You can’t prepare to be doxxed

We all dread the day when our employing institution gets that fateful email.

Hi, I’m a reporter with the Stasi Times, and I’m preparing an article on how you tolerate hateful bigots like your employee [insert your name] whose offensive writings we have found [wherever].  Would you mind answering a few questions?

We’d like some way to maximize the chance of coming out of it with job, or at least future employability, intact.  Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a lot one can do ahead of time.  At least, none of the strategies I had once considered are of much use.

Make yourself indispensable to your employer.  Make it so he can’t afford to fire you.

It took a long time for me to get it through my head that the incentives of management have very little to do with the profits or proper functioning of the company.  Even if the company will promptly go out of business if you are fired, it is still personally advantageous for your boss/administrator to fire you rather than be known as having sheltered a bigot, putting the vulgar interests of shareholders, customers, students, etc. before righteousness.  The latter would hinder him in getting his next job.

Don’t write anything that sounds bad in isolation.  Make sure each sentence absent any context is either inoffensive (if only because unintelligible), manifestly reasonable, or effectively puts into question liberal assumptions that our rulers wish to have regarded as indisputable, perhaps even as unarticulated background assumptions.

Writing clearly and carefully is inherently good, but avoiding saying things that sound mean or lower-class or hateful never saved anyone from vilification.  The media is under no constraint to report your beliefs accurately or fairly.  They don’t have to quote you and won’t if they don’t find something they can embarrass you with.  They don’t have to link or add citations to your actual writings.  The actual tone of your writing will do nothing to prevent it from being labeled a “screed”, and no amount of information you cite will keep you from being labeled “ignorant”.

I’m probably not the only conservative who started writing because I falsely believed that I could argue antiliberal positions much more cogently than had been done before.  Although I thought myself skeptical of mainstream sources, I accepted their characterization of their ideological opponents more than I realized.  In fact, the cases for patriarchy, established churches, monarchy, and ethnic homogeneity had been made brilliantly several times in the past.  It didn’t matter.  If you dissent, you will only be remembered, if at all, as another ignorant bigot.

For the same reason, the media faces no danger of inadvertently drawing attention to your ideas by exposing you.  Your actual ideas will not be reported.

Get contractual guarantees (e.g. tenure)

This is only an option in a few fields, mostly academia, but it once did provide some protection.  That protection is rapidly waning.  This is the importance of Leftists redefining dissent from their beliefs as not disagreement but as creating a hostile work or learning environment and jeopardizing the safety of minorities.  Also, most institutions, especially universities, now define the promotion of “diversity” and “inclusiveness” as core institutional objectives.  So, a professor who refuses to affirm progressive dogmas on diversity is analogous to a professor who refuses to teach his classes (or worse, if one accepts the “safety” rhetoric, as a professor who physically attacks his students).

Dox yourself.  Write a manifesto, and put your strongest case forward.  They’re going to find you eventually, so you might as well try to influence what they try to nail you with.

If the goal is to be a martyr for the cause and never work again, one might try to orchestrate such a thing, contacting sympathetic alternative media ahead of time, and so forth.  Realistically, agonizing over the perfectly crafted manifesto won’t lead to a much different outcome than being busted over a quick ill-considered tweet.  Remember, the mainstream media is under no constraint to report your beliefs accurately or fairly.

Be boring.  Make your writings as academic and abstruse as possible, so that your audience remains small, and if any SPLC or ADL agent does come across your writing, his eyes will glaze over.

This has actually worked for me so far.  Of course, it works to the extent that it makes sharing your beliefs as close as possible to not sharing your beliefs.

And it can only work as long as the ruling class isn’t bothering to go after the small fish.  Already, social media companies are experimenting with machine learning algorithms trained to detect “hate”.  One can imagine a near future in which dissent is detected automatically before it even finds a human reader and its author’s employer contacted to administer punishment (and the employer himself subject to retaliation if appropriate punishment is not administered in a timely fashion).

