogan.

        3. Bikers being provided their own lanes is one solution. I also don’t think driving will be restricted, largely for the sole reason that the wealthy will want to do it. So maybe a non-automated lane on certain roads will be the combined approach. I’m not sure it will matter if non-automated operators aren’t on certain roads on certain times. They could possibly have controlled access freeways with required automation as well.

        4. Interesting solution, and quite practical and inexpensive. Feel ashamed that it didn’t occur to me sooner, heh.

        5. I wouldn’t feel too bad. I have to come up with transportation solutions routinely in my current job. It will probably be a combination of solutions being driven by the collected data. And data-driven fields is the one thing that I can foreseeable seeing expanding from all this technology. So if red-pill men are looking for a career field, that is one to research.

        6. These technocrats are in this long term. The social change will be tried to be implemented. Expect damning propaganda against motor biking people in the future.
          Or they will be automated just as cars.

    2. The Glass, I agree. Too invasive. Needs to be a contact lens and the technology needs to improve a lot more for that to happen.
      The car? I think you’re way wrong on this one. I’d pay 2X the cost of car today to have the Google tech in it (assuming it was legal to let the car drive itself 100% of the time). The self driving car will be a massive revolution in the way we live and work. Problem is, much like my post about neural implants, this too will result in additional stratification of society.
      Only the rich will be able to afford self driving cars when they are released. And, because of that, things like DUI (see: John Goodman), parking problems, loss of freedom when older and productive time lost driving will all become the problems of the “poor”. The rich will be able to have cars that take them where they want to go, pick them up when they are ready to leave and spend no time actually driving, allowing them to work or play more than the “regular folks” allowing them to get further ahead.
      The self driving car will be a revolution. Nothing like neural implants, but, much closer to reality than implanting a computer chip in your brain.
      Even if you take a very limited approach to the tech, the job losses are going to be tremendous. There’s a lot of people in this country who make their living driving. Imagine, 10 years from now when Uber summons a driverless car? Or when tractor trailers are driven (at least the long haul portion) by a computer? There is going to be a tremendous amount of unemployment in the semi-skilled category as these technologies become more available.
      The good news is that driverless cars will lead to a safer world. Driving is dangerous and, frankly, humans aren’t that good at it. Computers can react faster, can communicate information instantly between themselves (accident ahead, obstruction in right lane, etc) and will make faster and better decisions that we can under pressure.

  3. This is an inevitable progression of big government/corporations funding the technological drive. Our governing bodies are woefully ill-equipped to regulate, which is fitting given the people voting for them. So even if we wanted them to regulate it, they will be doing so retroactively. The best thing to do, is prepare for it and try to profit.

    1. Oh, I don’t know. Ohio just had a bill pass that requires a living policeman to be present where any camera is in operation (red light cams), which effectively shuts down those cameras. That whole “cant’ confront your accuser” argument still has some legs in the legal realms, it turns out.

      1. You live in Columbus right? I’m pretty unfamiliar with most of the midwest but I have been thinking of moving further south or to the midwest (currently live in VA and from NY).

        1. I’m a bit north of Columbus but yes, close enough to call it Columbus. It’s an interesting place. While OSU (and Cleveland) are bastions of leftism, by and large even those places concede on the gun and personal surveillance issues. It’s rather neat really.
          At our pro-gun “open carry your sidearm on the Statehouse Lawn” rally two years ago, where 5k-7k people showed up, there were contingents of OSU students all armed with rather nice sidearms that showed up.
          You can walk down the street in Columbus at 2 am and still feel rather safe (I know, I’ve done it). Not to say nothing bad can happen, but you just don’t get that creeping “thug on my ass” feeling like you would in, say, Detroit or Chicago. Plus it’s a hell of a lot cleaner than most mid/large sized cities for some reason.

  4. this says it all… UK has more cameras than people i think…. there was a campaign recently to put cameras into homes of offenders and domestic abuse cases…. that’s a hop and a skip before everyone is monitored 24/7… add the computer algos that can know what you are doing…. some real scarey stuff….

    1. I get the jitters when I walk down the streets in London. It’s too bad there are maybe like ten men left in that nation who understand liberty. They sorely need a revolt, a real one, that culminates with large bonfires in the middle of the town squares where cameras are thrown on as fuel.
      Not sure how well a CCTV burns, but you get my point, heh.

    2. They already use technology that can remotely turn on the camera on your device without the light coming on or indication that it is running.

  5. You’d think that more surveillance would lead to more truth being revealed but it seems to be used to further implement the feminist, liberal cultural markist agenda that is taking over the West.

  6. The surveilance state is a product of tyranny and reflects that we have turned into a fascist state.
    Militarised police, martial law, FEMA camps, TBTF banks, radical feminism etc. What does this show? We no longer are a country of freedom. And the masses still believe that bigger government is good, and that a nanny state is perfect for all of us. Factor in all the Hollywood bullshit propoganda like “Person of Interest” and the other nonsense about how surveillance is a good thing, and you can start to see sanity has been thrown out the window.
    We live in a dangerous world, where freedom is being taken away. Soon, people will no longer have the right to express their opinions under free speech.

    1. Never really thought about person of interest that way until just now. Clearly a show designed to get the masses used to the idea of being under surveillance 24/7 for the common good. Scary shit. Last time I saw that show years ago was before swallowing the red pill…. and back then it just seemed normal. Now I see clearly the agenda behind pushing such a show. Oh vey! The Tribe knows what they’re doing.

        1. I watch less and less TV as time goes by. I still make time for certain shows but Person Of interest is the latest “round house kick chick cop show” that my liberal retard family is oozing over. Happend to catch them watching it a few weeks ago….. You should force yourself to watch an episode.Pretty much everything that is police state/feminism embodied in one show.

    2. This started in the 1980’s, with the advent of ‘cheap’ computing power. It advanced in the 1990’s, and was codified in law with the so-called Patriot Act. You see, that made it completely ‘legal’ for the government to: Spy on you, enter your home without a warrant, and detain you indefinitely.
      There’s 536 people from 2001 that I’d like to see arrested and tried for treason. Only one senator had the stones to vote against it.

      1. Let me guess.. Ron Paul?
        Say what you will about Ron Paul, and think what you will about his politics, but he is a man who’s committed to his vision. I’m not sure it’s the right vision, but, at the same time, that level of clarity is fucking unheard of in politics. I have to respect someone who’s true to what they think is the right thing, even if I personally disagree with them.

        2. The man who, along with Pat Buchanan, restored my faith in America and Conservatism after the termites in the Bush administration lifted a leg on both for years.
          The Biblical Mark of the Beast isn’t too far off.

        1. Well, if you’re talking ‘secret police’ then you’d have to go much further back than the Bolsheviks. I was talking about a (near) ubiquitous surveillance state that is only possible with advanced technology.

  7. – We all saw the chilling example of the Ray Rice scandal earlier this year. Here we have caught on camera an argument between two people—a man and a women, that escalates to violence. The women initiates physical contact first and is knocked out in retaliation. But who is charged with assault, has their career seriously damaged and their reputation dragged through the mud on national television? –
    Femcunts, white-knights, manginas use the argument of ‘proportional retaliation’ to justify their nullifying of Ray Rice’s right to self-defense and essentially allowing the cunt who initiated the violence to get off scot-free. However though, will a man who grope a woman’s breast or butt get a ‘proportional retaliation’ i.e. the woman gets to grope his breast or butt in retaliation instead of tax-funded white-knights (read: the police) get to bust the said man’s ass?

    1. Good points. I thought, in this case, the woman actually fucked herself because her “meal ticket” (aka her husband) got kicked out of the NFL for that stupid shit.
      It was ironic but at least the woman (for a change) had to deal with some kind of “consequences”. Usually, women get away with everything (including the money) while the man goes to jail (and is left with nothing).

      1. To her credit, she accepted responsibility at some level and stood by her man despite the strong feminist “no woman should take that shit” thing. As I hear they’ve both gotten straight with God, stopped drinking heavy alcohol and are basically moving forward. I don’t follow celebrity shit really, heard it on the radio so I’m not certain how true it is, so YMMV.

        1. They’ve been together for some time so hopefully they went to counseling to deal with (what seems to be) many “underlying issues” in their relationship (besides alcohol). It seems to be that this one was building up over time (not just one instance) with many arguments, yelling, etc….and then finally snapped one day.
          I don’t really follow it either and I only caught pieces of it (here and there). It fucking kills me, though, because the SJWs saw it and right away it was thrown into “that” category.
          Ignorance must be bliss.

    2. ‘proportional retaliation’
      That always made me laugh. The dude’s a world class athlete used to getting by men with such force it’s the same as being in car accident. Just by mistake and virtue of his completely superior strength, he’s gonna do more damage even if he’s not trying.
      Instead of bitching about proportional retaliation, women should simply stop attacking men. It doesn’t take a genius to understand how most of these encounters will work out.
      If a 5’4″ 130lb guy spit on Rice and slapped him, the result would be the exact same as what happened. That’s equality.

  8. I do think it will be difficult to constantly track someone. Once someone figures out how to hack their own recordings, it all goes away.

    1. For what? An hour? A minute? Until the hacking sends an alert through who knows what caliber of software sophistication that is on the way. I would imagine that someone hacking themselves undetectable would be a primary concern for the surveillance teams.

    2. Using a live human being as a tracker, sure, agree. Electronically though? I’m nearly invisible to the powers that be, outside of my posts in the manosphere. Once I log off I go nearly stealth to electronic surveillance, a bit of exception for areas with cameras of course, but that would require the living human examining tape as I mentioned.

      1. FYI, real time facial recog and tracking is already being used and it can be matched with your license mugshot (and associated gov held data)… This can easily be integrated/matched with voluntary and involuntary (other people’s photos of you, even if not tagged) data from facebook and/or other mass surveillance systems. You have no idea how much info is stored about you… from what you buy to who you talk to. Your entire identity, past and possibly even a forecast of your future is all on record.

  9. The “never hit a woman” meme needs to come to an end. Especially, given the fact that most women are now fully aware of the power the hold over social conventions which allow them to taunt, berate and hit men with impunity. Many women in this day and age can be as strong if not stronger than many men (i.e crossfit chicks).
    A friend of mine used to be a bail bondsman. He said the woman were much more violent than the men when fighting capture. The men would usually give up when overpowered but the women would bite, claw and literally try to kill because they knew they could get away with it.
    No rational person would ever suggest offensively hitting anyone. However, self-defense is a man’s God given right no matter the gender.

    1. Lost in all the Ray Rice anger was that she is taller than him and probably within 30 pounds of him. A woman that size swinging a fist through the air with gemstone ring on her finger could lay open a man’s eyeball. The whole idea that woman are made of sugar and spice kind of misleads people. As a man, you can’t just stand there and get beaten up. Years ago, when women were 110 pounds, slapping men’s chests in a kind of ritual 1940’s movie tantrum, that was one thing. Nowadays, a typical 190 pounder kicking you in the nuts with everything she’s got (and 3 years of Muay Thai training) could really damage you. Who knows how many beatdowns Ray Rice got from his wife before he snapped? Maybe none, maybe 200.

      1. I see yout point, but she isnt within 30 lb of him; hes like 210, she isnt 180 lbs….she is fit.

        1. Could be 40-50 pounds, I guess. I thought he was 5’7″ 200. Oh well. I’m quibbling. Check this out though;

      2. I’m not sure she’s within 30lbs of him, but, frankly, it doesn’t matter. What if that was a 130 lb guy taking a swing at Ray Rice? Would it be OK for him to defend himself then?
        Frankly, with the sorry state of fitness in America, an American woman is as heavy today as most men were 50-100 years ago. Thinking that because you outweigh someone by 20-30 lbs you can beat them up is a bad hypothesis that will quickly land you in the ICU when you meet someone smaller who knows how to fight. Add to it the fact that women, when they do snap, fucking SNAP (bite, claw, eye gouge, etc), it’s not as simple as “who weighs more”.
        Sure, cops give a wider berth to a man who’s 220 than a woman who’s 120. But, it wouldn’t shock me at all to find out there are more injuries from the 120lb women than the bigger men for police officers. Yes, a 220 lb man can fuck you up more, but, it only takes a little “fucking up” before your on the ground and defenseless.
        While I’m not sure I’m willing to defend Ray Rice; I’m also not willing to vilify him. She was obviously out of control. It’s not clear, but if she swung at him first, it seems justified to hit her back. He only hit her once and then immediately stopped when she stopped being aggressive.
        Let me put it this way. If that was a man who weighed what that woman did in the elevator antagonizing him like she obviously did and the same thing happened (one punch, KO, called people to help the guy), this wouldn’t have been a 10 minute news story. It’s because she’s a woman that it’s news…

    2. In my experience, for what I’ve seen in my 28 years of life, women are more emotionally driven and more prone to violence than men.

      1. I think that’s due to the fact that they don’t know what violence can do, contrary to most men.
        They don’t grow up with the fear of getting punched in the face.
        They’re like the politicians ; no problem with starting wars they won’t have to fight.

        1. “They don’t grow up with the fear of getting punched in the face.”
          Gold.
          There’s a saying that goes something like “A well armed populace is a polite populace”. Fear governs interactions between men, it always has and, hopefully, it always will. Fear is not a bad thing, if I think someone can fuck me up, I’m not going to go all pussy around them, but, at the same time, there’s no way I’m going to get in their face and try to start a fight (as the woman in the RR scandal did).
          Woman don’t know this fear. They simply don’t understand that all men live in a constant state of “watching our backs” when we are out and about. Women kind of live in a violence bubble; it just doesn’t happen to them, so, as far as they are concerned, it doesn’t happen at all.

        2. I say this for the fact that, in all my years I’ve only fought and engaged in physical violence with 5 men, 3 of them during high school, 2 of them as an adult. And I’ve dealt with women violence almost constantly, my mother would hit me, several girls would hit me, as an adult plenty women have hit me.

        3. – They don’t grow up with the fear of getting punched in the face. –
          I think on some level women are still aware that there is a remote chance of them getting punched or even killed by a man but when she is cognizant that there are no shortage of white knights in the vicinity then ho-boy, y’all better watch out!

          White knights are the real problem, take out the white knights and feminism will be reduced to something akin to a hyena matriarch but without its 4 limbs.

        4. I’ve had way more females swing at me too…often with something heavy or sharp in their hand

        5. Hahaha. But they sure do act surprised when it does happen, like there was absolutely no reason for it at all.

        6. That video is incredible. I can’t believe it. I’m never going to India, that is sick. She deserved every bit of that.

        7. Just leave them and never contact them again. Regardless of who they are, and what relation they are to you. They’ll find someone to bitch slap them. Don’t let it be you. I think the leading cause of domestic violence is women pushing men to the fucking brink and men letting them.

      2. You think? Anybody who doesn’t believe that hasn’t been in a serious relationship with a woman.
        Even if she doesn’t get physical with you, she will still freakout, yell, break shit, steal shit, denigrate you to your face or behind your back, all preferred methods of violence used by women.

    3. The “never hit a woman” meme needs to come to an end.
      Chris Rock agrees.
      http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/11/chris-rock-says-never-hit-a-woman-first
      He talked about that and the Ray Rice incident.
      “People say there’s no reason to ever hit a woman. No—there’s no reason to ever hit a woman first. You can hit a woman back—shit, if Oprah hit me I’d knock her the fuck out!
      “No one ever asked the question ‘Who hit first?’ Best journalists in the world, not one asked the question. ‘It’s not important.’ Yes, it is! It’s the most important question on earth.

        1. Austin’s an exception. In a state of 25.5 million people, the leftists are going to congregate somewhere. By in large, it’s still a very rational state and a bulwark against the leftist insanity imposed on the nation by California and New York.

      2. Texas? Eh, they’re not bad. If you want hard core badass old school men though, you have to hit the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana.
        You can’t even open carry your sidearm in Texas. Shameful really.

        2. Arizona, anyone over 21 without a felony can carry concealed or open. Any sort of knife is game as well.

      1. Ancient Aliens is fascinating. Everytime I think Im gonna go all in on these theories, they cut to this whack a do lololol

  14. That future is now. Its called google glass. As soon as you step outside your front door, you’re in the public domain.

    1. The saving grace with Google Glass is that it’s so pretentious that a term has been invented for the few people who wear it – Glassholes.

      1. Version 2.0 will google contact lenses. You won’t even know the other person is wearing them. Everything uploaded to the net instantly. Orwell couldn’t have imagined it.

  15. It’s not hard to convince consumer-minded dumb fucking Americans to give away their freedom. So long as you package in a catchy way the youth will buy into that. Take example of things like snapchat, facebook, and other apps, these companies catalog and have a copy of everything. If you don’t believe me then you’re an idiot. Also not to mention the NSA and whoever else will take that free information as well.
    Eventually more complex algorithms will be created based on speech patterns, conversation topics, amount of time using apps, obviously race, age, gender, income, amount of education, religion, and disability status will be out there. It’s only a matter of time before once all compiled you have the great 100% police state. Add some video cameras and drones and soon everyone is watching everyone.
    Any group of people can be convinced, Feminists: just tell them men will be watched 100%. Rightists: Just tell them it’s for national security and defense, Leftists: Just ignore them, they might pout a little but they’ll back down like usual because they’re spineless pussies(the problem of a party where men have no frame and believe in the Gods of moral relativism), the wealthy elite: good, watch everyone but me, only real conservatives and maybe some die-hard libertarian types would refuse.
    For those who think we will not get to this point, let’s say for instance you go back into the year 1995, and you tell people all about facebook and other apps. All about how you give up a bunch of your personal data online. They would look at you like broccoli was coming out of your ears. But here we are, 19 years later and tons of people do it. So say it’s impossible is to have a tiny mind incapable of thinking beyond what you’re going to watch on tv tomorrow. It could very easily happen. Just wait.

