PrisonPlanet Forum
May 25, 2013, 07:50:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Dwight Eisenhower's True Warning! THE CYBERNETICS AGENDA!  (Read 1116 times)
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,103



WWW
« on: September 03, 2010, 10:05:33 PM »

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/military-industrial%20complex%20speech%20(farewell)%20ike.htm

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology, global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs. balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.


Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should,

we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we, you and I, and our government, must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

 

VI

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII

So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing inspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

  Radio-Television Address: January 17, 1961
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
charrington
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2010, 10:08:46 PM »

I mean it really tells it all - I've seen this before and thought why didn't anyone see what he was saying then. Very few did - People have been told a couple of times by presidents and I guess it just didn't make sense then.
Logged
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2010, 10:09:54 PM »

Lately I've been looking at the origins of "peak oil" and the trail sees to lead to a scientist in the Eisenhower era (1956) active in the "technocratic movement".
Logged
charrington
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2010, 10:12:16 PM »

Lately I've been looking at the origins of "peak oil" and the trail sees to lead to a scientist in the Eisenhower era (1956) active in the "technocratic movement".
which is whom?
Logged
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2010, 10:38:00 PM »

Peak Oil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For information on the timing of peak oil, see Predicting the timing of peak oil.
Further information: Oil depletion
 
A logistic distribution shaped production curve, as originally suggested by M. King Hubbert in 1956.
Peak oil depletion scenarios graph, which depicts cumulative published depletion studies by the ASPO and other depletion analysts.Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. This concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a bell-shaped curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. Various modified versions of his original logistic model are used, using more complex functions to allow for real world factors. While each version is applied to a specific domain, the central features of the Hubbert curve (that production stops rising and then declines) remain unchanged, albeit with different profiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Oil


Also from Wikipedia

M. King Hubbert

Biography
 
M. King Hubbert (outlined in blue) and other prominent leaders of the technocratic movementHubbert was born in San Saba, Texas. He attended the University of Chicago, where he received his B.S. in 1926, his M.S. in 1928, and his Ph.D in 1937, studying geology, mathematics, and physics. He worked as an assistant geologist for the Amerada Petroleum Company for two years while pursuing his Ph.D., additionally teaching geophysics at Columbia University. He also served as a senior analyst at the Board of Economic Warfare. He joined the Shell Oil Company in 1943, retiring from that firm in 1964. After he retired from Shell, he became a senior research geophysicist for the United States Geological Survey until his retirement in 1976. He also held positions as a professor of geology and geophysics at Stanford University from 1963 to 1968, and as a professor at UC Berkeley from 1973 to 1976.

Hubbert was also an avid Technocrat. He co-founded Technocracy Incorporated with Howard Scott and contributed significantly to the Technocracy Study Course, the precedent document of that group which advocates a Non-market economics form of Energy accounting,[1] in contrast to the current Price System method.[2] Hubbert was a member of the Board of Governors, and served as Secretary of education to that organisation[3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert
Logged
charrington
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2010, 10:47:37 AM »

Check these guys out too:

Campbells, Laherrčres, Heinbergs, Simmonses - They all are Peak Oil gents.
Logged
charrington
Guest
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2010, 11:12:14 AM »

Also here's a rant on "Peak Oil" that has a few other names to add to the history list.

Leaked Study on Peak Oil Warns of Severe Global Energy Crisis
This week a study on peak oil by a German military think tank was leaked on the Internet. The document shows that the German government is closely studying the issue of peak oil, and is aware of the potential for serious consequences as oil production declines. The study is reminiscent of the Hirsch Report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, that warned of the risks posed by peak oil.

The document warns of the potential for regional shortages, market failures, and a shift in political power toward those capable of exporting oil. This report describes potential outcomes that require planning and preparation. The scenarios outlined in the paper are exactly the kinds of drivers that lead me to advocate for greater regional energy self-sufficiency. The report clearly lays out just how vulnerable Europe will be because of its continuing dependence upon Russia for both oil and gas, and notes that Russia will be in a very strong political bargaining position as a result.

The report can be accessed from the popular German paper Der Spiegel in this story: Bundeswehr-Studie warnt vor dramatischer Ölkrise. The report is so far only available in German, and while Ich spreche ein wenig Deutsch (I speak a little German), I am not fluent enough to capture the essence of the report. (Der Spiegel has summarized the report in English now: Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis).

However, I have a friend who is both fluent in German (his native tongue) and passionate about peak oil outreach. Given a week, I could probably translate the report. My friend (who didn’t want to be identified) did it overnight. Below is his translation of the major points in the report.

It might already be in the forum elsewhere but here's the link -

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/09/02/leaked-study-peak-oil-warns-severe-global-energy-crisis/
Logged
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2010, 04:59:20 PM »

Hirsch of SAIC, Rand, Exxon, and ARCO.

Winner of the "M. King Hubbert award" for 2009!

Yes, Hirsch report (2005) very interesting.  German and U.S. military seem to be working out of the same playbook now.

I wil look into those other names, and into the German report which admittedly I haven't been paying much attention to.
Logged
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2010, 06:24:37 PM »

Heres' one of those names:  Richard Heinberg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Heinberg

This guy is a character (crackpot).  Started out after two years of college as Velikovski's assistant (major historical crackpot).

New Agey pagan type.  Peak Oil author.

From earlier wikipedia article on peak oil:

On the other hand, investigative journalist Greg Palast argues that oil companies have an interest in making oil look more rare than it is, to justify higher prices.[55] This view is refuted by ecological journalist Richard Heinberg.[56]
Logged
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2010, 06:36:37 PM »

Re. Jean Laherrere:

http://dieoff.org/page140.htm

"The End of Cheap Oil" from 1998


Quote:

 "Barring a global recession, it seems most likely that world production of conventional oil will peak during the first decade of the 21st century."

Interesting.  Is belief in peak oil one reason (or the reason) banksters engineered the global recession of the last decade?

IMO, peak oil is going to be one of the major justifications for a complete technocratic/technotronic (ala SAIC) global takeover to a command economy overseen by scientists and engineers on a regional and global basis.

And, if you are a military nowadays, the last carrot you are most concerned with (if you believe that crap) has got to be oil.  Armies no longer march on their bellies, they are transported hither and thither by oil.

Re. co-author, Colin Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Campbell_(geologist)
Logged
chris jones
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,444


« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2010, 06:56:55 PM »


The writing on the wall, Ike, JFK and countless more have given fair warning, the general attitude it can't happen here perseveres.
The inpenetrable wall of denail continues, so many who are confronted with the truth to men such as Ike and the warnings, reply:
A blank mystified look appears on their faces, they shrug and raise their hands in surrender and murmur, Hey wat can  ya do thats the wa y it is, they turn their back and walk away feeling total helpless..
Logged
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2010, 07:09:01 PM »

Matt Simmons, recently sacrificed CFR member, I was somwhat familiar with.

from Wikipedia article on peak oil, again:

Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural, and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Predictions vary greatly as to what exactly these negative effects would be. If political and economic changes only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak. According to the Export Land Model, oil exports drop much more quickly than production drops due to domestic consumption increases in exporting countries. Supply shortfalls would cause the price of oil to increase sharply, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives.[3]





Despite the large quantities of oil available in non-conventional sources, Matthew Simmons argues that limitations on production prevent them from becoming an effective substitute for conventional crude oil. Simmons states that "these are high energy intensity projects that can never reach high volumes" to offset significant losses from other sources.[71] Another study claims that even under highly optimistic assumptions, "Canada's oil sands will not prevent peak oil," although production could reach 5 million bbl/day by 2030 in a "crash program" development effort.[72]



According to Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International and author of Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, "...peaking is one of these fuzzy events that you only know clearly when you see it through a rear view mirror, and by then an alternate resolution is generally too late."[109]



Matthew Simmons said on October 26, 2006 that global oil production may have peaked in December 2005, though he cautioned that further monitoring of production is required to determine if a peak has actually occurred.[111] In 2007, Kenneth S. Deffeyes also argued that world oil production had peaked in December 2005.[5]



Some do not agree with peak oil, at least as it has been presented by Matthew Simmons. The president of Royal Dutch Shell's U.S. operations John Hofmeister, while agreeing that conventional oil production will soon start to decline, has criticized Simmons's analysis for being "overly focused on a single country: Saudi Arabia, the world's largest exporter and OPEC swing producer." He also points to the large reserves at the U.S. outer continental shelf, which holds an estimated 100 billion barrels (16×10^9 m3) of oil and natural gas. As things stand, however, only 15% of those reserves are currently exploitable, a good part of that off the coasts of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. Hofmeister also contends that Simmons erred in excluding unconventional sources of oil such as the oil sands of Canada, where Shell is already active. The Canadian oil sands—a natural combination of sand, water, and oil found largely in Alberta and Saskatchewan—is believed to contain one trillion barrels of oil. Another trillion barrels are also said to be trapped in rocks in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,[186] but are in the form of oil shale. These particular reserves present major environmental, social, and economic obstacles to recovery.[187][188] Hofmeister also claims that if oil companies were allowed to drill more in the United States enough to produce another 2 million barrels per day (320×10^3 m3/d), oil and gas prices would not be as high as they are in the later part of the 2000 to 2010 decade. He thinks that high energy prices are causing social unrest similar to levels surrounding the Rodney King riots.[189]

Re. Simmons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Simmons

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Before his suspicious death he was arguably the most important (industry) proponent of peak oil theory.

This theory first gained notoraiety in the U.S in the 1970's as a result of the 1973 oil embargo and the 1979 Iranian revolution.  Together with a certain strain of well-cultivated Islamophobia, this has been used to "fuel" a new era of imperialistic expansion of the American "sphere of interest" since at least the time of the first Gulf War, if not before.

"Peak Oil" is intimately connected to the neocon's ideology of conquest, and the association of known technocracy advocates with peak oil, and its conncetion to western militaries appears to be well-established.

It seems to be a key part of the ideology of the contemporary technocracy movement.

Something to look out for.

And Chris,  I think the "blank mystified look" is also the product of very real fear on the part of our puppet political "leaders".  They are afraid that what happened to JFK (Texas oilmen?) and Matt Simmons could happen to them.  But, I agree with what you wrote.

Denial.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!