Hi – thought I’d post (with the writer’s permission) a great email we received recently.
It is not particularly nice about the film – but contains some really interesting points of view!
So in the spirit of sharing – here it is:
I just finished watching a documentary about privacy and security called ERASING DAVID. It didn’t take long to realize it made little sense. The object of the film was a kind of protest against gov’t and marketing tracking in UK. It’s a bit late now for Brits to start thinking about how they have allowed welfare state, police surveillance and bureaucracy to expand unchecked. However the idea that this can be falsified or proven by becoming a fugitive is a false premise. The proof of liberty and anonymity is in having freedom of movement, speech, artistic and hobby activities without regulatory interference or dossier building. The right of self defense is a major point of such proof, but the right of self defense has almost disappeared from Britain and Europe at large.
I watched the entire 1.5 hr presentation, but kept waiting for an explanation as to why they were making a documentary about a misunderstood concept. In America “new-age” victims of university Leftist indoctrination who graduate without a sense of history or little knowledge of their pre-electronics forbearers seem to think that the lack of anonymity is a sudden modern phenomena. UK graduates probably get a more comprehensive view of world history, but are likewise inculcated with the sense that Goverment has become regent for the higher moral province of religion based morality. The divine right of Kings was poison to history. American exceptionalism rejected that concept and imposed a higher morality on Republican governance. This gives us the clarity and temerity to go over the heads of poiticians and invoke higher authority over any intrinsically lawless bureucracy.
Privacy and security are problematic in the west, with provincial and state governments going through fluctuations of lesser and greater intrusiveness over the last few centuries. But the concept of privacy is simply non-existent in primitive tribal society where every detail of life of each member of the group is known and controlled by strict convention and an absolutist religious and behavioral regime. Freedom as known in the West over the last century was (is), unknown in tribal clan society. On the other hand it is also an alien concept in any “communal” Communist or functionally identical Fascist police state, including police state Sharia Islam. The quickly evolving UK police state is a runaway bureaucratic nightmare that should have been balked thirty years ago, had the sensibilities and expectations of free expression not been expurgated by “progressive” (19th century Marxist) academia, regulatory zeal and political coercion.
UK is, in regards to repressive governance, about 8-12 yrs ahead of USA. America’s growing resistance to an Obama re-election to a second term is symptomatic of a growing perception that this fool is totally dependent on a forced revision of natural law (inversion of morality and jurisprudence) to realize his “transformation of society” into yet another hellish socialist experiment. As in the case of Obamazoid dysfunctional bungling and inevitable catastrophic economic breakdown, the bureaucracy panics and becomes more repressive and reactionary in proportion to the resistance of the citizenry. Gov’t malfeasance, draconian prohibitions and inverted justice are ingredients for a self-energizing catalytic accelerant for eventual dystopian collapse. the only querstion is wether the bankruptcy is acidental incompetence driven by ideology, or deliberate policy of induced chaos and resulting politocal “emergency” opportunism as planned by the Alinsky school of radical usurpation.
Islamic Sharia is rapidly invading UK. Communists make quick and convenient alliances with repressive Islam, enhancing their mutual interest in repressing residual ethical monotheist (Judeo-Christian) individualism. Rule by dogmatic pseudo-religious paranoia, be it secular or religious fanaticism, has a common goal. As in Iran, the old GDR or North Korean surveillance regimes, paid or coerced informants make political denunciations imposed by secret police. Sharia and/or fascist corporatism are totalitarian single party theocracies. The technology used is unprecedented in history, but the social control has always been with us since ancient times with much smaller closely watched tribal and hierarchical populations. Pre- Saudi Wahhabi Muslim periods of conquest and Ottoman rule tolerated competing religions, dress and languages, if not encouraged. The coteries and hareems of oriental potentates were often involved in both the spice trade and the Jerusalem Pilgrimage trade. Mohammedans were business oriented and needed cash flow unlike todays terrorists who are aborbing billions in UN sponsored tribute and therefore have no incentive to moderate their murdering impulses. Mix Sharia neo-primitivism with modern techno police state surveillance and digital tracking you have life with conditions similar to the NORK stalinist hell. This is why Americans WILL NOT sacrifice their ownership of firearms.
There is a lot of procedural overlap between governments labeled, Communist, Fascist, Sharia. In the modern era, they are exemplified by conditions ranging from NORK absolutism and perhaps somewhat less confining modern quasi secular regimes, to the worst, most primitive absolutist Islamic tribal states. I’ll ignore animist African cults for the purpose of this discussion, although mass murdering Islamo fascist activity is now gaining momentum in Africa. Sharia is in fact a comprehensive political, economic and religious dogma that controls travel, business, family life and personal expression. It is an insurgent invasive wave of authoritarianism threatening Western legal systems and individual freedom. It is especially threatening in UK where Mr. Bond resides. Though Britain is notorious as a CCT state under surveillance, it is relatively lax as compared to life should their swarming immigrants from the Middle East succeed in destroying the parliamentary enfranchisement of the last 400 years. I’m continually making comparisons to Islamo-fascist Sharia for the purpose of illustrating your eventual defenseless fate in UK. The premise of ERASING DAVID revolves around an experiment by Londoner David Bond in an examination of how easily he is spied upon and tracked by commercial and government entities. But their method of examining dossier building is antithetical to the subject. Bond tests the system by attempting to disappear and becoming, in effect, a fugitive. He hires a private investigator to track him down, the difficulty and time delay in finding him being the proof of concept. He continues to use his real name and travel around UK using various forms of public transport. This is fairly meaningless means of testing their theory, since fugitive tracking by authorities or detectives has been pretty successful by the use of spies and provocateurs since ancient times. Instantaneous police telecommunications have been in use since telegraph, telephone, more than 130 years.
We Americans have become jaded by “reality television”. We are suspicious about dramatic productions that may seem predictable and staged from the inception. The notion that there are still innocents that believe they might become lost without either careful scripting or comprehensive planning seems unlikely. We’ll give the witer-director-producer the benefit of the doubt. What we should be attempting to discover is the various means by which dossiers are compiled, and how to block this information and live with a minimal interface in these tracking systems. In other words how to live anonymously by obscurity, not by attracting a lot of attention and becoming a fugitive. How to confuse record keeping by creating false electronic identities that simply vanish along with their marketing and tracking data.
The way you measure privacy is not by becoming a pseudo-fugitive and commissioning a private detective to find you. Since most people of the middle class techo-banal lifestyle are fully vested in all the material trappings of “legitimate citizenry” they are utterly incapable of disappearing. This condition of the vast majority of sheeple is not really the question. The question is whether the various associated databases can be consolidated and compiled into a whole. A closely accurate and invasive profile of any given citizen. The second object of inquiry should be whether these databases can be hacked, either by criminals or by aggressive authorities, and used for ill. Since 60%-70% of the population don’t even acknowledge they are at some risk, by what strategy can we convince them to reverse this trend and recognize that the bigger the government, the smaller an more vulnerable the citizen? Brits have failed in limiting the political component of nanny state repression, coercion, and dependency. They cannot have individual autonomy and freedom without recognizing and rejecting “Progressive” central planning. With autonomy comes individual NOT collective responsibility, and self defense. Defense of the independent individual, and defense of the greater coherent homogenous community. But another symptom of the “progressive disease” is moral confusion and the inability to recognize evil. Or even to admit that there are absolute moral choices. Without real justice, not faux “social Justice” you have lost the right to punish and expel the predator and outlaw antithetical systems like Sharia, Islam, Communism and the incipient authoritarian police state, enviro-radicalism, forced conformity to “diversity”, etc. Not much hope in that for you thoroughly lobotomized, dry-cleaned and brain-strained Brits.
There are several ways to get lost. To disappear in terms of identification obscurity, to be erased by totalitarian thugs, or in primitive times, to be killed by brutal strangers and never be seen again. Ransom saved the lives of wealthy travelers who would have been otherwise simply been snuffed out for sport. The relative gentility of modern authoritarians has made Western man soft. The expectations of a modern fugitive given years of litigation after arrest is more like a game of tag than the bloody brutalities of history. In early times a bill of attainder could have simply ordered any given fugitive’s ignominious state sponsored death by agents foreign and domestic. Deliver the head or some other identifying limb.
Fugitives have been hunted down and captured since neolithic times. A coupe of centuries ago, the earth was comparatively depopulated owing to various plagues, wars, religious persecutions, diasporas etc. Rural agrarian people were extremely interdependent and any stranger was regarded as a potential enemy or threat. If you read or watch video representations of Classical and Victorian literature, you will notice that the information age began in the colonial period when human kind suddenly became globally mobile. Throughout the history of tribal society it was more or less impossible to “get lost”, and to varying digress everything about you was known to the extended interdependent clan. With sea navigation came exploration and colonial conquest, and a chance to start fresh, although you were only as hidden as those around you felt it convenient to help keep your secret. Before the age of idiocy, around 1970, most law enforcement and state border agents used intuition and common sense. With obvious exceptions, the inquisitive and suspicious nature, the amplification of experience by instinct, was expected. Most borderlands between monarchic states from Greco-Roman times to the renaissance were easily traversed, populations easily mixed and traveled, yet the unusual or suspicious was quiclkly reported or “Profiled” to authorities. Like a visit to the proverbial roach motel, you could easily “Check-In” to a barbarian encampment or a Roman settlement, but you might not “Check Out”. An Irish Baron persued by English authorities could easily migrate to France or Poland as long as the funds held out, but he had to contribute and become an asset to the local powers and not expect too much in the way of easy assimilation. A peasant locked into his identifying heritage by accent, dress, manner and ignorance was pretty well a local captive of circumstance, especially on what amounts to a “prison Island” like Britain. Only the very exceptional escape the gravity of their tiny coloquial universe. Don’t get me wrong, there was a golden age of anonymity, but it wasn’t in the ancient neolithic or biblical past. Nor was it in the age of Religious Wars or the Jihadist enbcroachments of Islam. Anonymity was chancy during colonial conquest or napoleonic conquest anywhere in the known world. The last chance for easily attained true anonymity was some time between the end of the napoleonic era and the Bell Epoche, Fin de Sicle, edwardian times, prior to and during the early disorganized period of the industrial age. The period of ineffective crude electronic telegraphy and rudementary criminal forensics. The early age of the megalopolis and mass immigration was the age of anonymity and even then international fugitives could and usually were successfully traced. The Bond “Erasing David” case proves nothing. The age an anonymity is gone unless you have wealth, resources, training and a long term “legends” set up and implemented for decades, like an intelligence agency. As late as the 1960s the pre-digital world allowed for construction of false identities found in radical “Black Arts” instruction manuals. Bond didn’t create a carefully planned series of false identities with which to “loose” his trackers. Worst of all, the personal, intimate and secret information that was compiled in Bond’s state dossier, the most interesting object of discovery, was never revealed. Nothing more useless than a documentary without expository revelation.