Petraeus: I hate America and I now declare myself a National Security Threat!

Author Topic: Petraeus: I hate America and I now declare myself a National Security Threat!  (Read 11886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
SHOW THIS ARTICLE TO EVERY MORON WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF 9/11 AND THE FAKE WARS!  GENERAL PETRAEUS, YOU ARE SUCH A FRICKING ANTI-AMERICAN COMMUNIST NUTBALL COWARD WHO CANNOT DEFEND AMERICA WHEN BILDERBERG PSYCHOS ORDER YOU TO DESTROY HER FROM WITHIN!

CIA Head: We Will Spy On Americans Through Electrical Appliances
Global information surveillance grid being constructed; willing Americans embrace gadgets used to spy on them

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cia-head-we-will-spy-on-americans-through-electrical-appliances.html
Steve Watson Prisonplanet.com March 16, 2012

CIA director David Petraeus has said that the rise of new “smart” gadgets means that Americans are effectively bugging their own homes, saving US spy agencies a job when it identifies any “persons of interest”. Speaking at a summit for In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s technology investment operation, Petraeus made the comments when discussing new technologies which aim to add processors and web connections to previously ‘dumb’ home appliances such as fridges, ovens and lighting systems. Wired reports the details via its Danger Room Blog:

“‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies,” Petraeus enthused, “particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft.” “Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,” Petraeus said. “the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.” the CIA head added.
Petraeus also stated that such devices within the home “change our notions of secrecy”.

Petraeus’ comments come in the same week that one of the biggest microchip companies in the world, ARM, unveiled new processors that are designed to give practically every household appliance an internet connection, in order that they can be remote controlled and operate in tandem with applications. ARM describes the concept as an “internet of things”. Where will all the information from such devices be sent and analyzed? It can be no coincidence that the NSA is currently building a monolithic heavily fortified $2 billion facility deep in the Utah desert and surrounded by mountains. The facility is set to go fully live in September 2013.

“The Utah data center is the centerpiece of the Global Information Grid, a military project that will handle yottabytes of data, an amount so huge that there is no other data unit after it.” reports Gizmodo. “This center—with every listening post, spy satellite and NSA datacenter connected to it, will make the NSA the most powerful spy agency in the world.”

Wired reports that the incoming data is being mined by plugging into telecommunications companies’ switches, essentially the same method the NSA infamously uses for warrantless wiretapping of domestic communications, as exposed six years ago. Former intelligence analyst turned best selling author James Bamford, has penned a lengthy piece on the NSA facility and warns “It is, in some measure, the realization of the ‘total information awareness’ program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy.”
THAT IS RIGHT PETRAEUS, YOU ARE A COMMUNIST. YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS ENTIRE CYBERNETIC SPY SYSTEM IS A COMMUNIST OPERATION? DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW TO READ?


"Cybernetics in the Service of Communism"
1967 essay by Col. Raymond S. Sleeper
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/mar-apr/sleeper.html

Contributor

Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper (USMA; M.A., Harvard University) is Commander, Foreign Technology Division, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. During World War II he served with the 11th Bombardment Squadron, 7th Bombardment Group, in Java and Australia; in 1943 was transferred to General MacArthur’s staff as Chief of Military Personnel; and in 1944 became Deputy Chief, Enlisted Branch, Personnel, Hq USAF. Other assignments have been as Deputy Chief, Strategic Vulnerability Branch, ACS/Intelligence, Hq USAF, 1948-50; as student, then as faculty member, Air War College; as Deputy Commander, 11th Bombardment Wing, later Commander, 7th Bombardment Wing H (B-36), 1955-57; as Chief of War Plans, CINCPAC, from 1957 until he became Assistant to the DCS/Foreign Technology in 1960; and as DCS/Foreign Technology, Hq AFSC, from 1963 until he assumed his present position in August 1966.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.



Air University Review, March-April 1967

Cybernetics in the Service of Communism

Colonel Raymond S. Sleeper

The Spearhead for the spread of Communism was forged in the Soviet Union when Lenin seized power and began to use this philosophy as the rallying standard for achieving world Communist domination. The Soviet Union’s progress from the revolutionary chaos of the early Twenties to the space-age discipline of the Sixties has been phenomenal. In response to a series of difficulties and events in attempting to accelerate this task, the Soviets have borrowed and adapted to their use a unique and powerful philosophical and technological tool—cybernetics.

the promise of cybernetics

This tool seems to offer the means to optimize the continued development and growth of the power of Soviet Russia, the subversive capture of free nations, and the establishment of worldwide educational, technological, military, and space superiority. But more important, cybernetics is now seen by some Soviet authorities as the means of facilitating the optimum (Communist) control of the complex system of states, peoples, and resources of the world which the Communists hope will result from Communist world domination.

Simply stated, cybernetics involves purposeful control of complex dynamic systems. Dynamic systems are those systems which can react to or adapt to a changing environment. In practice, the Soviets appear to be classifying almost any subject that has to do with information and control in man, machine, and society as cybernetics. Cybernetic systems, as opposed to automatic devices, are capable of responding in a predictable orderly manner to changes in the environment. An example of a crude cybernetic system is the home furnace that responds via thermostatic control to changes in temperature for the purpose of maintaining a reasonably constant temperature in the home. One of the first complex cybernetic systems developed was Norbert Wiener’s design of a system to link radar through a computer to a battery of automatic fire-controlled antiaircraft guns.

In facing this extremely difficult problem, Wiener realized that the complex system he was designing performed the same functions as a skilled skeet shooter who acquired the target, tracked it, allowed for an appropriate lead, and fired. The skilled marksman achieved a high degree of accuracy. Knowing that biological systems (man or animal) could adapt easily to rapidly changing environmental parameters, both external as in the case of the skeet shooter and internal as in the case of an athlete whose body adjusts to give him a second wind, he often consulted with neurologists and others to determine if he was on the right track in his basic design philosophy. There were several instances in which he found direct analogs between the behavior of his gun-laying systems and certain characteristics of the nervous systems.

Wiener’s great achievement was that he was able to synthesize existing technology and ideas into a basic conceptual framework that unified this technology to produce a high degree of control in any type of complex dynamic system. The basic elements of this concept are

(1) A well-defined goal or end state to be achieved.

(2) Sensors to detect changes in the environment, i.e., temperature, velocity, chemical reactions, learning states, etc.

(3) Communications nets connecting all elements of the system to assure information flow.

(4) Logic units to process the information flow according to criteria contained in the goal (1).

(5) Control units that are responsive to decisions from the logic center (4), which adjusts system units to the desired states as information from (1), (2), (3), and (4) changes.

Wiener felt that this scheme was basic to the control of all complex systems—technical, biological, or social. The Soviets regard the U.S. PERT management system, or the “critical path technique,” as they call it, to be a highly sophisticated example of applying cybernetic theory to an administrative system.

Cybernetics, as it developed tinder Wiener and in the U.S.S.R., imposes a rigid discipline for clear thinking upon both the theorist and the practitioner. If a true cybernetic approach to problem solving is adopted, the planner must first define his goals and criteria for their achievement as clearly and with as little ambiguity as possible.

the thrust of cybernetics in the Soviet system

The thrust of cybernetics in Russia extends from the microbiological to the macrocosmic dimensions of man’s relationship to the elements of the universe. The volume of Soviet literature on cybernetics is monumental. Academician A. I. Berg, chairman of the Governmental Council on Cybernetics, refers to over 5000 articles in 1961 alone on “the problems of the application of mathematics, electronics, and cybernetics to biology and medicine.” Since 1961, the volume of literature and research on this subject has continued to increase.

On the biological side of cybernetics one sees interesting developments, such as the “iron hand” which attaches pneumatically to the stump of the arm and, through electrodes connected to the stump muscles of the forearm, picks up myocurrents generated from the contraction of these muscles, which then control the opening and closing of the hand. There are many other devices which link the nervous system to machines, and vice versa. One example is the biostimulator, which uses the recorded muscle movements of a sharpshooter to provide programmed electronic sleeves for automated rifle training instruction. This device is slipped over the arms and torso and electronically “stimulates” the proper muscles of the student soldier to emulate the sharp-shooting techniques of an expert rifleman recorded in the simulator. Another device, the Soviet sleep machine, is claimed to produce a relaxed state, or sleep, which provides more rest than an equivalent amount of normal sleep. This device is used in medical treatment for a variety of symptoms. Soviet cybernetics includes, in addition to biologic and physiologic control techniques, a broad program of research in neurology, psychology, and related fields, especially those areas which have the potential for technological application and behavior control.

