The Techno-Militarization Of America
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The fact of the matter is that you don't need to believe in idiotic pop culture theories like Illuminati, Jewish Bolshevism and reptilian men. Those are all straw men and have no credibility.
On the other hand, conspiracies have been an essential part of politics and history for a very long time. The only way you could possibly deny this is if you're ignorant of politics, history and how military intelligence works.
One most not underestimate the capability of malice. Hanlon's razor does not apply to politics, as FDR famously said. The authorities have conspired to and actually committed countless acts of lunacy and horror, like a plot to nuke the moon (Project A119), a large scale false flag terror plot (Operation Gladio) and the second Gulf of Tonkin attack, which was a false flag that kickstarted the Vietnam War. The last one was actually executed and the NSA declassified the docs years ago.
NSA surveillance is hardly new. You can even see it (jokingly) referenced in Sneakers, which dates back to 1992. Before Snowden, we had ECHELON, Total Information Awareness, Presidential Surveillance Program, Room 641A and closely related: the FBI's DCSNet.
So, here's a quick idea. Instead of insulting conspiracy theorists who voice perfectly reasonable doubts, let's actually praise them and try to voice their concerns, rather than going with official stories and pretending everything is like clockwork.
It's absolutely disturbing how well people have accepted that the government works for their benefit. What bullshit.
The outrage over the NSA disclosures was well warranted, but the surprise goes to show you just how much people, even those who should know better, are asleep and little more than cattle (sorry for the arrogance, but I feel it's deserved here).
Conspiracy theorists are not loons. The only loons are the ones who think everything is just fine and are legitimately surprised the NSA is spying on them. Did you forget the Clipper chips already?
Fucking please.
Even without that, it's ridiculously ignorant to expect intelligence operations to end up as national news all the time. The Snowden revelations were an exception because of the breadth and due to the fact that the people had already had enough by then.
The Gulf of Tonkin documents are here: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/gulf_of_tonkin/
Clipper chips have a Wikpedia article on them and caused uproar amongst the tech community in the early 90s, you should be aware of that. Right?
Operation Gladio is extensively documented fact. The precise details are debatable, but its existence and general goals are undeniable. Once again, Wikipedia article.
So on and so forth.
You're no better than a creationist telling people to "show them the evidence". Keep reading CNN, what do I care...
Deleted comment
Also if you really believe that conspiracies have no effect on the average person's daily life, that's just being hopelessly deluded.
If one were to consider #3 valid, then one would have to consider what people do in their lives to be "average". Setting aside any possible governmental motivations in #2 and omitting the chemicals part (to not be side tracked in this thought exercise), some would consider it fair to say "average" people probably fill a great deal of their leisure time on #2 and talking/thinking about #2. And if we assume that the rest of the time is spent working where independent thought is not necessary for workers or applied on such issues, then #1 could be a possibility simply because time is not taken in leisure time to pursue #1 since that is filled with things dealing with #2.
But then again, the arguments rely entirely on what it means to be "average" (and who would be considered non "average"? People in power? People not in power who do not engage in #2 and by extension #1 may be void as well [what do non "average" people do for leisure that does not involve entertaining anything to do much with #2, while remaining incapable of independent thought since not engaging with #2 might be considered independent thought by "average" people who are generally assumed to be preoccupied with #2, if one we're to imagine such an interaction?]), and there's some kind of implication in #3 that on non "average" lives the arguments won't hold to be true. And if the arguments don't hold for non "average" people, why would they hold true for "average" people since we're talking about conspiracies in systems (governmental/corporate/etc) that are to affect all people on some level? Maybe someone could draw up some truth tables to show this more clearly? :D
Edit: made in reference to this parent comment for future clarity: http://i.imgur.com/3k5KK05.png
Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" paints them in a negative light though.
Better terms would be more like: "Awareness advocate", "Covert operations researcher", "Open source intelligence agent"
It would also open up a cleaner way to discuss paranoia, specifically. Some ideas could be singled out as paranoid, while acknowledging the value in others.
The post you replied to made it pretty clear that those are to be considered loons. Conflating legitimate concerns and crazyness is exactly what needs to stop.
"Don't stigmatise conspiracy theorists, because the ones who attack places on the theory that there's a conspiracy going on... they aren't really conspiracy theorists!"
Labeling anyone and everyone as "conspiracy theorist" because they are talking about a conspiracy doesn't make them all the same, that makes as much sense as treating all humans like serial killers because Charles Manson was a human, too. Is realizing how silly that is a No True Scotsman, too? Please. To use big words, too, this is orders of magnitude below the standard of HN.
When drug dealers, who conspired to deal drugs, are busted, does that make the police "conspiracy theorists"? Why not, since they technically are? Because more often than not, that label is used to lump legitimate concerns together with kooky ones.
White supremacists, Illuminati buffs and then the legitimate political conspiracy researchers are three very separate leagues of their own, despite all being under the collective classification as "conspiracy theorists".
Much in the same way radical feminists, postmodern feminists and legitimate women's rights/feminist activists are three different leagues, despite all being unified under feminism.
And the ones I've seen are part of the International Socialist Organization and the Green Party. Strange how you apparently can't escape racism just by getting away from the far-right.
I'm not sure what FDR quote you're referring to, here.
The rest still stands.
We absolutely do not need to entertain these illogical "theories" with no basis in fact whatsoever. We should entertain a reasonable level of skepticism when it comes to accepting the establishment view on anything, but that's no excuse to abandon reason or the necessity of evidence. A "theory" without evidence is just an allegation.
My conspiracy theory is that Satoshi Nakamoto is the NSA.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6206086
But consideration? That's it? After the entire wall of text about how the conspiracy theorists must be correct? Not going to put your money where your mouth is?
(That channel is probably the best source of information on "conspiracies" out there, in case you weren't already familiar with it)
It should be noted that the NYT had scoop on the president spying on Civilians but they were told to hold off on the release on the grounds of "National Security" -- it was suppressed for 15 months. Then after Bush was back in office, the story broke and they won a prestigious prize for the 'revealing story'.
Greenwald's video here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ho...]
You have to realize that our freedoms and everything were destroyed after 9/11. BUT have you analyzed 9/11 and looked at facts other than the official narrative? A super structure collapsed -- as in, perfectly imploded on itself after there were fires near the top of the building. There were also buildings that sustained no damages that collapsed.
If you still don't believe the NSA is monitoring you & that everyone who questions the narrative wears a tinfoil hat, then shame on you...
For those who are curious there are tons of resources out there but this one in particular is extremely exhaustive - making astonishing connections that typically spans 3 - 7 videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk
I'm suggesting it so that you get a better understanding of present day America. When you realize that terrorism was manufactured as a scare tactic, that things like the TSA are just security theater your whole world view changes... sure it may be hard and you may not like it, but it's the truth.
You'll then realize that they've been using terrorism and national security as a means to keep you in fear, to erode your rights, to monitor your thoughts and communications, to control who you are and what you do...
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." - Keyser Söze, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyser_S%C3%B6ze
The items you have listed are what paranoid "conspiracy loons" have been predicting, in the US, for the past two hundred+ years. The difference now is how it no longer requires a "large" government to do it.
How much DARPA research spends compared to civil society?
That may be, but the US government certainly is large.
I believe you have equated size with capability/control, which is a fallacy. Size allows for capability, but neither, of the two, can be causally linked. The US government can do with 10 people, what previously required 100 or 1,000 people in the recent past. Total control of the population is no longer required to obtain total surveillance. So, the difference now is how it no longer requires a "large" government to do it.
Something like 1 in 10 people is employed by the government (state, federal, or local) directly, countless more indirectly.
The .gov actually is large, in the strictest sense of the word.
At least there's a correlation between a government being large and a government being oppressive, right? A small government simply has less influence in the general populace's everyday lives.
I'm not sure if people notice this, but the police are fundamentally reactive - in general a cop isn't there when you get mugged. The risk of getting caught is the value police give you in that moment. This puts the police in a bad position to do what it is Joe Q Public seems to want them to do: prevent crime like school shootings, bombings, and hijacking of airplanes - even when the perpetrator is suicidal and acting alone, or suicidal and highly secretive.
The irony is in their quest to prevent crime, rather than just react to it, cops are deploying tools that examine everyone: because everyone is a legitimate suspect for crimes that haven't been committed yet. They don't know you or me - they only know that somewhere out there is someone plotting some bad stuff, and they want to figure out who it is.
In a way, it's a natural progression of Bush's preemptive war doctrine: don't wait for them to hit you, because the imagined pain of that is too awful: hit them first. In a very serious way it is much like the attempt at Pre-Crime in the movie Minority Report.
The great irony is that, in many cases, these tools are alienating the same population that they are trying to protect, and I would argue, destroying what is the absolute best "tool" for crime prevention: people with their eyes open.
Let me put it this way: it used to be that if I thought someone was building a bomb next door, I would call the cops. I would call them because I would expect them to investigate fairly, respectfully, and that if there was nothing wrong then my neighbor would suffer nothing from the brief investigation. But honestly, I wouldn't call the cops now, because I know how they, and in fact I, would be treated. God knows what sort of wringer they would put us through, innocent or not, trying to help or not.
One of the prices we will pay for these policies and tortured reading of the constitution and law is over-all reduced cooperation from the public.
And that's too bad because there are no electronic tools that can stop the Adam Lanzas of the world. At best, we as citizens and family can at least do our best to identify risks, and take steps to reduce the risk - such as making sure they don't have ready access to guns.
And, I would argue, that there are no electronic tools that can stop the Al Quedas of the world either. The urge to murder people you've never met for abstract reasons doesn't pop up at random - it takes time, community, and I imagine there is escalation. So yes, deeply infiltrate violent (or even potentially violent) groups with human assets. This puts eyes on the ground, and a human sensibility where it is needed.
So yes, well done government, throwing away the best asset you had (the goodwill and trust of the people) and replacing it with crappy toys that don't catch terrorists, but which do give the government unprecedented, asymmetrical power over ordinary people at scale.
Good heavens, when I say it like that it's enough to make one doubt the good intentions of the government!
But that's what you get when you vote in folks that demand that government be the center of attention of everybody's lives.
Certainly you could point out other countries with both a lot of government involvement and a militarized police force, but I think there's a strong argument that the two are orthogonal - that the degree of plutocracy is a better correlation.
It's useful to separate what they say ("Big government!" "Small government!") from what they actually do: more resources to any agency in their portfolio.
The bigger your agency(ies), the bigger your dick, and the more likely your re-election.
This "vote in people that demand the government be the center of attention" is almost exactly what I read on highly partisan sites like Fox News so it's utterance immediately brings forward an image of hypocrisy and little room to be made via discussion.
"It's THEIR fault." Those pesky folks, how dare they vote. Perhaps if more would take action in local/state/federal elections. Specially directly as becoming a candidate as someone I know in Oregon did. Anything but commenting like a writer from Drudge Report.