Bruce is right.  Long term, the only dissent that will remain possible will be secret verbal communication between individuals who deeply trust each other.

11 Responses

  1. I had this happen three times – the first time my employer persuaded me to ‘grovel’ to the despicable liar of a journalist – which had no effect; but the event led to nothing but a snide article in a national paper.

    https://www.badscience.net/2007/08/observations-on-the-classification-of-idiots/

    The second time was much bigger and explosive in media impact. My colleagues gave zero support and my employer instantly joined the accusers and condemned me in public (ignoring the actual content) – I did not respond to the media at all; but in person and by email made a futile attempt to argue and reason and use evidence with individuals. The story went internationally viral for about two days – but in the end nothing further happened.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021058/Higher-social-classes-significantly-HIGHER-IQs-working-class-claims-academic.html

    The third time it was clear from the moment I heard of it that I was going to be sacked. Again I tried to argue my corner in the mass media and was given a decent platform to represent my true views; the story ran for several months in the international medical and science media… but it made zero difference to the outcome, and I did indeed lose my job. (Luckily I still had another job.)

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/05/medical-hypotheses-editor-out-editorial-advisers-quit-well

    My take home lessons were mostly negative – and that one should (because one “might as well”!) ‘do the right thing’ – Never Explain, Never Apologise (because it is taken as an admission of guilt), stay firm – aggressively so if confronted, don’t engage and don’t argue.

    Any response of any kind makes matters worse – it feeds the flames. Don’t defend yourself. Be fatalistic and treat it as a trial of faith – think of the martyrs and get it in context.

    One – thoroughly decent – journalist (flatteringly) compared me to an Old Testament character! That’s the style to aim at, anyway…

    http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2010/02/medical-hypotheses-affair-geoff-watts.html

    I would probably advise anyone to disappear in such situations – don’t speak to anyone outside the family and close friends for several days at least. Regardless of what you do, events will take their course according to the agenda of other people, which cannot be influenced.

    The best effect of these experiences was first to make me a Christian and then to make me a stronger Christian – because I realised what mattered, that there was an objective truth – that needed to be kept; that morality was not about consequences (because they can’t be controlled); and in general that ‘things’ (in the media, academic publishing, medicine, science, universities) were *much* worse than I had previously recognised or believed possible (most people still don’t realise).

    You also learn how few real friends you have outside the family! – And how dishonest and cowardly most modern people are, even in private.

    All these things were priceless lessons for me; so it was all well worth it. Against their intentions; ‘They’ did me a favour.

  2. Problems like this is why the makeup of the court system matters. If your employer were to fire you (or take any kind of retaliatory action) on the basis of your religious beliefs, then they would be violating Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act. And right now, they have a greater chance of landing in a court with a conservative judge than otherwise. If you feel like this is a possibility, the best course of action to take is to file a formal complaint with HR outlining specific instances of religious discrimination and any comments that have been made.

    That said, I have been shocked by the experiences of friends and acquaintances that are far less straightforward than that. I have known two people who had someone they encountered on social media contact their place of employment with some wild story about them in an attempt to get them fired (in both cases, falsely accusing a man they had never even met of sexual assault). Purely over political differences. I have no idea why anyone has a Twitter account anymore, public or private. Not engaging mentally ill people on the Internet in the first place is a good way to protect yourself.

  3. […] that depicted the politically correct as mere cogs without reason or will.  Bonald just posted an excellent reflection on THE FEAR of Ahrimanic Evil that now haunts everyone who remembers or hope that we might be […]

  4. I don’t really think doxxing is that easy to begin with if people are not extremely careless. What are they gonna do, ask wordpress from what IP did Dividualist log in and then ask the ISP which customer was this assigned to? That would require involving the police or secret services or something and I am just not that important. Basically it is not just about be boring but also about don’t be famous. Roosh is famous enough that say the British police has noticed him. I am not. I think you are not either.

    Famous more or less means basing one’s whole career on building a writing and/or social media brand. Roosh tried to make a living out of his books and suchlike. But on the plus side in that case doxxing isn’t even that dangerous as they cannot fire him from that job, although they can make it hard to sell them.

    Hobby bloggers? No one cares enough to involve these governmental organizations who can ask WordPress or ISPs for the data.

    The good news is that even when WordPress deleted Heartiste, he did not get doxxed. But yes, it would be probably smart to get off WordPress and register a domain already. In that case the chance is very low.

  5. Hi Bruce,

    I find your case very interesting, especially the fuss over AIDS/HIV. Why would *that* be something we’re not allowed to discuss? The ruling ideology isn’t even tangentially invested. All I can think of is that it was a naked assertion of authority. As editor, you treated as open a matter that had been decreed settled, and you couldn’t be allowed to get away with that. If that’s really how it is now, then science is in a much worse shape than I’d imagined.

    (I have read your book “Not Even Trying”, so maybe I should have been used to the idea already. My optimistic belief has been that the corruption of science is localized, with some apolitical disciplines mostly unaffected. I would have thought that microbiology was one of these, though.)

  6. Hello Dividualist,

    I mostly agree with this. As you say, it really is just a matter of their will. You and I are not that important, and right now we’re not worth the effort. However, their priorities and the effort needed may change, which is why I’m not as sanguine as you. “Who cares” probably will not always protect us.

    I have been sloppy using the word “dox” in the post title, because I am also worried about people who write under their real names but obscurely (e.g. on their own facebook pages). Right now and for the near future, it is those above all that the media is directing its persecution against. They’re the low-hanging fruit. At the same time, efforts to remove anonymity on the internet will advance along with efforts to expose the rest of us. I actually would not be surprised if the FBI were to assist. From the way these people think, their ultimate goal will not be just to destroy the “worst offenders” but to sweep the entire internet.

  7. @Bonald – The group that ‘doxxed’ me were seemingly a homosexual activist group who, apparently – so I inferred – were being funded to survey and police the medical literature to ensure that papers dissenting from the HIV/ AIDS narrative did not get published (or were withdrawn if published).
    They contacted Elsevier and a (it seems) US Elsevier Vice President Glen P Cambell acted immediately and withdrew the papers (without consulting and before informing me, the editor) and then managed that I was sacked and the journal converted to peer review. I was not told by Elsevier who had complained or why, and only found out because the group boasted about their success on their web pages.
    http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2010/05/medical-hypotheses-affair-times-higher.html
    http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2010/12/im-personal-reflections-on-medical.html
    Anyway, the motivation for this doxxing seems to have been related to a homosexual activist group enforcing the monopoly of the HIV/ AIDS hypothesis.

  8. […] and Altar on how one cannot be prepared to be doxxed, especially by the media and to your […]

  9. I rather enjoyed the ideas employed by Mister Metokur and probably some others as well of supplying your ideological enemies with fake doxx on a lightly used but still heavily search indexed site so they find it easily when they go looking (and yet the information still comes off as plausibly hidden) and then go on to make fools of themselves.

    It fits rather well with Vox Day’s idea of attempting to cause as much confusion and demoralization as possible. Once they know there are consequences for coming after you, they will think twice about doing so for real. I also agree with him in the sense that the objective should not be to retain employment (the loss of which is a near certainty) but to cause as much legal damage to the perpetrators as possible, though the scope of this depends on your jurisdiction, obviously. A settlement in your favor will simultaneously keep you afloat between jobs, work towards clearing your name and administer due justice on the weasels who commit such acts.

    I am also not convinced that anonymity will ever be completely scrubbed from the internet. Too much money to be lost on that front and would encourage some to go completely off the grid rather than maintain a toe dipped in it. Anonymity may vanish from all mainstream platforms though, that I could see.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: