For the Love of “Sheeple”

Prompted by “U.S. Treasury Hacking Vulnerability Shows Need For Overhaul Of U.S. Government’s Security Model”:,29670.html

Here are a couple of interesting resonances (then flowing into a grand crescendo as the ultimate big picture of humanity expressed within this post — yeah, I do that a lot, but for good reason)…

After the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) hack, which has been described as the largest data breach in the U.S. government’s history, U.S. agencies need to respond more swiftly to security recommendations from such audits and adopt stronger security models that protect data even after a hack (against which the U.S. government may never become fully immune).

The OPM for instance, didn’t encrypt social security numbers, fingerprints and other sensitive information about its employees, so when the hackers penetrated the network, they could access everything.

That absence of encryption makes the ‘software building’ side of me terribly cringe. I would never build a database that stores credit card information (because I thankfully don’t need to), but if necessary, there can be no doubt about the need to encrypt that information, so a hacker would find no use of it without the encryption key (which would be as highly protected as I can make it).

Computer security is a very serious matter, because the rippling effects of our deeply computerized world can be disastrously ample. The greatest vulnerability is the one naturally generated by the common mindset pitting the burden of security against user convenience. Poor passwords exemplify that risky mindset. Apparently, security experts agree…

Google and other companies have started to move away from the “network defense” model, which doesn’t seem to be as effective as it may have once been, and instead adopted a “zero trust network” model, where each computer is protected from the internal network as well as from the Internet.

Employees would also get only strictly necessary access to confidential information and would use two-factor authentication, which was suggested to the OPM years ago by the OIG and other security companies.

Such an overhaul of the government’s systems could take many years and many billions of dollars, so even if the government decides to drastically strengthen the security of its computer systems, it may not actually get all the funding to do that. However, it could at least prioritize the more important infrastructure such as financial, healthcare and military institutions.

I know where they can find billions of dollars. It’s called the demonstrably failed and seriously destructive war on [some] drugs (a fact that mainstream society intolerably shamefully refuses to responsibly leverage to challenge their own ironic and obviously fallacious conventional wisdom on the subject) — just sayin’.

The government could also start living by a “least stored data” principle, where it only stores strictly necessary data for its purposes, but not more than that.

However, the U.S. government seems to have been going in the opposite direction lately with a “collect it all” principle of gathering all available data about everyone. This only ends up making U.S. data centers a more appealing target, either to other rival governments or criminal organizations, which could use the stored information to hack into other government systems or blackmail people.

Storing as little data about its citizens as possible combined with an “encrypt everything” attitude could at least drastically decrease the damage from such data breaches.

I wholeheartedly agree with the ‘minimal data, maximum encryption’ solution, but “strictly necessary data for its purposes” crashes upon itself.

The government finds all data strictly necessary for storage, because then they have the means to tap that grand informational well upon dealing with their perceived nationally internal threats (e.g. surprise criminals, etc.)

You see, folks. If you look at the massive construct of law and scratch your head over the result, I logically assume that’s because you think the government serves (or should serve) the people.

The unspoken (and publicly conflicting) primary goal of our nation is actually to uphold the oligarchy (which, to use a lengthy parenthetical for dramatic effect, basically is the blend between powerful private and public sector forces forming actual governing power — there’s no sector line in power, because they all interact with each other to leverage power to better secure their power — such securing being highly tumultuous and self-focusing with whatever residual effects upon the masses that occurs — so no actual leadership to serve and protect the public). Of course, that ‘selfish focus against leadership’ is extreme, and I believe there are powerful people honorably operating within that power turmoil for public benefit (though I can’t prove it).

Our Founding Fathers, at least based upon popularly written documents (e.g. Constitution), wanted the people to govern our nation to prevent abusive law.

However, ‘blue’ and ‘red’ elitists battle it out (often on the battlefield known as legal precedence with seriously rippling damage against our fundamental and supposedly unalienable rights), while the proudly presented ‘powerless folks have power too’ methodology is effectively pathetically been reduced to a “patriotic” mass sedative to prevent the big secret from becoming publicly understood throughout posterity… When those “powerless” people sufficiently organize themselves (e.g. tens of millions of people united by a sharp and well-orchestrated focus), no government and/or private sector entity (i.e. no oligarchy) can successfully withstand their (sometimes our) demands — critically noting the one thing that most-scares the people in power (to even perhaps a horrible degree against public safety) is the fear of losing their power.