The Soviet concept and program of the “new man” involves the “creation” of a wholly superior type of individual. It begins with the separation of numbers of young children from their families at the ages 1 to 6 years. These children are trained in some 800 special boarding homes and schools, separated from their families. Estimates vary, but it appears that 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 children have been entered into this program. The training and education of these selected children has been called the “technocratization of youth” in Russia. In other references the Soviets have called this program the preparation for “the rationalization of world economics and cybernation.” The U.S.S.R. is thus planning for rapid development of automation and encourages, promotes, and fosters cybernetics at the highest level of government and party. Social adjustment to automation is planned through the preparation of students to accommodate to the “cybernated society.” And, according to the Soviets, the change will therefore be more orderly in Russia than in any other country.

At the machine level, the applications vary from guidance systems for missiles to automated power distribution centers for controlling the flow of electric power between widely dispersed nets so as to eliminate costly, redundant power generation.

But it is at the socioeconomic level that one sees the major innovations being attempted in the Soviet Union. A cybernetics center is planned for each state. Several are already being built, and the first one at Kiev is nearly finished. These, together with the Cybernetics Council in Moscow, the Moscow information storage and retrieval center (VINITI), the Moscow computer center, the developing nationwide unified information network, some 350 computer centers, and over 100 institutes that are working in cybernetic science and technology, if built as planned, will constitute the physical structure of the program. A typical center such as the one at Kiev will have mathematicians, physiologists, psychologists, sociologists, neurologists, economists, electronic scientists, engineers, and physicists assigned. Thus a very broad multidisciplinary scientific force will attack the problems involved in the automation of Soviet society. The implications of such an enormous undertaking cannot possibly be seen with clarity at this early date, but it deserves serious observation, study, and attempts at interpretation.

It helps us some in taking a serious view of these Soviet activities when we realize that such very large modeling and attempts to structure society are actually beginning here in the United States. San Francisco is using an operating mathematical model of the city in terms of its land, buildings, peoples, jobs, amenities, etc. This model is being used for forward planning, and other U.S. cities are now developing their own models. But the Soviet scheme involves all of Russia and promises to involve the world.

One interpretation of the Soviet effort describes the purpose of cybernetics in the U.S.S.R. as “threefold: improved military and civilian technology, rationalization of the economy, and mechanization of intellectual tasks.” l But it is likely that the main thrust of Soviet cybernetics is much more encompassing. For the central argument of the Soviets is that cybernetics can work only in a “socialist” society:

As distinct from capitalist countries where the various firms create, each for itself, separate automated systems of control, under socialism it is perfectly possible to organize a single, (integrated) complex, automated system of control of the country’s national economy. Obviously, the effect of such automation will be much greater than that of automating control of individual enterprises. 2

Probably this is the key to the major difference between the Soviet purpose in cybernetics and the purpose in the West. Not so much that the Soviets are already beginning to apply cybernetics to the optimum control of the entire Soviet society but that they are aiming to reconstruct society through the widest possible application of cybernetics and eventually to employ it as the principal system of Communist control of the world. Some observers of the Soviet scene have responded with ridicule; others have simply stated that such a grand scheme is impossible. Perhaps the most common reaction is that Soviet technology cannot possibly support such a plan in Russia, to say nothing of the world. It is normal among these latter observers to note that “the U.S. is still ahead in the design, analysis, and evaluation of complex and sophisticated systems. . . ; we are still ahead of Soviet technology in the fields of radar systems, television systems, telemetry systems; and still ahead of Soviet technology by a considerable margin in the design and manufacture of high speed computers with large memories.”3

But there are indications of steady Soviet progress: “Soviet science is ahead in the analysis of random-processes of shooting and random process representation; Soviet science is generally superior to U.S. science in the fields of detection theory, parameters, prediction and estimation, and the analysis of phase-keyed systems in the presence of fading; and Soviet science can be said to be slightly ahead of the U.S. sciences in the overall fields of cybernetics, logic algebra, automated theory, and pattern recognition.”4 And cybernetics seems to have given the Russian leaders a new vision of the utopian future of Communist social progress. For they now see in cybernetics, they think, a means to stimulate progress and to integrate advances in all fields of science. Again, the most fundamental and overriding point is that through cybernetics the integration of scientific progress now enables the construction of the ideal Communist society in Russia as well as throughout the rest of the world. 5

To restructure the Russian society, to establish a system for the optimum control of Russia, and to embark upon the study, plan, and implementation of a control system aimed at the restructuring of the societies of the world so that they will dovetail into a cybernated Communist Russia is a fantastic task. The task was not undertaken lightly. A comprehensive study was conducted from 1959 to 1961 for the purpose of determining the broad structure of the program and its consonance with Marxism-Leninism. Then in June 1962 the Soviet Council of the Academy of Sciences, the Scientific Council on the Philosophical Problems of the Natural Sciences, and the Party Committee of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences met together in a joint conference on cybernetics. Over 1000 participants represented all the sciences connected with cybernetics. This all-union conference mapped out the implementation of the tasks set for cybernetics by the 22d World Communist Party Congress.

The general structure of the program has been analyzed and ably presented by Professor John J. Ford of American University. He believes that the 20-year plan approved by the 22d Party Congress is designed to test and implement the model. The model and its application to Russia is to be largely tested by 1981. Subsequent indications strongly support Ford’s analysis, e.g., a quote from the Technical Cybernetics All-Union Conference at Odessa in 1965: “Today, it is clear that the methods of technical cybernetics are finding growing applications in the control of the entire Soviet economy.”

Anyone with a deep interest in Soviet developments who wishes to understand Soviet activities through the next 10 to 20 years must take into consideration the Soviet cybernetics model. Scholars who continue to employ traditional concepts of Soviet behavior will surely be missing an important part of the picture.

The plan encompasses the development of a pattern for sociocultural, material-technical, and ideological subsystems. Each pattern must provide a “nervous structure” and “control center.” Similarly, each must be automatically operative but adapted to the goals of the “brain.” Harmonious transition of the parts toward a higher degree of centralized organization of social structure is thus insured. 6

This 20-year plan is based on the thesis that social (and biological) change is inevitable, but more important, the social change should be purposeful and progressive (i.e., toward Communism). To quote Professor Ford:

The strategy for social progress dictated by this general model calls for the establishment of a “nervous system” to tie together the system’s “sensors” of internal and external environments at all levels with the highest decision centers which can then determine optimal (in relation to system goals) courses of action and then transmit information to the effector organs of the social system (ministries, production complexes, schools, defense installations, people and so on). The cycle is then repeated. If the new behavior of the system brings it closer to the goals thereof as predicted, or moves away therefrom because the prediction was incorrect, the sensors once again detect the change and transmit the information upward in a continuous process analogous to that by which a helmsman steers a ship toward its destination.7

A model of world social structure seemingly visualized in this description is not attractive to most Americans, since it is deterministic and authoritarian. However, from a Communist viewpoint the whole process of “national liberation” and revolution involves the destruction of “capitalistic institutions” and the development and erection of Communist institutions in a purposeful mode.

transition of “capitalist societies”
to “socialist societies”

The transition of “capitalist societies” to “socialist societies” is the central aim of world Communism. It is the object, the content, and the substance of Communist activities across the world.

There are Communist parties in some 105 nations of the world. In certain countries there are more Communist parties than one, but for our purpose we will assume these parties are factions and that ultimately these factions either coordinate, cooperate, or are controlled by the dominant party in their struggle for take-over of the specific country.

Some 16 of these 105 nations are now controlled by the Communists. Each of the 16 is in fact ruled by the Communist Party therein. It is generally accepted that the world Communist movement is no longer monolithic but that polycentralism and a system of “World Commonwealth of Communist Nations” is evolving and expanding through subversive aggression.8 In spite of these and other doctrinal changes, a Marxist-Leninist model exists for the stages of Communist penetration and takeover in a target country. This doctrine elaborates five steps (called “stages” in Marxist-Leninist doctrine) in the “transition to a Marxist-Leninist Society”:

Step One is infiltration into the target country and the formation of a Communist Party.

Step Two is the infiltration of Communist Party members into the target country’s key institutions, parliament, political parties, unions, industry, communications services, police, military forces, and other important elements of the national life. The members who infiltrate the key institutions form units that are called fractions.9 When fractions are formed in most of the key institutions, a united national front is then organized to coordinate policy and action among all the fractions.

Step Three is the decision to seize power. According to the doctrine there exist both the objective and subjective situations in a target country. The objective situation is the current real-life situation in the target country. The subjective situation is the “power” of the Communist Party. Evaluation of this power involves assessment of the number of hard-core members and their deployment throughout the target country’s key institutions, together with the power that the members exert over the nation by virtue of the National Front. The doctrine states that when the subjective situation of the Communist Party is in favorable balance with the objective situation in the country as a whole, the decision is then made to seize power.10 This does not mean that an attempt to seize power is made at this time, but the decision is made. Then the action committees are organized and prepared for the eventual take-over. The process of determining the favorable revolutionary balance situation is obviously an extremely difficult and complex process. It is clear, for example, that the Communists misjudged the revolutionary balance in Indonesia at least twice in recent times.11

Step Four is to seize power. This step is initiated with the announcement of the time when power will be seized—and the timing is critical. The action committees are then armed, and direct operations are initiated against the anti-Communist, non-Communist, or national power in being. Insofar as possible, the Communist Party attempts to present this “seizure of power” in the light of a national revolution, a national uprising, or some similar camouflage for the Communist take-over. 12

Step Five is to consolidate the Communist control of the nation. This involves the progressive elimination of all anti-Communist, uncooperative control and influence in the nation and leads to the purges. This is the sort of operation we saw in China when Mao Tse-tung instituted his program to “let a hundred flowers of internal criticism grow,” and then when internal criticism appeared the critics were eliminated.13 It is the type of purge we have seen in Cuba since Castro seized power.

It may be claimed that our model for Communist subversive aggression against free nations is too simple. Communist manuals, doctrine, pamphlets, and publications have devoted hundreds of thousands of pages to the elaboration of the tactics and techniques of take-over, or the “transition of power from the capitalistic monopolies to the working class,” as they call it. The basic Communist bible, Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, devotes over 500 pages to the subject. There have been many variations in this model, and there will be many more. But how can cybernetics serve Communist subversion and take-over?

The key step in the process is the decision and timing of the take-over. Note the relationship that must be satisfied for the Communist take-over: One could write this very simply as

P= S/O

where P represents potential for take-over, S the subjective power of the Communist Party in the target country, and 0 the objective situation in the country itself. Now it can readily be seen that experience will be necessary to determine the proper values of P for evaluating take-over potential. It can also be seen that the quotient of S divided by O is essentially a summation of the Communist potential for takeover in each of the key institutional structures as related to the stabilizing anti-Communist elements in the country. It is the problem of measuring Communist potential for take-over in a national power structure sense that “scientific programs” using statistics, content analysis, sociological and anthropological social structure analysis, and experience factors, that we see as the task for cybernetics. The process can be shown as the objective situation deriving from real life in the target country feeding into the reference model (the Communist model) and with effectors and sensors from the Communist Party in its central role of subversion, take-over, command, and control, as shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1. Model for Communist take-over

The tremendous upheaval and social reorientation of Cuba which have been produced by the Castro regime may be seen as an example of Communist transition of society toward a “higher stage of social evolution” and as a transition toward the Soviet model.

Through a series of trade and finance agreements the Castro Regime has moved toward the adaptation of Cuba’s economy and industrial plan to that of the Sino-Soviet Bloc. . . . The degree to which Cuba has become economically dependent on the Bloc is evidenced by the fact that 80% of its trade is now tied up in arrangements with Iron Curtain countries. At the beginning of 1960 only 2% of Cuba’s total foreign trade was with the Bloc.

Cuba, under the Castro Regime, is rapidly becoming oriented toward the Sino-Soviet Bloc. This orientation is not taking the form of a merely cultural interchange with communist countries such as several Western countries are conducting. On the contrary, the emerging pattern is one of extensive cultural identification with the Bloc in which Cuban cultural patterns are being rapidly altered and the traditional cultural ties with countries of this hemisphere and Western Europe are deliberately severed. This is to be seen in the comprehensive cultural agreements, the exchange of students, performing artists, and exhibitions with the Soviet Union, Communist China and their satellites, the impediments placed before students wishing to study anywhere except in Iron Curtain countries, the virtual halting of the flow of movies, books and magazines from free countries with a commensurate rise in the influx of these materials from the Sino-Soviet Bloc, and the attacks on Western culture in general and that of the United States in particular.14

Thus one sees the total social, economic, and cultural restructuring of Cuba to fit the Communist model. Meanwhile, the Communist model appears to be moving toward a cybernetics model. This may lead to increased rationalization of Communist subversive aggression against free nations.

Under a cybernetic scheme the Communists need not export traditional ideology. Instead they need to export “scientific social changes” which fit the cybernetic model of the economy and sociological structure of scientific Marxism-Leninism now being built in Russia.

the drive for military superiority

The Soviets have consistently pushed for worldwide military superiority. Stalin supported this goal, and so did Khrushchev, on balance.

Some top American nuclear scientists believe that Soviet nuclear weapons technology is at least equivalent to if not ahead of U.S. in some areas. In the area of high-yield weapons it is conceded that they have the edge. They have demonstrated a device of 60 megatons which we believe could be weaponized or turned into a weapon at about a hundred megatons.

We were somewhat surprised in 1948 that the Soviets copied our B-29 (which they called TU-4). More surprising was that they built a significant number and built them at the expense of more rapidly rejuvenating the war-torn civilian economy.

Through the 1950’s the Soviets built modern fighters in large numbers, built bombers, and then moved into building and deploying ballistic missiles.

There is no question that the U.S. Minuteman and Polaris missiles remain superior to those of the Soviets, but the Russian weaponeers are not resting on their laurels. According to Hanson Baldwin, they are continuing to develop and deploy large numbers of new weapons of widely varying types.15

The Soviet development of new missiles appears to be most dramatic, and the evidence is that they are also developing new aircraft (e.g., the AN22, a huge transport) and modernizing their army and navy. The 1965 spring military parade in Moscow and again the 7 November 1965 parade showed new generations of ICBM’s, IRBM’s, “global rockets,” and anti-ICBM missiles, as well as many new army vehicles.

The Soviets apparently are building and deploying all these weapons. It is important that we recognize that they can, that they have the economic power to do so. In 1962 Secretary of Defense McNamara elaborated before Congress the new missiles, aircraft, antimissile missiles, agricultural improvements, and civilian consumer improvements that could be made by the Russians and then concluded that they could not do all these things—that they must make a choice. It would seem that they have made the choice at the expense of the civilian economy and that they have moved rapidly forward in strategic weapons.

One of the primary strengths of the Soviet R&D and production program is the use of scientific planning (cybernetics) throughout their weapons programs. Scientific planning, gaming theory, optimum solution of complex problems, development of block-aggregate computing systems, creation of the scientific basis for the synthesis of automatic control, and hundreds of similar subjects, all pertinent to the most modern techniques of scientific planning and development of aerospace weapon systems, appear in Soviet cybernetics literature.16 The hypothesis is suggested that analysis of overall Soviet power must now take into account the increased efficiency of the early applications of integrated cybernetic systems optimized for the creation of Soviet military and national security.

Similarly, cybernetics can be seen to impact on the Soviet space effort.

the thrust in space

Soviet work in space probably started in the early Forties with the work of Tsilkovskii, the Soviet Goddard. In the late Forties and early Fifties it appears that the basic technologies and vertical firings of components were accomplished. In the late Fifties we saw the first Sputnik and the beginning of the Soviet space spectaculars. Figure 2 shows the Soviet concentration on spectaculars—manned flight, near-earth orbital work, and some military and military support types of programs. There has been little direct evidence that any of these spectaculars will lead to direct Soviet military space capabilities, but there have been repeated Soviet references to the military uses of space. One of the first we saw was in Major General Pokrovsky’s book, Science and Technology in Contemporary War, published in 1956, in which he refers to the coming importance of the war in space. Since 1957 there have been innumerable Soviet references to orbital bombardment, orbital rockets, rockets from spaceships, attack or delivery of weapons from space, and the like.


Figure 2. Soviet space firsts

It would seem prudent to assume that the Soviets plan to use space for military purposes as rapidly as possible. The Soviet space effort is huge—surely as large as if not larger than that of the U.S. There is no record of the Soviets’ having made anything like this type of effort in aerospace research and development without a resultant direct enhancement of their military power.

In the U.S. we argue variously that space offensive nuclear-delivery forces are less efficient than ICBM’s, less accurate, and less credible. But when the Soviets are dedicated to offensive world objectives, the special effects of space military offensive forces may appear very useful—namely, prestige, terror, persuasion, coercion, pressure, psychological warfare, and demoralization. The sight and sound of Soviet military orbital forces in the free skies of the world day and night, plus Communist satellite television propaganda tuned into sets around the world, would not be attractive to contemplate in the service of Soviet goals of worldwide Communist domination.

Such major steps in space could not be taken except for the progress that the Soviets are seeking through cybernetics. This has been recognized by Soviet scientists and has been openly stated by several. A description of the impact of Soviet cybernetics on their space program is included in V. Denisov’s “Cybernetics and the Cosmos” (1962). Denisov describes the active flight of “The Cosmic Ship,” its automatic control features, and its manual control features. But, “No matter what the degree of automation of the engineering process of controlling the cosmic ship, the managing and organizing role always remains with man.  Hence, we must deal with complex cybernetic ‘man-machine’ systems in space ships. . . . Man is the controlling element or operator in the ‘man-machine’ system and the machine is the controlled object.” Denisov goes on to describe the working of the cosmic ship in detail and then projects developments into the future: “It can be that the foot of man will not take the first step on other planets, . . . but the foot of a cybernetic automaton may.” He then goes on to extend man’s influence into the cosmos through travel and communications, basing his predictions on progress in cybernetics as well as in astronautics and related sciences.

In cybernetics there is unquestionably a promise for improvement of the welfare of all humans. Robert Theobold, author and economist, proposes a minimum basic income for all adults in America based on the use of cybernetics by U.S. industry and economy, an income ensuring a standard of living by which one can live with dignity. He also makes the astounding point that a modern nation can produce anything it decides to produce.17 But Theobold decries the U.S. government’s inattention to these “facts,” stating that these facts demand new value systems in America.

There is not much question that cybernetics is seen by the Soviet elite not only as the path to Communist utopia but also as the road to development of a worldwide system of socialist states under Communist control. This view is reflected even by the American Communist Party.

Is there an inner compulsion in technological development which will transform the private appropriation of profit in America and the immense, unprecedented political power it brings, into an innocent surplus managed for the whole of society by the same small top group wearing different hats? . . . No . . . Once the profit motive is no longer a sacred absolute, the machines can be controlled, and, especially in the centralized society of today, cybernation can be developed and applied at a rate and in a manner that is in the interest of society as a whole. . . and this will come. . . only when the American people make a daily struggle in a progressive direction [toward Communism].18

If we wish to follow events in Soviet Russia and developments in worldwide Communism reasonably intelligently, we should begin to view them in terms of the changes wrought by the massive cybernetic program in Russia and in the worldwide Communist movement. Moreover, if cybernetics promises such a “paradise” for socialist countries and enables, in effect, a technological penetration of free nations, it behooves us to define the parameters of possible impact and the promise and direction of national and international automation in free societies as a counter. There is no doubt at all that American computer technology, program theory and application, and automation lead the world. But the proliferation of computers, computer languages, and computer centers has become truly an electronic Tower of Babel. In contrast, in Russia the computer centers, languages, and networks are planned and programmed to optimize control of the entire country. Does this lead to an efficiency of resource utilization that enables the Soviets, with a gross national product in 1965 of $303 billion—compared to $664 billion for the U.S.—to challenge the U.S. for world leadership and military superiority? Surely the American system with its redundancy, flexibility, and free choice is much more attractive to us, but is it too wasteful of resources? And is this American redundancy and flexibility optimized to meet aggressive, purposeful international competition? Will truly wide redundancy, flexibility, and choice invite penetration and restriction by a centrally controlled, integrated, and optimized system—a system optimized for the announced goal and program of world domination?

These are interesting questions that only time and intensive analysis will answer. Most Americans, if given the choice, would vote for the redundancy, individualism, flexibility, and optimization of private opportunity as opposed to the centralized authoritarian-imposed optimized control. However, the parameters of redundancy, individualism, flexibility, control, optimization, purposefulness, and private opportunity may have to be subjected to the burning crucible of public discussion and definition in the light of national interests before we have a national understanding of both the benefits and penalties of the promise of cybernetics to America and their portent in the world arena.19 We cannot begin to discuss and understand the national and international potential of cybernetics unless we devote adequate effort to the job. And this we are not doing—at least, not at a level of effort that is competitive with the Soviets.

The Soviet effort and progress are a definite technological threat to the U.S. because their multidiscipline attack on major problems has no counterpart in the U.S., and their broad intensive effort simply must produce, in due course, significant breakthroughs in sociological, economic, governmental, and military areas that we in the U.S. must be prepared to meet. This threat is, therefore, a challenge to military superiority, to social control, to economic/industrial advance, and to world power.

Unless we Americans as a people, and we in the Air Force in particular, understand these momentous trends, we may not have much choice. The system could be imposed upon us from an authoritarian, centralized, cybernated, world-powerful command and control center in Moscow.

Foreign Technology Division, AFSC

Notes
1. Roger Levien and M. E. Maron, “Cybernetics and Its Development in the Soviet Union,” RAND Memo 4156-PR, p.25.
2. C. Olgin, “Soviet Ideology and Cybernetics,” Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of the U.S.S.R., February 1962, from Kommunist, Vol. 37, No.9 (June 1960), p. 23.
3. Roshan Lal Sharma, “Information Theory in the Soviet Bloc,” June 1965, pp. 1-2, a study done for the Foreign Technology Division by McGraw-Hill, Inc.
4. Ibid.
5. A. I. Berg, “The Science of Optimum Control,” U.S. Department of Commerce. Translation JPRS-26, 581, 28 September 1964, p. 55.
6. John J. Ford, “Soviet Cybernetics,” a paper presented at Georgetown University Symposium on Cybernetics and Society, 19-20 November 1965.
7. Ibid.
8. Tan F. Triska, David O. Beim, and Noralou Roos, “The World Communist System,” Stanford Studies of the Communist System, Stanford University, 1964.
9. “Party Fractions in Non-party Organizations (Fronts),” International Press Correspondence (INPRELOR), 27 February 1924, and V, 25 (April 1925), 340-43.
10. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, (second impression; Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1961); see parts four and five, especially pp. 609-20.
11. Ebed Van der Vlugt in Asia Aflame discusses earlier unsuccessful attempts of the Communists to seize power in Indonesia, pp. 160-202.
12. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, pp. 585-620. Note that the manual describes many forms of the “transition to a socialist revolution.”
13. Roderick MacFarquhar, The Hundred Flowers Campaign and the Chinese Intellectuals (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1960). Some may criticize the author’s conclusion that this Chinese Communist criticism campaign became a genera Communist purge technique. Of course, self-criticism has become an accepted feedback system of communication throughout the Communist countries and in certain instances clearly has led to severe purges for the fundamental purpose of optimizing Communist control.
14. “The Castro Regime in Cuba,” U.S. Department of State pamphlet, 1965.
15. Hanson W. Baldwin, “U.S. Lead in ICBM’s Is Said To Be Reduced by Buildup in Soviet Union,” New York Times, 14 July 1966.
16. Text of a Resolution Passed at the Third All-Union Conference on Automatic Control, Odessa, 1965, page 1, translated by L. A. Zadeh.
17. Robert Theobold, Free Men and Free Markets, Chapter 3.
18. Richard Loring, Communist Commentary on the Triple Revolution (Los Angeles. California: Progressive Book Shop, May 1964). (Italics are the author’s.)
19. Dr. Richard Bellman, “Russian Progressive Cybernetics and Its Relevance to Military Power,” a study done for the Air Force by McGraw-Hill, Inc.
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

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Red Prometheus
Engineering and Dictatorship in East Germany, 1945–1990

Dolores L.  Augustine
This is an excerpt of the most relevant part of the introduction

The MIT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England


 
Introduction

What is the relationship between dictatorship and science? How effectively can scientific and engineering communities resist the totalitarian impulse of a dictatorial ruling party? Was the Communist system able to produce good science and technology? What does this tell us about the degree to which an autonomous society continued to exist under Communist rule? These questions stand at the center of this study, which focuses on one of the most technically advanced East bloc countries, East Germany.  There, the German tradition of science-based technology was wedded to a socialist system that accorded technological progress a central place in modernization strategies.  German engineering and Communism held in common a profound belief in the transformative power of technology, but differed on how to unleash it.  Their alliance was complex and fraught with contradictions.

German engineering, which played a central role in the creation of the Nazi killing machine, enjoyed twin rebirths after the Second World War in East and West Germany.  Scientists and engineers tried to revive a culture of technological excellence and a tradition of science-based industry.  They brought with them attitudes and expectations that stemmed from the military-dominated Nazi research establishment and from patriarchal traditions of engineering going back to the nineteenth century and before.  German intellectual tradition viewed technology as a manifestation of culture.

The great men of science and technology—whether university-educated specialists or engineers trained on the job—were thought capable of forging unique cultural products that solved major technological puzzles.  Scientists and engineers in East Germany counted on the Communist state to give due recognition to their unique creative powers and mastery of complex technologies through experience and education.

Communism did not only accept technological modernity, but viewed technology as an essential part of socialist progress.  Radically rejecting the Nazi utopias of racial purity and absolute violence, after the war East German Communism embraced equality and technological modernity—the wonders of science harnessed to the needs of the people.  Marx believed technology to be essential to the triumph of socialism.1 Lenin made industrialization, rather than equality or the pursuit of world revolution, the centerpiece of efforts to win and keep the support of the masses, thus establishing priorities that would guide the Soviet bloc until the fall of Communism.2

Technology provided the basis of modern industrial production and became an important part of East German socialist identity.  This expressed itself in propaganda, high culture, and popular culture.  In East Germany, technology was central to the way Communists saw their system and citizens saw their state.  Technology was a crucial weapon in the Cold War struggle between East and West, and was seen as essential to the creation of a better socialist future.  To a much greater extent than any other Communist state, East Germany legitimized and under-girded its existence with technology.3

In the post-Stalin era, the universality of science, whether in East or West Germany, was affirmed, and the earlier doctrine of the superiority of “socialist science” was jettisoned.4 Technology was conceived as a derivation of science.  Unsullied by the system under which it was developed, technology could travel without difficulty from the capitalist world to the socialist world, believed supporters of the Communist system.  It was the use to which technology was put that differed drastically between capitalism and socialism.  While capitalists used technologies to promote exploitation and war, socialists deployed technology to the benefit of their people and all mankind.  According to this view, the work of engineers and scientists was not intrinsically good or bad.  

This “technical intelligentsia” could serve the bourgeoisie, and do its evil bidding, or it could become the partner of the working class, and help build a better, socialist society.  It was hoped that the “old intelligentsia,” educated and socialized in the pre-socialist era (i.e., the Imperial, Weimar, and Nazi eras), could be won over to the socialist project.  The trust-worthiness of these holdovers from the capitalist period was questioned by some, however.  Above question, at least in theory, were the loyalties of the “new technical intelligentsia”—engineers, scientists, and technicians recruited, educated, and socialized under socialism.  The creation and expansion of the ranks of “socialist engineers” became a major goal of the SED (the Socialist Unity Party, as the Communist Party of East Germany was known).

During the 1960s, socialist ideology came to be infused more and more with a belief in technology.  The GDR (German Democratic Republic) aspired to overtake the West through “technical-scientific revolution.” With this ambition came a profound shift in the relationship between technical professionals on the one hand and state and party bureaucrats on the other.  When the SED leadership started allowing itself to believe it could win the competitive race with the West, it came to believe it could become the central driving force behind technological innovation.  

A process of centralization, bureaucratization, and ideologization of decision-making took place.  The SED and the secret police also attempted to co-opt and penetrate the “technical intelligentsia,” replacing any alternate ideology or loyalty to professionalism with loyalty to the socialist system.  Now infused with a belief in technology, Communist ideology was seen as capable of becoming not only the guiding force behind “scientific-technological progress,” but the ultimate source of technical innovation.  This major shift in power relations and ideological claims made by the SED had a major impact on the innovative process.  In recent years, scholars have sought to overcome the “black-and-white picture...  [of] the oppressive state versus the victimized scientific community” under dictatorial rule.5

Research on the Nazi era has come to emphasize the complicity of engineers and scientists with the Nazi régime.6  In his work on Stalinist science, Nikolai Krementsov explores the maneuverings of scientists intent on promoting their own interests, careers, disciplines, and research institutes under Communism.  They worked within the context of a system in which the state not only held a monopoly over the funding of science, but also had at its disposal a considerable repertoire of methods of coercion.  Who won or lost in the competition for state sponsorship was not, however, determined by ideology, but rather by the resources and abilities of groups of scientists, organized in often competing networks.  To win out over its competitors, a discipline, subdiscipline, or institute needed spokesmen able to formulate a particular scientific approach in ideological terms, connections in the upper echelons of the party hierarchy, and the prospect of military applications of its scientific work.

According to Krementsov, the party pursued its own political and ideological aims, and “service to the party’s goals was the main criterion in defining the objects and subjects, and even the pace, of scientific studies .  .  .” Nonetheless, the outcomes were often unexpected, reflecting the needs and desires of segments of the scientific community as much as those of the party hierarchy, which itself was profoundly fragmented.7

Asif Siddiqi has shown that the Soviet space program was the brainchild of engineer Sergei Korolev and other missile experts, who induced the political leadership to embark on a project that they did not see as of central importance.8 The development of nuclear missiles was the main concern of political leaders, who were focused on the conflict with the United States.  Resources and personnel were shifted from the missile program into the space program on the initiative of missile scientists and engineers.  The Soviet leadership had extraordinary confidence in them because of their role in the build-up of Soviet defenses, and was therefore willing to accord them a good deal of autonomy.  The propaganda value of the space program was an unforeseen by-product.  Siddiqi sees this case as evidence of the dynamic quality of the relationship between scientists and political elite in the USSR.  Policy was not always dictated from above, he argues.

Slava Gerovitch has studied the way Soviet scientists used the ideas and language of cybernetics to reform society and to create a new sort of relationship between themselves and the rulers of the Soviet Union.  Under Stalin, “newspeak” dominated, a form of speech that placed ideology and philosophy above science.  Western ways of talking about the use of computers and cybernetics were thoroughly rejected as intrinsically capitalist.  

Based on ideas developed by American mathematician Norbert Wiener,
the central concept of cybernetics
was that much of reality could be reduced
to logical relationships within systems
that could be controlled with the help of computers.
 

With the Khrushchev-era liberalization and the acceptance of computers as essential to growth and progress, it became possible to completely overturn the ideologically motivated rejection of cybernetics, to make it into a kind of master science in the Soviet Union, and to replace “newspeak” with an entirely new form of speech, “cyberspeak.”

Scientists were now able to successfully impose their language and the supremacy of scientific rationality on philosophers.  Some even hoped that cybernetics would remake the power structures and economic system.

In the end, however,
cybernetics became a new orthodoxy,
a tool of the Communist elite.
 

Gerovitch shows that scientists in the Soviet Union had considerable resources at their disposal in their negotiations with the state, though he is more pessimistic than some historians about their ultimate ability to retain control over those resources.9

This emphasis on the agency of scientists in the Soviet Union has parallels in the broader literature on the nature of dictatorship.  Historians such as Robert Gellately have found much evidence of the complicity of the population in Nazi terror.10 Historian Sheila Fitzpatrick has argued that even in the darkest days of Stalinism, the masses played an active role in social and political life in the Soviet Union.  Social and cultural historians have made a similar argument with regard to East Germany.  They assert that although the East German leadership aspired to totalitarian rule, it did not fully achieve it, failing in important ways to control and direct society.  The resulting tensions within Communist societies often went right to the top, leading to competition between opposing factions within the elite.11

Others have sharply rejected such a view.  For them, the GDR was a totalitarian dictatorship terrorized to the end by the secret police.  An important group of historians who subscribe to this interpretation rely heavily on the files of the Ministry for State Security (or MfS), which ran the East German secret police, known as the Stasi.  They believe that these files reveal the true mechanisms at work in East German society.  A totalitarian state-within-a-state, the Stasi maintained labyrinthine networks of informers who not only kept the MfS informed of possible deviation from absolute loyalty to the Communist system, but also took action to root out the (supposedly) disloyal.  Security procedures increasingly took precedence over all other criteria (such as professional competence), with the result that only highly conformist individuals were given positions of responsibility and power.12

There are alternatives to the “totalitarianism” interpretation.  Sigrid Meuschel has given us a sociologist’s definition of the SED dictatorship, which she calls a “party state” (perhaps best rendered in English as a “one-party-state”).  According to her analysis, the SED effectively destroyed the autonomy of different sectors of society, insinuating the “logic” of Communism into all aspects of life.  This destroyed the functional differentiation of society, which Talcott Parsons and others have asserted is a central characteristic of modern societies.13 Alternate interpretations of the East German system include Jürgen Kocka’s concept of the “modern dictatorship” and Konrad Jarausch’s “welfare dictatorship,” which emphasize the linkage between coercion and consensus-building in Communist rule in the GDR.14

This study addresses this debate, making use of the kinds of sources used by the two major schools—secret police reports as well as all sorts of sources that provide the perspective of the common citizen.

This book explores the creation of technology in East German industry as a process of constantly renegotiated power relations.  But this is not the story of struggles between two homogeneous camps.  Both the bureaucracy of party and state and the technical professionals were torn by rivalry and competition.  The dynamics of their interactions were also profoundly influenced by two actors that cannot be left out of the equation.  The first is the Soviet Union.  Unfortunately, the thinking behind Soviet policymaking is often obscured by the lack of access to Soviet archives (though pioneering research has begun).

Nonetheless, a Soviet agenda can often be inferred from a multitude of decisions and interactions with East German industry.  The Soviet leadership was torn between two goals.  On the one hand, the Soviet leadership sought to gain whatever advantage it could from the advances of East German industrial research.  On the other hand, the Soviets viewed the East Germans as potential rivals whose advances, particularly in the atomic and high tech sectors, posed a potential threat to the Soviet Union.

The fourth actor in the process of creating technology is society.  To create an alternative to Western-style professionalism, society had to be mobilized.  The model of autonomous, self-regulating professions was to be replaced by a new loyalty to the SED.  Serious attempts were made to sever the historical links between the professions and the bourgeoisie, as well as to forge new ones between the professions and the proletariat—above all by recruiting university students from the working class.  Women were also to gain new professional opportunities.  It was thought that this “new intelligentsia” would promote “social progress.”15 The participation of society was not only essential to the creation of the “socialist engineer,” but also to the mobilization of the creative talents of the proletariat in the factory.  Art, literature, public representations, and educational efforts attempted to reach the masses with the message that they should help build socialism by promoting technological progress.

How successful was socialist science and technology? During the Cold War, it was often argued that in the Soviet Union, ideology had impeded the search for scientific truth.  The classic case of this is Trofim Lysenko, a poorly educated agronomist and a “clever and cruel political maneuverer” whose teachings began to supplant genetics in the 1930s and ruled supreme until 1965.16 The purges of the 1930s killed off or silenced the best scientists and engineers.  Initiative and critical thinking were suppressed. It has also been argued that theoretical work in the sciences suffered from an overemphasis of practical applications.  In numerous works, Loren Graham has argued that the oppressive role of the state slowly, over the decades, eroded the scientific and technical prowess of the Soviet Union.  

The central problem lay in the creation of a top-down, overly centralized system, particularly in its Stalinist incarnation.  As in the days of the tsars, engineers and scientists put pleasing the rulers first, and as a result oscillated between frenetic activity and passivity.  However, Graham has also argued that political interference was not great enough to prevent valuable scientific work from being done.  Soviet scientists often performed well because they were given tremendous social prestige and financial resources for research.  Marxist ideology not only did not stand in the way of scientific progress, but in some cases sparked new insights and profitable new paths.  Graham’s overall evaluation of Soviet science is nuanced: “The Russian experience points to a strong distinction between those conditions that are necessary for the survival, even prospering, of science, and those that are necessary for its most creative achievements.”17

Graham also points out the human costs, particularly of Soviet engineering.  Universities and engineering colleges churned out engineers with very narrow technical specializations and lacking a sense of the “broader social concerns” that earlier generations of Russian engineers had possessed.  Huge technical projects were carried out without giving thought to the human costs, environmental impact, or social utility, resulting in unnecessary human suffering and social problems, and thus contributing to the ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union.18

A younger generation of scholars has been more categorical than Graham in its rejection of the idea that democracy fosters better science.  In a book defiantly entitled Stalin’s Great Science, Alexei Kojevnikov argues that many of the factors that Western scholars have cited as causes of the failures of Soviet science and technology could just as easily be used to explain the triumphs of Soviet science.  Indeed, centralized control very much facilitated the emergence of Big Science, notably in the case of the Soviet atomic program.  Despite tremendous hardships and the political persecution around them, many scientists worked with great dedication, and were rewarded with great success.  They were motivated by careerism, but also by profound patriotism, fueled by their bitter experiences in the Second World War and fear of the United States.

Their attitudes toward socialism varied.  Many of the scientists educated in the early Soviet period were rebels whose socialist beliefs led them to embrace revolutionary scientific concepts and to reject the conservatism of the academic establishment.  The era of “High Stalinism,” which was also the era of the purges, brought sober careerists to the fore.  Although they publicly toed the party line, their primary concern was the preservation of the scientific community and its institutions, as well as the promotion of their own careers, institutes, schools, and disciplines.  Kojevnikov considers the triumph of Lysenkoism to be a very exceptional case.

He also argues that ideological opposition to quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity hardly had a serious chance of success, due to nuclear physicists’ “skills—and some luck—in playing the rhetorical, ideological, and political games of that culture.” According to Kojevnikov, atomic scientists possessed enough freedom to pursue the ideas they found promising, and the state provided them with tremendous resources to do so.  Moreover, competition within the scientific community promoted scientific excellence.  Gradually abandoning attempts to develop a uniquely “socialist science,” the Soviet Union nonetheless developed its own brand of modern science.  Kojevnikov attributes what he sees as great successes to the “extraordinary cultural value and importance” accorded to science in the Soviet Union.19

Though the detonation of the first H-bomb in 1955 and the launching of Sputnik in 1957 unleashed a wave of intense anxiety about the technological and scientific capabilities of the Soviet Union, on the whole, the West underestimated the scientific capabilities and technological might of the Soviet Union.  In the West, it was argued that conformism and the inefficiencies of the planned economy stood in the way of good scientific and technical research.  With the end of the Cold War and the opening of Soviet archives, the debate over Soviet science and technology has become more complex and less colored by ideology.  The history of science and technology in Eastern Europe must be explored in a similar spirit.

East Germany makes for an interesting and unique case study on technology under Communism.  Unlike the Soviet Union, which was a relative backwater at the time of the Russian Revolution, Germany was one of the top scientific and technological powers in the world at the end of the war.  Its research and teaching infrastructure largely intact, East Germany inherited an academic tradition of excellence in science and a strong base for high-tech research in industry.  Along with this went certain cultural attitudes, notably a consensus that science and technology should be left to the experts.  Anxious to make use of German capabilities, the Soviet Union signaled a willingness to largely leave institutions and personnel alone after the war.

In time, de-Nazification, state control of industry, the introduction of the planned economy, and secret police surveillance had a considerable impact on the universities and industry.  Nonetheless, there were clear lines of continuity at the universities and in industry in the conception and organization of scientific and technical research and teaching.  A major reason for this is the deep respect the Communist leadership felt toward the German university tradition and German science.

German professionalism was also uninterrupted.  Although bureaucracy clearly triumphed over scientific and technical professionalism in the Soviet Union, this was much less the case in East Germany.  In part, this is due to the more pervasive impact of professionalization in German society.  In Germany, the professional ideal was intimately bound up with aspirations to join the bourgeoisie, as well as with the reconfiguration of masculine identity in the nineteenth century.  A period of de-professionalization in the Weimar Republic was followed by what was widely perceived as re-professionalization of engineering and industrial science in the Nazi era.  Professional autonomy in these fields was sharply curtailed during the Communist era.  

Nonetheless, a professional ethos persisted, thanks to traditions of university training, the persistence of the scientific ideal, the vitality of professional organizations, and continuities in research culture, particularly in large enterprises with a long history.
A third major difference between East Germany and the Soviet Union is the problematic transition from Nazism to Communism.  With some exceptions, one could say that the Germans chose National Socialism, whereas Communism was imposed on East Germany from the outside.

Some felt nostalgia for what they had perceived in the Nazi era as increased autonomy, greater opportunities for professional advancement, and the sheer joy of technical work, untroubled by political or ethical considerations (particularly in the militarized sector of the economy).  However, the Nazi era also set the stage for the Communist period.  Engineers and scientists working in the high-tech sector became accustomed to working in high-security facilities, cut off from society, unconcerned with consumers, enjoying job security and generous support for industrial research, responsible only to the state, but completely dependent upon that state. These were the conditions many encountered in East German industrial research after the war.  Ideologically, acceptance of the new political system was eased by a fourth German peculiarity, namely the cultural model of the apolitical scientist or engineer.

