Skip to content


February 17, 2013


It is a basic argument that I make that the powers that be in regards to control of the Internet-that I label broadly as “Echelon Culture”-actually prefer their de facto position of dominance, beyond any real judicial control whatsoever, over Internet.

But in order to guarantee their extra judicial supremacy over the cyberspace facet of the human condition, individuals must popularly understand the virtual reality of Internet to be a most dangerous place.

And the basic way this vision has been purposely construed is: 1) by ensuring that real technical aspects of computer interconnection are never made explicitly and officially understood popularly; you can learn on your own a great deal-even with just a “user friendly” level of understanding-but I have never come across the effort on behalf of the US Government, for example, to popularly explain the concepts of Internet Protocol to computer users as consumers.

And 2): the second component that I see in this non official, state-sponsored need to project a semiotics of the “Wild, Wild West” with regards to Internet, is a kind of criminalization of human nature itself, that is something that even outside of internet the US Government (in its most conglomerate sense) fosters and makes no effort to put in proper perspective; and so, you’ve got all kinds of human beasts out there lurking in the shadows of the jungle that is Cyberspace and we are living, once again, in a latent state of fear, threat and loathing.

And Echelon Culture has played this brilliantly to its own advantage with its current (and outgoing) poster boy, Leon “Fat Man” Panetta and his perennial Dogs of War of the Planet Disney, USA.

And here is a more specific example of the dangers for civil liberties that the demonizing of Spam can cause-especially when that very Spam is most surely conducted in a “black ops” way by Echelon Culture itself!

Greylisting, I now understand, is one way companies and institutions have of delaying incoming emails, which are retained by the main server until some form of technical verification can be determined as to the legitimacy of the particular email; and emails with multiple recipients over a certain number are surely immobilized, preventing them from being distributed-immediately or at all- to the internal, individual and final recipient email boxes.

The reason or motivation behind this is said simply to be Spam.

And typically today, any email with more than a specified number of recipients can be automatically rejected, especially once again, in regards to institutions of “higher pursuits”, like foundations, institutes of research and universities-Columbia and Cornell universities, for example, have email systems that I have found reject any email with multiple recipients within their system, although I don not know the exact number of permitted recipients for each email.

You should also be aware of another circumstance that I have most empirically confirmed with regards to the obtaining from web pages of individual email addresses  of employees within the hierarchy of companies (and there are even some academic institutions that do this, also!).

That is to say, that most frequently it is impossible except for a contact address, a webmaster address, or by a web page-controlled, general letter format; but people inside specific departments of most companies are protected by the email system from receiving any kind of non solicited or unknown sender emails, making the human capital of the company completely opaque to outside influence of any kind.

And again, this is understood for the most part as anti spam measures.

But in all these cases it is not really that.

Companies, as organizations, necessarily need to maintain a vertical, top down control over the people who make up corporate structure-even despite our being made to understand for years now that the Internet is “horizontally” constructed!

And if you look at this from a systemic vantage point, the potential for a disturbance of the social status quo is very real, and not only in a business sense, but in regards to the spread of different ideas of different kinds that would effectively originate outside the social structure of power itself, in a broader cultural sense.

But Echelon Culture is, of course, not having this.

And the possibility of addressing an institution in regards to some particular aspect of its policy, and copying that same email to other sector or field-related individuals, including journalist or news producing organizations, is even now not always possible.

And Columbia University, in my opinion, knows damn well what it is doing when it deprives individuals within its different schools and departments of receiving emails on relevant topics that are also addressed to additional multiple individuals.

And Columbia University is following the same logic that McDonald’s follows when it also makes any unsolicited, outside contact by email with its executives impossible.

And it is a logic of control.

I don’t purport to say that this is necessarily wrong in all cases, although generally I feel it is; but it is certainly not “horizontal”, and it indicates a serious contradiction to the much flaunted “family” culture of corporate and technological egalitarianism that we are constantly urged to feed off of at the troth of American media.

And I will add, finally, that I have had the personal opportunity to contemplate exactly how the de facto power of Echelon Culture as human governance can react to multiple recipient emails and the loss of control it can perceive.

And it was because of emails that I sent in the summer of 2012 to institutions in Montgomery County, MD-copied also to many other people and institutions that I considered relevant-that I was extra judicially detained by the police of said county on two occasions, just 3 weeks apart; and by “extra judicially” I mean the use by county authorities of a “mental health” pretext to confine me for a total of about a month in two separate, police petitioned hospitalizations in two different Montgomery County hospitals.

And there was, I was told, a serious county-organized effort to have me indefinitely hospitalized in a state mental ward.

On both occasions, however, I was released given that I could not be considered by hospital psychiatrists to be a threat to others or to my self.

But I was never judicially charged, because what I did, in theory, is protected by the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

At one point I was told in a frank conversation by a person inside certain county circles that, “these people can not tolerate being seriously addressed by somebody they see as homeless person”.

And there is no law against sending multiple recipient emails –like the ones I have posted in this series of texts-that effectively play the recipients off each another, forcing them, in the end, to in fact read the main text.

But there very well may be a law in the future against just this; and the false guise of protecting society from Spam will be the pretext behind which it will be presented.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: