Sneak-Preview?

L. Reichard White, July 06, 2013

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ” –National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, Published October 28th, 1976 by Penguin Books

 




28 Responses to “Sneak-Preview?”

  1. @White: "The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society."

    Me: So what, and with what aim?

    Neoliberalism has been 'in the wild' latest since the Chicago boys' erring-ideology economics contributed to the rape of post-Allende Chile, starting with the CIA-associated coup circa 11 September 1973.

    Yes, the <1% have made themselves richer, but given their prior opulence, grabbing ever-more $s is just silly. Yet they do so grab.

    In the meantime, the US citizens have been going backwards; real family income over the last ~33 years or so is static if not actually falling, unemployment is still climbing (by specific, neoliberal design = off-shoring, say), and ~47mio are on food-stamps. There appears to be no way out of this spiral-down.

    Note that when the spiral-down really begins to bite, the serfs will be sooo poor that they will effectively have *no* disposable income – so can't buy any 'product' (mostly now imported) or pay any rent for houses/flats (most having been repossessed).

    The US *rogue* regime went truly berserk after 9/11 (Q: Can jet-fuel fires melt steel? Can *3* skyscrapers all fall sooo symmetrically?) – the US began serially smashing countries, just as Wesley Clark 'leaked' from the Pentagon.

    As part of "a more controlled society," the latest NSA spying outrage was exposed by Snowden (attention: Irrespective of "Well, he said nothing really new," he got the world's attention, an unalloyed *good* also exposing perfidy in UK and D etc.); then the bizarre spectacle of F, P, ES & I refusing their airspace to the airplane of Bolivian President Evo Morales. Shame on them; SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on all.

    At the same time, the world is increasingly threatened by being pushed over the XS-CO2-C*4 = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe (one-way) cliff.

    Sooo, what exactly is the *point* of this technotronic <1% rogue-regime?

  2. > Sooo, what exactly is the *point* of this technotronic <1% rogue-regime?

    Control, baby. It's about control. For the sake of control.

    That was easy. Any additional questions?

  3. Settles that! Should have read you frist, El Tonno.

    But – - –

    Serious Soundbytes: It's not who or what you think – - –

  4. Oooooh, NICELY DONE aletheia. And here I thought I would have a tussle.

    I do have a couple small nits however.

    1. Neo-liberal is thrown around by the "left" much too promiscuously. Depending on how you define it, I may agree — or not. If Zbig's confession is neo-liberal, then I agree with you.

    2. Despite the apparent consensus on man-made CLIMATE CHANGE (NOT "Global Warming") it's not clear at all that it's CO&sup2;. Or anything. Even if it is, the establishment answers aren't, by their own admission, adequate to deal with it.

    Here's a little bit on that situation and one thing that can be used to ameliorate things. IF the central myth is correct – - –

    UNCOMMON SENSE: If YOU don't, who will?

    NEEDED: Unofficial Global Warming Fix | L's Little Letters

    Unofficial Global Warming fix | L's Little Letters

  5. Oooooh, NICELY DONE aletheia. And here I thought I would have a tussle.

    I do have a couple small nits however.

    1. Neo-liberal is thrown around by the “left” much too promiscuously. Depending on how you define it, I may agree — or not. If Zbig’s confession is neo-liberal, then I agree with you.

    2. Despite the apparent consensus on man-made CLIMATE CHANGE (NOT “Global Warming”) it’s not clear at all that it’s CO¬≤. Or anything. Even if it is, the establishment answers aren’t, by their own admission, adequate to deal with it.

    Here’s a little bit on that situation and one thing that can be used to ameliorate things. IF the central myth is correct – - -

    UNCOMMON SENSE: If YOU don’t, who will?

    NEEDED: Unofficial Global Warming Fix | L’s Little Letters

    Unofficial Global Warming fix | L’s Little Letters

  6. Over 30 years ago, I proposed a Constitutional Amendment forbidding government the use of electronic information storage and retrieval devices. I still think it's a good idea, even if the Libertarian Party national platform committee of which I was a member didn't think so at the time

  7. @White: "Despite the apparent consensus on man-made CLIMATE CHANGE (NOT “Global Warming”) it’s not clear at all that it’s CO&sup2;."

    [lslittleletters.blogspot uses some script which prevents me from seeing all 3 refs. I can see /if-you-don-who-will.html and /needed-unofficial-global-warming -fix.html]

    The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.
    [wiki/Greenhouse_effect]

    You may have noticed, that I wrote: "excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe (one-way) cliff."

    I don't intend to provide proof, except to say that science assures us that *without* atmospheric CO2, the world's (average) temperature would be lower; *more* CO2 means more retained heat -&gt; leading to more *weather*. And the Arctic ice is obviously disappearing, as are European glaciers (at least, probably all, some more & some less). IF that trend continues THEN big trouble, and IF the increased *weather* we are seeing (US-tornadoes, floods in EU, far East) are as a result of excess CO2 THEN the trouble is already here.

    IF so, Then the only effective action is to reduce atmospheric CO2, starting yesterday.

    Any/all disputing is counterproductive.

  8. @White: "Neo-liberal is thrown around by the "left" much too promiscuously."

    Me: I am not 'left' (misleading/false paradigm); I am pro-truth + justice = peace.

    By neoliberal I refer to post-Keynesian, erring ideologies variously referred to as "the Chicago School," "economic rationalism," "market economics" plus globalisation. After the rape of Chile came Thatcher's "TINA!" plus "there is no society" and Reagan's "deficits don't matter."

    Globalisation leads to wage-arbitration, off-shoring of both jobs and pollution. Far from 'elevating from poverty,' it causes misery almost everywhere. Since the élite (nothing élite about criminals) who drive these processes are mostly psychopaths (only psychopaths can murder), mass-misery is par for their course.

    Neoliberalism is well-summarised here: wiki/WC10Ps, although "2.Redirection" is turned on its head by austerity and "10.Legal security for property rights" is totally violated by a certain group of aggressive alien invader/ethnic-cleansers in the ME. "8.Privatization of state enterprises" is outright theft from us, we the people, followed by toll-boothing. "7.Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment" results in rogue-regime rip-offs via off-shoring income, aggravated by economic rent.

    The proof that neoliberalism is not good for us is the accelerating transfer of wealth to the <1% (did I mention ~47mio in US on food-stamps?)

    No more time at the moment; more later perhaps.

  9. Corrections:

    Add Reagan's "Voodoo economics."

    "-&gt;" should read "->"

    Add single quotes: "Since the 'élite'…"

  10. Thanks for the heads-up on "L's Little Letters," aletheia! Chagrined you can't see them.

    Bottom line is, by their own admission the establishment fixes won't work regardless. Al Gore told us so (reference included in "L's Little Letters.")

    Governments simply can't and won't fix the CO&sup2; problem — if it exists.

    Don't waste your time on the corporate-state. These days, it can't even save itself.

    If you're a true believer, this means direct action & voluntary organizing at the grass roots level.

    There's one technology that doesn't unbury the old carbon entrained in coal, petroleum, and natgas and so might help in that grass-roots effort: Alcohol. But NOT from corn.

    Check out Mr. Blume's approach below. (I don't know him & have no economic interest in his enterprise). Blume's approach has the added advantage that it can make grass-roots alcohol farmers rich, and thus provides its own motivation.
    http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/
    http://www.permaculture.com/node/277

  11. If I recall, I may have opposed your proposed amendment, Neil. Boy was I misguided at that time!!

  12. Hi aletheia!

    Well, we have very similar motivations — and perceive many of the same problems, but then we seem to part company a bit.

    The thing is, the market economy (we don't have one today, in fact, not since the world went neo-classical using Keynes as an excuse) works extremely well, especially for the disadvantaged.

    In fact, I would measure things as "post classical" since passage of the Federal Reserve Act (and the so-called "Personal" Income Tax) in 1913. That's when the banksters managed the third "National Bank" (The "Federal" Reserve) and took us off transactional hard money, enabling the elite — including particularly the government elite — to exist by counterfeiting. At the expense of "we the people." And now, at the expense of the kids, grand-kids, and the yet unborn. Which is how they've managed to finance the MilitaryIndustrialComplex and the perpetual war economy here in the U.S.

    At any rate, the heart of the market economy is voluntary trade in a "free" market context. Ask yourself what the alternative to "voluntary" is.

    What we have now is called "free market" but as admitted by ADM's Dwayne Andreas among others, "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians" –Dwayne Andreas, ADM CEO, Mother Jones, July/August 1995

    And that was the good old days.

    Voluntary trade in a free market context benefits everyone. Except the vested interests. Which is why we have non-voluntary trade and un-free markets today. The Golden Rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules," prevails and as long as there's politics, will continue to prevail. The vested interests learned how to use government and they do it quite thoroughly and well.

    But here's the bottom line, why voluntary trade benefits "we the people" – - –

    FREE-TRADE: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: In the Common Interest

    At any rate, aletheia, we DO agree on goals.

  13. Anny | Global Warming
    I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down. http://www.globalwarmingweb.com/

  14. @White: "At any rate, aletheia, we DO agree on goals."

    Me: Perhaps, but I would *not* prioritise gold at all, nor alcohol very high on any list of required recovery strategies.

    True, by 'growing' alcohol (without impacting food), fossil-carbon-derived CO2 emission could be somewhat reduced, but with "Coal, mainly used for electricity generation, accounts for 44 percent of global fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Oil, used primarily for transportation, accounts for 36 percent. Natural gas, used for electricity and heating, accounts for the remaining 20 percent," there's a looong way to go to get CO2 emissions down under the 'natural removal rate,' the latter *required* so that atmospheric CO2 falls, and that as quickly as possible.

    AFAIK, "hard money" cures no ill that removing fraud could.

    The $US should *not* be where it is (reserve currency); Keynes's Bancor comes to mind, and BRICS have suggested a modified IMF/SDR. Whatever.

    But the biggest required reform is to get money-creation, loaned at interest, *right out* of private (=for profit, rip-off) hands.

    As it is, all money 'out there' is originally 'created' (now keyboard printing) as loans, but *no* = *zero* money is created to balance the interest, so the interest-load on the people grows and grows, just like Pinocchio's nose. (Some estimates have 'interest-overhead' at ~40%!)

    No new wheel needs inventing; see Ellen Brown on BND, not oil and (sadly ex-) Commonwealth Bank of Australia, say.

    The idea is simplicity itself; the government (reformed to be a true "of, by, for the people" operation) would issue *all* the money, at interest as before (still including the trading banks in the system), but most of the interest returned goes into *required* government-provided services; by spending the interest back into the 'loop,' the 'interest-gap' evaporates.

    To restore equity to "the Enlightenment" levels, all essential, 'natural monopoly' egalitarian services (water, sewage, electricity, roads, road-side parking, etc. = what each and every person on the planet (more or less) needs) would be *de*-privatised, eliminating the toll-booth rip-offs (= like private reserve banking interest, another economic rent), currently extracted by/via the (suitable-descriptor) FIRE-sector. Yes, Keynes: "It will be, moreover, a great advantage of the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain, and will need no revolution." Too bad it didn't progress, but it still could.

    As to "Sneak-Preview?" – Orwell's 1984 did all we ever need.

  15. Hi again aletheia – - –

    You're right: Alcohol won't fix the problem alone. In fact, by their own admission, none of the establishment fixes are nearly adequate — IF anthropomorphic CO&sup2; is, as modeled by questionable computer programs, indeed causes warming. So believers better come up with something other than reduction in emissions — which aren't likely to happen anyway.

    Paper money — or equivalent — which can be easily created, invariably is — and just as invariably, because of the law of supply and demand, it has always come to a bad end. Always. Maybe you think today's politicians and banksters are somehow exempt? And want to argue "This time is different?"

    Not everyone's read 1984 — and it was fiction. Zbig's confession keeps it current and real, particularly in combination with whistle-blower Ed Snowden's evidence.

  16. Unfortunately governments don't reform easily. Or at all. Check out Egypt currently. And I'm not happy about that. But particularly, they are invariably formed or taken over by financial interests to protect themselves from competition.

  17. @L. Reichard White: "Unfortunately governments don't reform easily. Or at all."

    Kennedy/Rothbard: "One theory of democracy is that its main purpose is to allow peaceful revolutions. The idea is that majorities voting in elections approximate the result of a coup. In 1962, John F. Kennedy famously said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."[3]
    Murray Rothbard argues against this theory, pointing out that to more closely approximate such results, it would be necessary to disenfranchise the elderly, women, and those who are otherwise at a physical disadvantage in combat, and to give trained soldiers multiple votes."

    Me: JFK may have been no saint, and Murray Rothbard may not be the devil incarnate (may just appear so), but civilisation requires that *we all work together*. My own, personally developed morality is: "Do unto others …" adding "Do no harm." (The second bit only really required because of the possibility that some may self-harm, and therefore feel OK about harming others.) But with whatever morality, letting people starve or die through lack of affordable medicine is never a good look – only psychopaths attempt such, as we clearly see. IF so-called Western democracy fails the "of, by, for the people" test, THEN they should cease and desist from lying and call it what it is, namely oligarchic tyranny.

    White: "… because of the law of supply and demand, it [fiat money] has always come to a bad end."

    Me: Here we do agree, but I quibble, it's not "supply and demand," it's the tendency to fraud, and also no, I don't want to argue "This time is different."

    But given the tendency to fraud, people will attempt to defraud "hard money" too, there's even a special term for it: "Debasing the currency."

    As to "global warming," I thought we had agreed it's better termed "climate change," and I repeat, the "green house effect" is known, that CO2 is a green house gas is also known, and that atmospheric CO2 content is going up and is being measured. The failure of any 'climate modelling' computer simulation is hardly surprising (weather forecasting has been in the 'hard basket' for a long time.) Contrast weather with economic forecasting, economics should be a clear winner, since the economists claim to have workable theories – haw.

    We come to a convergence; money, welfare, environment and equity (plus whatever else; can't cover all and/or be everywhere).

    The common link is so-called 'leadership,' and its demonstrable failure. IF we, the people don't fix it THEN it's getting very ugly, fast. Oh. Already happened.

    As (fiat) money begets fraud, so representatives beget corruption. IF dumping fiat money could defeat fraud, THEN dumping representatives might defeat corruption – worth a try; call it 'citizen initiated referendums,' with a parliament composed of randomly chosen members, two terms only, 1st term learning, 2nd term mentoring, and only other function being to debate, before the entire electorate (now fully and fairly informed by a totally reformed MM+PFBCs), decides. It's a logical extension of the euthanasia of rent-seekers.

    PS "Believers better come up with …"

    Me: Belief can be, often is, done based on *zero* facts; proof = religion. Sooo, I'm not a believer. Fossil carbon, most significantly coal and oil, were laid down in geological ages past, called, funnily enough, "carboniferous;" climate back then thought to have been 'tropical' = hot and wet – and CO2 rich air. It's not a 'big leap of faith' (haw), to suppose that's where our once je*el-like planet's comfortable-life supporting ecosphere is headed. [*=w].

  18. Correction: "MM+PFBCs" = "MSM+PFBCs"

    MSM = mainstream media (print and broadcast), aka 'corrupt&venal'

    PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters

  19. Ok, enjoying this exchange. I appreciate the time you take to do quality dialog, aletheia. I expect to learn a thing or two – - –

    First, I tend to follow Feynman

    I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything. –legendary physicist Richard Feynman

    I discovered "global warming" about 1963, and I've changed my mind maybe ten times since. What bothers me is problems with no solutions. According to Al Gore — and others — even the most strenuous political (government) solutions — the Kyoto protocols for example — aren't nearly adequate — assuming the computer simulations aren't skewed by politics and/or incorrect programming assumptions.

    So what do you suggest? I've heard some interesting proposals, perhaps you've heard of some too. Grass roots is the only thing to count on, because clearly politics hasn't produced any noticable results. Except a lot of hot air.

    @aletheia "But given the tendency to fraud, people will attempt to defraud 'hard money' too, there's even a special term for it: 'Debasing the currency.'"

    Yes. Indeed. Particularly monarchs and their ilk endulged in this practice, which is why coins have knurls. Of course, there's still messing with the percentage of gold, silver, etc. in the alloy. Modern (2013 A.D.) coins have gone all the way in that direction — even pennies are now cheaper aluminum electro-plated with copper.

    However, physical debasing is much more difficult, much less profitable, and thus much less likely to be nearly as damaging as this – - –

    "The Fed was able to spend so much money [$1,249,999,999,999.39 ($1.25 trillion)] so quickly because it has a unique power: It can create money out of thin air, whenever it decides to do so. So, Dzina explains, the mortgage team would decide to buy a bond, they'd push a button on the computer – "and voila, money is created." –Federal Reserve Mortgage Purchase Program : Planet Money : NPR

    And I agree with you on "leadership" which I also tend to put in quotation marks.

    The problem is, the modern notion of "leadership" is hierarchical, to which we have a genetic aversion I believe. This shows it's ugly head in what is sometimes called "the collective action problem." Here, for example – - –

    Carbon Tsunami: World Bank Study Warns of Lethal Global Temperature Rise Even If Emissions Pledges Are Met

  20. The above is why grass-roots response, totally deprecated in favor of hierarchical political "leadership" these days unfortunately, is the only way to go – - – in my opinion.

  21. @L. Reichard White: «I discovered "global warming" about 1963, … »

    Me: Well, that's pretty good going, given the Keeling Curve only begins at 1958. And you probably know about Irreversibility and uniqueness of carbon dioxide, too. The politicians, with or without Al Gore, are next to, if not totally useless, as is the IPCC (except for its attempts at sounding the alarm), or Kyoto. All of that may be considered 'make it look as if we're trying to do something' = window-dressing.

    In the early/middle days of 'the debate,' (mid-2000s, say) one 'side' claimed that the ice, here glaciers, was melting. The other side countered with 'evidence' that *some* glaciers, at least, were growing; citing evidence from the twin NASA gravity satellite experiment, which *seemed* to show exactly that; i.e. some growing glaciers. Afterwards, after the 'damage' had been done in that debate, it was pointed out that what they were measuring was *gravity*, and IF some ice melted AND the melt was absorbed into the local water table/surroundings THEN that increase in mass *could* be interpreted as 'glacier growth.' Here a near-contemporary report from GRACE. In fact, casual inspection of Swiss glaciers show *long term* shrinkage, going back to late 19th C. I personally considered this to be a problem, until I realised that the CO2 increase had started with the industrial revolution. IF so THEN the ice is even more fragile than generally thought, IF NOT then we can throw excess CO2-emissions right out the window. On the other hand, the Keeling Curve looks like a real shocker. As before, more CO2 = more (heat-entry-point = largely tropical) heat retained; more flow towards the heat-exit = poles, aka more weather. But I expect you know all that too, with about ten changes of mind.

    Then, ta-ra! The precautionary principle. But I agree; nothing effective will happen, until the 'leadership' gets properly on board. Except, they are sell-outs to 'economic rationalism,' the final high-point of which may be "Well, we couldn't save the planet because that might have cost the <1% 'élite' (nothing élite about criminals) a few dollars less profit." Such is the power of erring-ideology, surely not 'believed' but forced upon us by corrupt sell-outs in suits. (They (politicians) either know that what they are doing is wrong = traitors to us, we the people, OR they don't know = criminally negligent.) Q: Did you (or anyone) consciously, fully and fairly informed, appreciating all ramifications, ever vote to adopt neoliberalism? Thus, we battle it out on the blogs, hoping (hope = hopeless policy), for a breakthrough, a critical opinion mass, beyond which the 'leaders' must act. Given 'printed $s' there *could* be no budget barrier; the way to go would be photo-voltaic; there's both sand (= silicon) and sunshine enough in the near-tropical desert-belts.

    "Get that CO2 way down boys! Get it down or we're all cooked = done for!"

    And as for "grass roots," that's where the CO2-sink is; grow it out of the air, fix it, store it (nooo, not drink it!)

  22. Note that when the spiral-down really begins to bite, the serfs will be sooo poor that they will effectively have *no* disposable income – so can't buy any 'product' (mostly now imported) or pay any rent for houses/flats (most having been repossessed).

  23. Neoliberalism has been 'in the wild' latest since the Chicago boys' erring-ideology economics contributed to the rape of post-Allende Chile, starting with the CIA-associated coup circa 11 September 1973.

  24. Evidently going thru the op’s topic we like this as it’s what we really feel so it is pleasant reading from a person that’s blogging things on this topic online to review

  25. Speaking of scanning the information everyone will accept this since it’s real and it’s good seeing a writer that is posting topics on this for all to see to read.

  26. Evidently scanning the blog a number will agree with this as its accurate so it’s great finding a blogger that’s writing it for all to see to review.

  27. Evidently understanding the above blog post numerous will like the above because its true and it is pleasant reading from a poster that’s showing this for us to consider

  28. Now about reading this blog post a number will like the above as it’s reality and it is good finding a poster thats telling things like this online to consider.