    1. Imagine the wanking going on in the Snapchat office on a daily basis (watching all those nude selfies fly by). Fuck me, I’m not sure I could take it, and I have a pretty unstoppable sex drive.

    2. Imagine being an adult now who was alive in 1995 as an adult (or scarier, a newly minted adult in 1985). The world most here accept as normal, or at least normalized enough to not care too much about it, is a nightmare of every distopian fantasy ever conceived by tyrants over the centuries, to me. And nobody sees it. It’s insidious.
      People literally giving away information now that anybody back in my day would have demanded a warrant from the police before they surrendered it. And the shitter is that it’s NO SECRET that NSA is watching it all and monitoring our conversations, and NOBODY cares.

      1. The Onion had a video about Facebook and Zuckerburg that described him as a CIA agent codenamed the Overlord.
        That shit ain’t really satire.

        1. That painful irony when you realize that ONN is a better source of truth (wrapped in satirical packaging) than the MSM (satire wrapped in ‘truth’ packaging).

        3. It’s hard being able to read between the lines and keeping your mouth shut. I’ve been warning people about net monitoring for 10+ years, only to have them look at me like I said beware of the lizard people from mars. Thank you snow. Odd thing about it is, the strongest naysayers understand basically nothing of technology. Fun fact for the day… Planes go where the computer tells it to.

      2. I think I’m a couple or three years younger than you. But you are dead on. This world is creepy.
        I’m glad I was born when I was. Would have preferred earlier, but at least I got a good chunk of life in before the country became Orwellian.

  18. Woulda been a timely article a decade ago.
    William Gibson’s new book envisions a grim future: total economic unravelling in the early 2030s, 40-50 yrs later, whoever is left on earth after the dieoff are controlled by elites with nanotechnology to keep them from revolting.
    Im glad I wont be around in 2080.

    1. Why would elites need nanotechnology or a die off to keep us from revolting? I sit in the most heavily armed nation ever created in the history of mankind, surrounded by a civilian army of 110+ million men and women, and for the life of me I can’t see even a vestigial armed resistance to what has become, by all accounts, a socialist police state.

      1. No matter what your opinion is, the fact is that they want a much smaller population than today. These are not my words, just look up what “powerful” people are doing and saying. Eugenics is alive and well (pun intended).

  19. The best surveillance is not one perpetrated by the government, but the one perpetrated by your peers, voluntarily. Because while some government mechanism can always be circumvented, it’s always your peers’ NEED to share info about you which will really fuck you over.
    Had some friends party over at my place once, one girl of course makes a status update and GPS tags where she is. I tell her to remove it, she gets indignant why she should, I ask her why the fuck she is broadcasting my exact adress for everyone to see. She got it, thankfully.
    Or you get together with friends, the mood is great and everyone decides to start goofing around. Maybe they’ll dance, maybe they’ll sing, maybe they’ll playfight or go skinnydipping or whatever. People want to do something goofy and maybe slightly embarassing but they’re comfortable doing it in front of their friends, they feel safe knowing that they’ll just give a funny memory for their friends and they won’t broadcast it to the world.
    That was then. It’s 2014 now. If anyone wants to make something goofy, everyone immidiately takes out their smartphones to record this occasion. Now your friends have a permanent memory of what you did and they can PERFECTLY share that moment with anyone else if they so choose. Will you be as uninhibited now with your stunts when you know that all it takes is for some friend to become butthurt for some reason and leak all your photos/videos? They don’t even need to do some hard work to ruin you, it’s actually quite comfortable, just upload that video on your facebook and tag that friend. YOLO, now your complete friendslist of 800+ people sees you behaving like a jackass or worse.
    The new technology is actually creating a more distrustful world where a person is a constant thing. In the past, you could fuck up in one place, move to another town and start life basically anew. Nowadays, the past will always ALWAYS follow and haunt you. No chance at redemption, no new beginnings, you have to be on your toes and bring your A-Game from the age of 6 or you’ll fuck up for life.

    1. surveillance by friends, family, co-workers, innocent or potentially otherwise is always preferable to top down state mechanisms – although of course they have those too – particularly as it leads to surveillance of the self. Certain schools of theory call this ‘governmentality’ – Foucault’s has described the technologies of the self etc whereby this happens. Eventually even when those CCTV camera’s (or more sophisticated equivalents) or those friends’ smartphones aren’t trained in your direction, you will control yourself in exactly the same way as though they were present.
      If you don’t of course, that’s when it will get nasty

      1. Only preferrable for the state. When it’s the state being surveillance heavy, all the peers band together in a shared common opposition, see China with everybody and their mother using proxies and exchanging sites where they can actually talk and spread information. When you KNOW that all your peers are potential spies, that’s when society breaks down as you now don’t even have any persons in your vicinity whom you can trust or at least grumble together about the state of things

        1. Same as it ever was in China. The Emperor bans trade, sets up a Tribute/Gift system he controls and the Chinese in Fujian all become Smugglers to spite the Emperor. China never seems to quite get it.

        2. social control will continue to get increasingly sophisticated, not least because it will be able to present itself as benign and pro-social. After all, if you don’t know your complying, if you think its your own will you are complying with, then why would you even question that? Our shepherds want to fuck sheep

      2. And, of course, the greatest form of population control is when you get them to censor themselves before they even say anything, before they even dare THINK some wrongthink. We’re partly at this point already with scientists being afraid to even think about some racial hypotheses because that will forever brand them pariahas

    2. I talk about this with my friends once in a while.
      I was in my 20’s during the 1990’s. Bigtime partier particularly in my early 20’s.
      I am so glad we were young and stupid when we were. I would never want some of the stupid things we did to be memorialized forever on Youtube or Facebook.
      We got to be stupid, and our biggest penalty is our friends still joke about the stupid things we did back then.
      Being a kid today would be horrible. Like you said, you better be on top of your game your entire life.
      Off topic, your avatar creeps me out for some reason.

      1. and the prank phonecalls- dont forget them! Hell, in the 90s, you could call in a bombthreat and the guy on the other side KNEW you were full of shit, he’d play along because he was bored working at the bowling alley on a tue night lolol

      2. #smh all this shaming, I’m a beautiful butterfly and wanna participate in this instagram craze!

  21. Meanwhile every black is now demanding cops wear a camera? Is this going to snap back in the face of the blacks when they realize that they act like chimps, and now, it’s on camera?

  22. Police justifiably kill around 400 people a year and unlawfully kill(murder) another 4-500 people every year-we have to estimate because they refuse to keep statistics(which is damning by itself). About 4 are indicted every year. So if you want to murder someone, become a police officer first and they’ll never convict you.

  24. If anyone here gets the opportunity, watch the 1995 movie “Ghost in the Shell.” Tell me that film wasn’t prophetic when it came to cybernetic implants…

  25. This surveillance state has already been anticipated by the famous book of George Orwell, 1984. The same way as Nostradamus kind of predicted other major events like 9/11. Or even Rasputin who foretold the Russian Revolution. All those and other prophecies may sound far-fetched and abstruse to decipher, but they still have some truth-value. I think it was Wittgenstein who said that the “Future is Origin”, so we are going back to basics. Back to the writings of past, great authors. Perhaps the only difference is that we know it but we can’t do that much to divert the course of History.

  26. “The Eric Garner case is worth a mention as well. Here we saw police officers attempting to arrest a man who had apparently committed no crime (unlike the Michael Brown case) and upon meeting resistance placed him in a choke-hold, a nominally banned technique, that eventually killed him despite his pleas for them to stop. This is all on video, yet there was not so much as an indictment. What lesson can we draw from these incidents?”
    Unless you can explain how you would have arrested a 280+ lb man who refused to be arrested than shut the fuck up. I’ve choked out 1000 people and been choked out 1000 times by people practicing MMA. The chokes employed were much more effective than the partial choke – neck crank put on the Garner Giant. He died because he never walked past a McDonald’s without walking inside and Supersizing until McDonald’s removed that option from the menu. If you can speak – you can breathe.

    1. You’re writing garbage. Eric Garner’s case was a tragedy of immense proportions. If you are so blinded by whatever it is you hold on to to defend a man suffocated to death on camera, despite his many pleas, what do you think will happen when you, or someone you care about, become the next victim?
      The major reason why all cases of police brutality must always be condemned is not necessarily because you like the victims, but to let the police know that they are being scrutinized by the public, and will be made accountable for their actions.

      1. Except they aren’t accountable. That’s why some people have begun randomly targeting them. This will only escalate on both sides.

Comments are closed.