This ideology was based partly on the defense mechanisms developed by technical professionals working for the Nazis to justify themselves after the war.  It was, however, also rooted in professional ideology, as propagated by the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (Association of German Engineers) since the nineteenth century.  This organization’s outlook combined a supposedly apolitical loyalty to Kaiser and nation with an ostensibly ideology-free dedication to technology.

Fifth, the existence of West Germany had a significant impact on the situation and mindset of the higher technical professions in East Germany.  Particularly in the era before the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, West Germany provided a frame of reference that affected the way professionals saw their personal career trajectories, issues involving professional autonomy, and the economic and technical accomplishments of East German industry.  The greater earnings, status, and mobility of their Western counterparts, the public role played by West German engineering organization, and the successes of West German industry engendered discontent in the GDR.  Some of these disillusioned professionals fled across the border into West Germany.  The SED and secret police tried to combat this brain drain, as well as real or imagined acts of sabotage and espionage.

The identification of these five East German characteristics is useful in understanding the process of negotiation involved in the creation of new technologies and, in particular, why this process occurred so differently in the GDR than in the USSR.  Methods of analysis are drawn from disparate fields: social history, cultural history, the history of professions, the history of elites, the STS (“Science, Technology and Society”) school of the history of technology, analysis of the power structures of party and state (including the secret police), and biographical approaches.  I have chosen to focus on high-tech industry rather than consumption and production of consumer goods, although very important debates have developed concerning that sector.

The economic choices made in the GDR, choices that had a profound impact on the availability of consumer goods and that contributed to the downfall of the GDR, cannot be understood without a full appreciation of the cultural values that ascribed a central role in industrial development to high-tech industries.  I set out to study the East German obsession with high-tech industries as a cultural, political, social, ideological, and gendered phenomenon, a subject that, despite the extensive literature on these industries, has not really been explored in any great depth.  (This literature has concerned itself mainly with a chronicling of technological progress within the histories of individual enterprises.) In addition, high-tech industries lend themselves well to the science-under-dictatorship theme because science and industrial scientists play a prominent role in these industries, because they had leverage and influence as highly favored industries, and because they were swept up in power conflicts to a greater extent than other industries.

This book is not about the ways in which innovation was blocked by the economic inefficiencies of the planned economy or false incentives created by the socialist system—a fine literature already exists on this subject.20 Instead, I attempt here to look at the way engineers and industrial scientists—who were motivated by a complex mixture of professionalism, individualistic careerism, socialist ideology, a belief in science, company traditions, and personal goals and ties—interacted with the dictatorial system.  This will tell us something about the innovative process in the GDR, but also about many other things: the ways in which the SED mobilized society, the interaction of cultural forces coming from above but also from below, and the ways in which individuals conformed or did not conform to socialist norms in everyday situations.

My strategy is to delve deeply into individual examples, using biography as a vehicle.  This methodology has been tried too little in research on East German technology.  The analysis of biographies, autobiographies, and interviews illuminates vital aspects of the relationship between culture and technology, providing insights that institutional histories cannot.  They make it possible to examine motivations, ideology, and career strategies.  

A re-creation in detail of the interactions of individual and system in the factory, university, and research facility becomes possible.  What biographical and autobiographical approaches to these microcosms show is that the actors were seldom driven by simple opportunism or by blindly ideological thinking.  Rather, their lives were, like all lives, messy and driven by complex and contradictory forces.  To understand the nature of life under dictatorship and its impact on science and technology, we must understand these complexities.  This approach brings up problems with regard to sources, problems that are, however, surmountable.

Vast archives have opened up since the fall of Communism.  Official reports— the reports of party and government agencies, industrial reports, and other papers from enterprises, socialist “combines,” and other organizations—give a fairly good picture of the engineering profession and the development of technologies.  However, they do not make it possible to re-create in detail the process of negotiation among technical professionals, state, Soviet authorities, and society.  Almost entirely missing is the realm of public debate that existed in the West.  Biographical and autobiographical materials offer an alternative, yet they are extremely sparse for the GDR (unlike for the Soviet Union 21).

(Continued in source PDF: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262012367intro1.pdf )


Extremely Important--Also see:  Global Warming/Climate Change Agenda Is Geo-Cybernetics In Disguise



"(1) In an industrial society the mode of production shifts from agriculture to industry, with the use of human and animal muscle supplanted by machine operation. In the technetronic society industrial employment yields to services, with automation and cybernetics replacing the operation of machines by individuals."
_______________________________________________
"The national community is the obvious one to turn to, and a definition of what a national community is may well become more restrictive as broader transnational cooperation develops. For many peoples the nationstate was a compromise dictated by economics, by security, and by other factors. An optimum balance was eventually struck, often after centuries of conflict. Today the balance is becoming unsettled, because newer and larger frameworks of cooperation are emerging, and the effective integration of much smaller, more cohesive units into much larger wholes is becoming increasingly possible because of computers, cybernetics, communications, and so on."
_______________________________________________
"Solid work has been done by Soviet scholars, primarily in the area of technologicaleconomic forecasting. For example, in 1964 the Soviet philosophical journal, Voprosy Filosofii, began publishing a series of articles on the theme of "The ScientificTechnical Revolution and Its Social Consequences." On the whole, these articles have been serious and frequently very informative treatments of such subjects as the methodology of forecasting, the organizational problems of science in the context of the scientific explosion, the role of cybernetics, comparative analyses of scientific development and projections for the United States and the Soviet Union, to say nothing of more specifically Sovietoriented economic and technological prognoses." 23
_______________________________________________
"Technological adaptation would involve the transformation of the bureaucraticdogmatic party into a party of technocrats. Primary emphasis would be on scientific expertise, efficiency, and discipline. As has already happened in Ulbricht's East Germany, the party would be composed of scientific experts, trained in the latest techniques, capable of relying on cybernetics and computers for social control, and looking to scientific innovation for the preservation of Soviet security and industrial growth.  Nationalism would replace ideological dogmas as the basic integrative principle linking society and the state. The younger, more technologically oriented leaders of the military establishment would, in all probability, favour this pattern. Political leadership, as in the first variant, could remain collective, though it would probably involve a wider coalition of partystate militaryeconomic leaders."
_______________________________________________
"The example of Ulbricht's East Germany may become particularly relevant. Though in Rumania explorations of the scientific revolution's significance have led some communists to suggest that this revolution requires a new theoretical framework based on the principle of universality, 34 Ulbricht has attempted to combine scientific innovation with strict adherence to the LeninistStalinist ideological tradition. Political leadership has remained highly centralized, and ideological dissent has been firmly suppressed. At the same time, Ulbricht, perhaps more than any other communist leader, has emphasized that "the development of the socialist system, above all the implementation of the economic system as a whole, is to a growing extent a matter of scientific leadership. . . . We orient ourselves on the conscious scientific control of complex processes and systems by the people and for the people. We make use of cybernetics in this sense." 35

During the second half of the 1960s, East German leadership made an intense effort to rationalize economic management in order to combine lowerlevel initiative with an effective system of controls and coordination. The Seventh Party Congress (April 1967) set itself the task of developing a general conception of the relations between the various partsystems with the economic system as a whole;more than any other communist country, East Germany utilized cybernetics, operational research, and electronic data processing.  Two years later, at the April 1969 Central Committee Plenum, Politburo member Kurt Hager proudly reported—and he repeatedly used this formula—that East Germany was not only ideologically sound but "correctly programmed."

In line with this "correct programming," the party has emphasized the importance of expertise among its members, 36 and the educational system has been reformed in order to link science closely with industry. † By the late 1960s, East Germany had transformed itself from one of the most warravaged societies into the most economically and ideologically advanced scienceoriented communist state. After a fiftyyear lapse, the combination of Prussian discipline, German scientific efficiency, and LeninistStalinist ideology has thus again made German communism a model for its eastern neighbors.