That “secret” aside, “We the excessively ‘sheeple'” (sometimes patriotically called “We the people”) are the greatest hindrance to sound leadership, because of the outright absence of accountability. As the public at large, we’ve been severely manipulated into thinking certain drug users (or other generally perceived as bad folks — e.g. bad “leaders”) are primarily responsible for national deterioration, but that’s frankly just terrible mass denial (part of that accountability absence) requiring proper intervention for public safety.

The result is terribly obvious to “non-sheeple”, but turning “sheeple” into dutiful citizens with an ever-watchful eye (reverse big brother) towards selfish oligarchical behavior runs into another crash. “Sheeple” (by their definition) will never subscribe to that duty, without oppression reaching a critical mass undeniably forcing the public to put their “normal” lives on hold and join the necessary revolution.

Civility demands that revolution be avoided without accepting that oppression — and that we stop demeaning people as “sheeple” (there’s really nothing wrong with being a, um, “sheerpson”, while that absence of focus doesn’t form bad action/policy/law).

The only logical solution is scientific constitutionalism — as defined and expressed via the Liberty Shield entertainment/education project/framework.

Liberty Shield serves as a fully transparent and logical path towards more concise language. That includes a maximally objective (not scientifically suggestive or popularly subjective) definition of harm, so never possibly ironically driven by favoritism against public safety — so naturally better law and its accompanying public rewards.

Additionally, more concise language reduces misunderstandings, so strengthens relationships of all kinds (a powerful boost for at least our species).

That path is perfect for “non-sheeple”, because social networking and the broadest community at large allow for objectivity (needed for fairness, so justice) to righteously spread perpetually to logically unite us all.

The tried-and-true scientific method fundamentally unites fully honest political leftists/rightists/moderates, and prevents spin doctors (liars, etc.) from usurping Liberty Shield for their own interests.

Scientific conclusions are not always right, but applying the scientific (logical) method for better reasoning always matches intellectual honor.

That path is also perfect for “sheeple” (better known as average people understandably focusing deeply on personal and professional matters), because the driving and very popular word being leveraged is liberty, so anyone can simply justifiably support upholding the Liberty Shield (no complexity needed). A simplicity layer of promotion (e.g. contests, festivals, entertainment, etc.) can generate awesome popular support.

Liberty Shield is the answer to break free from the serious societal danger known as favoritism against public safety (the real internal and external threat involving humanity) — but we need your support now.

If you prefer the simple route to supporting Liberty Shield, simply subscribe by using the PayPal button below for only $1 a year and forget about it. Thank you, and you can count on us to achieve real results!

Subscribe Button with Credit Cards

if you’re “non-sheeple”, you care about a completely solid foundation with a comprehensive solution reaching out into the overwhelming complexity of reality, so I freely (no registration even) offer you the Liberty Shield core in its latest iteration.

Once you’re satisfied that Liberty Shield is the real deal, then you too can simply subscribe for only $1 a year. It’s time for change we really can believe in. It’s time for a real “mission accomplished”. it’s time for realized libertarianism necessarily from responsible voluntarism.

It’s time for any of you to truly care about your liberty for maximal equality, morality, sanity, community, and humanity.

Disfranchised progressives/conservatives/independents/etc. now have a logically righteous place to go — a potentially serious powerful movement purely serving actually justice-based unity and logically offering relevance throughout posterity (without ever being pretentious about it — egotism is at least arguably the most serious mental illness against civility).

If you care about civilized liberty, it’s time for you to act now and subscribe to Liberty Shield. It’s time to succeed for us all. The terrible reign of ‘reason abusers’ ends now, but only with public support by people understanding the power of truth (and its demonstrably awesome logical method better tuning our species with reality).

Are you with us? Is building a powerful movement towards civilized liberty worth $1 per year?

I am an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest -- all within a sometimes offbeat style of psychedelic artistry.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Liberty Shield, TechYes

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 )

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

my pEarthly and earthly self blended together via the energy of the reality "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
Thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer

Spirit Wave (“entertainer” herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content (“entertainment” herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use.

%d bloggers like this: