This new technology is specifically designed for disrupting our ability to organize. This is what folks need to come to terms with. Only a very small number of individuals need to be removed from the public discourse in order to accomplish this end.

Sometimes (or according to research, in most cases) the most influential person in a social network or insurgency is not the most high profile or most vocal individual in the group. With very large groups (OWS for example), this new technology identifies those individuals who's participation in the group is the most critical.

That, in a nutshell, is what the metadata is being collected and used for. Because the algorithms being used are easily handled by computers, and because no errors are introduced by trying to decode or translate any communication content, the system can create a very precise mapping of our social networks. Only actual metadata associated with each communication is logged into the software, and from that the algorithms sort out the social connections.

For some basic info about how the science is implemented, google the keywords: thesis+insurgent+social+network

My guess is that less than 1/100 of 1% of the population would need to be disrupted/detained/dissuaded/discredited in order to derail any popular movement. For a town like mine of 30,000, that is less than 3 people. If such disruptions are actually occurring, would we even know about it?

Add to this a propaganda machine that everyone acknowledges is the best ever invented, and you will start to see what we are up against. Just so there is no misunderstanding I mean "we, the ones who are trying to change things" and I include some right-wing libertarians in this group. The other day someone asked if I supported Ron Paul. Of course not, but I would rather have one Ron Paul on the team than ten Diane Feinsteins.

People are NOT apathetic, they are super-motivated. The baggers are ready to start shooting at the first sudden noise and the left are ready to start beating each other into submission, if necessary. IMHO, the science of suppression is being actively deploy against an unwitting public and it is working astoundingly well. Of course it works, it's science.


Recent Historic Example: During the Iranian uprising several years ago, only 800 people were arrested, IIRC, and only three or four were killed in order to put down a revolution that was very broad and very deep. Remember that this was a population in which many had lived through the overthrow of the Shah. (Since the revolution was put down, most, if not all, of the 800 who were detained have been executed.) IIRC, the US had no official position on any of this. My understanding of these events is two-fold: that we need to have a bad guy in order to have a nuclear confrontation and that the thwarting of this uprising would not have been possible without our technology. YMMV. Total population of Iran is about 75 million and the only arrested (and have since executed) about 800, which is about 0.0001% or way less than what one might normally think is necessary.