How Dangerous is Internet Communication to Patriots?

How Dangerous is Internet Communication to Patriots?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 16, 2011


In this modern age of communication, it is easy for us to drop our guards and allow information out which will be gathered and used, perhaps against us, as patriots, in the future.

We are all aware of people losing their job because of something posted on Facebook, or any of the many social networking sites.  In some cases, criminal charges have resulted from such postings or YouTube videos.

Perhaps there is a more obscure and sinister threat than what I have described, above.  Suppose that you were involved with a group of peers, say, in a NING type site.  Now, I think that we all know that our email can be read, without us knowing about it.  I’m sure that we recognize that any VOIP (Skype, et al.) can also be “tapped” to hear our conversations.  Wouldn’t it be rather foolish to think that a website could provide any security against access by those who we perceive as opposed to us?

Surely, they have “agents” who are members of such sites who are acting as our friends, with the sole purpose of gathering information.  They can “copy and paste” or “capture” all information posted on the site.

Similarly, I doubt that there are more than a small handful of sites that can afford protection from outside sources.  The remainder probably have a “back door”, if not a “front door” that allows unwanted access.

Finally, disregarding “key stroke captures”, every byte of information you send over the Internet is subject to capture by sophisticated equipment. So nothing you do is sacred, unless encrypted..

Now, this, in itself, is nothing to be concerned about, or, at least, overly concerned.  After all, if you have expressed any thoughts about the misdeeds of government, you are, well, probably on a list.  That list, however, is extremely large.  Its size is, for the most part, predicated on where the line is drawn as to inclusion on the list.

With the current administration, many millions of people; Republicans, Tea Partiers, patriots, militia members, radicals, etc, on down the line, are disenchanted, or disenfranchised, and might well be considered “the opposition”. However, if the government has access to certain information, they can draw the list out in a line, sort of like establishing priorities.  (For more information about how this sorting is done, see C3CM).

Of course, in that massive list, of millions, we are nearly anonymous.  However, by choice, we tend to identify ourselves to a higher level of disenchantment with government.  Once we describe ourselves as patriots, militia, etc., we have set ourselves apart from those who are prone to rely only upon the voting booth to secure our future, for ourselves and our posterity.  To a large degree, we have even set ourselves out from those who carry signs on sticks.  So, you can see where this is beginning to focus.  We have reduced the more extreme of us to a much more “manageable” group that numbers in, perhaps, tens of thousands instead of millions.

Still, if the scenario that I expect to be the “start of something big” is that the government needs to swoop down on those who pose the greatest threat, and, to do so, they have to have a manageable sized group as a target, they can do so by gathering information (identifying) what those individuals will do, and whether those activities are more, or less, detrimental to government actions.

Let’s take some scenarios. And see what sort of people would be at the top of the “hit list”, (A group, as per C3CM).  First will be those in roles of leadership.  Obviously, the functionality of any organized group is severely affected when the leadership is removed.  This serves two purposes to the government. First, of course, is the removal of the leader that is capable of “causing grief” to the government.  Second, however, and more sinister, is that infiltrators or informants (see Informants Amongst Us?) we have “done well” may even be in a position to move into the vacated leader’s effectively putting the group at the mercy of the government.

Next on the list would be those who might provide safe haven to leaders and others who have been targeted by the government.  If those who would provide such protection can be identified, the government can, effectively, “remove” those resources, making more difficult the act of those fleeing to find help in their efforts.  Worse, still, is that staking out those who might provide such services to fleeing patriots might be the very “Judas Goat” which will result in their being captured, while believing that they are on their way to protection.

If we think about it, any expression of one’s willingness to perform and “task” for the patriot cause, in an open forum (as described above) might serve not only to the detriment of the patriot community, also, to the benefit of the government.

To assume that those on the other end of an Internet connection, especially if you have never met them and looked them in the eye, is, in itself, risky.  All care and caution should be utilized in any communication with them.  Even more importantly, any statement of what role you might play in the game, when the shit hits the fan, “may and will be used against you”, and, unfortunately, others, when that time comes.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “How Dangerous is Internet Communication to Patriots?”

  1. Rick Rosado says:

    I have NO dought that this has been going on ever since OBOZO took office . As a matter of fact , Im sure of it . Thats why OBOZO wants to kill our 2nd amendment so we will have nothing to fight with except our vote . But voteing mechines can be rigged . All I can say is { and I hope they are reading this } every home owner on my street owns a gun . And we all have talked about this , and what we plan to do about this B/S ever happened . IT WILL BE MESSY . I dont care what OBOZO knows about me . My own goverment will have to kill me . . they will keep you informed on whats going on with our 2nd amendment. And they will also send free faxes to your elected officals for free . If OBOZO wants a fight , he just found one .

  2. Hunt says:

    This has been going on since long before the bastard president even dreamed of running for office. C3CM was written in 1993. It had been developed before then. Informants amongst us goes back to 1991, when I got hold of the “plea agreement”.

  3. 11thCav says:

    This Is why these write ups need to be seen In reference to Rick Rosado’s comment. There are far to many folks out there that think this Is “New” behavior, when In fact this has been going long before most could even spell internet. Remember what you say on the internet stays on the internet.Keep all of the colorful bravado In check….

    “Be polite to all, but intimate with few.” Thomas Jefferson

  4. GB732 says:

    The temptations to endeavor into bravado are many, and we are often our own undoing. Thank you for your post.

  5. […] across the board is encouraged to fact-check everything asserted in an open-source film. Similarly, networking with like-minded individuals does not mean that forum discussion boards, email, or even V…; INFOSEC is to be practiced at all times as a matter of habit, saving any pertinent details for […]

  6. […] being set up by government stooges or agents (unless one or both of you were lackadaisical in your Internet communications and your recognition signals were somehow intercepted, in which case you’ll more than likely […]

  7. […] but also the ears of, what some might call, the slowly emerging New World Order. Because of dragnet wiretapping’s inherent threat to individual privacy is why the adage, “Don’t say anything on the phone you wouldn’t also be comfortable repeating […]

Leave a Reply