In the Soviet Union, however, other considerations will in all likelihood impede the pace of a similar "technologization" of the Soviet political system. For one thing, the Soviet Union is a much bigger country, is more difficult to integrate, and has many more areas of socioeconomic backwardness to overcome. In addition, over the last fifty years the ruling party has developed its own traditions and ideological style, and though it favors the acquisition of technical skills by its officials, it is likely to continue to resist the development of an essentially technical orientation among its members, since that would dilute the importance attached to ideology. 37 Moreover, perhaps intensified in the years to come by the SinoSoviet dispute, the role of the security factor in policymaking and of the military in the political process might tend to increase."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942369,00.html

By HP-TIME.COM;EDWIN WARNER
Monday, Oct. 12, 1970

"Contemporary America is often described—especially by the young—as a reactionary country. But in the opinion of Zbigniew Brzezinski, professor of government at Columbia University, the only revolution worth talking about these days is an American one—and it has not been run by the New Left. Brzezinski calls it the technetronic revolution. In Between Two Ages he discusses the repercussions of rapid change from an industrial era—with its emphasis on sheer productivity—to a period that stresses services, automation and cybernetics. Being that rarity among futurists, a cautious man, Brzezinski is not sure if utopia or bedlam will result. Meanwhile, between two ages is a time of uncertainty and some guarded hope.

Whatever military and political reverses it may have suffered, the U.S. is plunging ahead in the realm of technology and dragging the rest of the world with it. Such progress—if that is what it is—largely results from the fact that the U.S. spends more on scientific education and research than any other nation; it has indeed drained the world of the brains needed for its technical endeavors. "What makes America unique in our time," Brzezinski writes, "is that confrontation with the new is part of the daily American experience. For better or for worse, the rest of the world learns what is in store for it by observing what happens in the United States: whether it be the latest scientific discoveries in space and medicine or the electric toothbrush in the bathroom; pop art or LSD; air conditioning or air pollution; old-age problems or juvenile delinquency."

Polish-born Brzezinski has something of the pride of an adopted son in such achievements, though he recognizes that in some ways the U.S. is its own worst enemy. For the technetronic revolution it exports causes profound disturbances in the less developed nations. Suddenly aware of material progress, they conspicuously and maddeningly lack the means to achieve it. Their acute frustration causes not a revolution in rising expectations, says Brzezinski, but a "specter of insatiable aspirations."

Just as the technetronic revolution has further divided rich from poor nations, so is it beginning to fracture the nation-state. But the result of the breakup is not likely to lead to One World. Brzezinski amends Marshall Mc-Luhan's thesis that the world is shrinking into a "global village." A village implies shared tradition and intimacy. Today's technetronic world resembles rather a "global city—a nervous, agitated, tense, and fragmented web of interdependent relations." To recover some sense of identity, people are desperately turning back to their origins in race or region.

Flood of Technocrats. The New American Revolution, according to Brzezinski, is also fragmenting the mind of man. More than ever before, society is rigidly divided between those who think and those who feel. On the one side are the quiet, methodical technocrats who run the new machines pretty much without questioning their aims.On the other are the emotionalists, who have rebelled against the dehumanization of computer society.

Brzezinski harbors a good deal of contempt for what he calls the "new class" of alienated students and those intellectuals of the "Violent Left" who feel superfluous to society and for that reason want to bring the whole thing down. Paradoxically, he fears fellow technocrats even more than the New Left. Goaded mercilessly from the left, often deficient in traditional humanitarian values, a New Right of technocrats might eventually seize power. Unlike the left, they would know how to use it. To forestall such a disaster, Brzezinski strives for a formula that will fuse together the divided halves of the American soul. Lacking confidence in liberalism—partly because it lacks confidence in itself—Brzezinski proposes a kind of participatory democracy in which government, private business and the academic world join hands to solve the nation's social problems.

This limited solution, not so very different from a number of New Left panaceas, scarcely bears the weight of Brzezinski's earlier complaint. Like so many analysts, he is better at stating the problem thin supplying an answer. But, as he sees it, the problem may just turn out to be the answer. For if the miracles of technology have fragmented the world, they have made man more humble in the face of his own awesome creations. As Brzezinski suggests, man can no longer subscribe to one all-encompassing ideology; he must tolerate the existence of several world views. Between Two Ages is rich in respect for variety. Proposing neither to predict nor control the future, Brzezinski brilliantly explores some of its options and suggests that they can perhaps be lived with. These days that is a comforting view.

Edwin Warner

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

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
CIA director David Petraeus has said that the rise of new “smart” gadgets means that Americans are effectively bugging their own homes, saving US spy agencies a job when it identifies any “persons of interest”. Speaking at a summit for In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s technology investment operation, Petraeus made the comments when discussing new technologies which aim to add processors and web connections to previously ‘dumb’ home appliances such as fridges, ovens and lighting systems. Wired reports the details via its Danger Room Blog:


“‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies,” Petraeus enthused, “particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft.” “Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,” Petraeus said. “the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.” the CIA head added.

Petraeus also stated that such devices within the home “change our notions of secrecy”.

Petraeus’ comments come in the same week that one of the biggest microchip companies in the world, ARM, unveiled new processors that are designed to give practically every household appliance an internet connection, in order that they can be remote controlled and operate in tandem with applications. ARM describes the concept as an “internet of things”. Where will all the information from such devices be sent and analyzed? It can be no coincidence that the NSA is currently building a monolithic heavily fortified $2 billion facility deep in the Utah desert and surrounded by mountains. The facility is set to go fully live in September 2013.

“The Utah data center is the centerpiece of the Global Information Grid, a military project that will handle yottabytes of data, an amount so huge that there is no other data unit after it.” reports Gizmodo. “This center—with every listening post, spy satellite and NSA datacenter connected to it, will make the NSA the most powerful spy agency in the world.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/could-you-soon-be-charged-to-plug-into-public-outlets/

Could You Soon be Charged to Plug Into Public Outlets?
Posted on March 16, 2012 at 3:27pm by Liz Klimas Liz Klimas

Community power-up stations have been cropping up in public places like airports for years now. Conversations about public charging stations for electric vehicles is growing as well. But who is, or will, pay for this electricity? And what of “electrical theft?”  With these questions and energy conservation in mind, Sony has recently released prototype technology for an outlet that would recognize a user and charge them accordingly.



Sony developed two types of “authentification outlets,” which were announced last month, one that uses contactless IC card technology and one that authenticates via a cable power supply. With such an outlet, power would only be supplied to authenticated equipment.

Here’s what Sony said about the outlet:

     Once these “Authentication Outlets” are widely implemented, users will be able to authenticate the owners of electrical devices (e.g. home electric appliances, electrical vehicles), manage and consume electricity on a per-device basis in addition to authorizing their use, keep records of past electricity usage, and finally have the ability to be charged and then process payments for their electricity consumption by combining the aforementioned features with electronic money payments.



Watch this demonstration of the outlet from DigInfo TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_1Cmh_zhP2I

On a larger scale, it is described in the demonstration that the technology can also help avoid blackouts by switching off non-vital equipment when demand is about to exceed supply.

Ars Technica explains that Sony sees a future for this in preventing “electricity theft” in, for example, the common area of an apartment building. Ars Technica reports that there is no commercial release planned for this technology yet. An official states that the company will be in conversations with the power supply industry and other manufacturers to eventually bring this prototype to fruition.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
From a year and a half old thread...
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=187100.0

There is enough information in this one post to expose these psychopathic fear mongering control freaks who have called for the destruction of the constitution through the use of force, tyranny, deception, as well as "shock and awe" false flagging us. Then they are actually causing psychological torture with their mockingbird psyops. They admit it is to psychologically torture us in Club of Rome documents.

Google Teams Up With CIA to Fund "Recorded Future" Startup Monitoring Public
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_L_MoQxTuA

Investors at the CIA and Google are backing a company called "Recorded Future" that monitors tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts in real time in order to find patterns, events, and relationships that may predict the future. The news comes on amidst Google's so-called "Wi-Spy" scandal, that refers to revelations that Google's Street View cars operating in some 30 countries snooped on private WiFi networks over the last three years.

ALEX ON RT
Google and CIA working together to spy on you!! The New World Order is watching you!! PT. 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LreeawqyOlc


Welcome To Recorded Future
http://www.youtube.com/recordedfuture

Welcome to Recorded Future. This is a brief introduction that highlights our new interface and latest features. To learn more about Recorded Future's media analysis, temporal analytics and predictive tools check out https://www.recordedfuture.com/

"Be as cautious as you can, of course, for you know that as soon as you have anything like a kingdom, enchanters and conjurers will always drop in from all over Creation to take it away from you, naturally enough."
-Brion Gysin

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/mind-control-and-eugenics-redressing-natures-randomness-intolerant-of-uncertainty-in-human-behavior.html

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2008/06/mind-control-and-the-secret-state.html

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2007/06/mkultra_articho.html

MUST-READ: Hardcore Mind Control article from 1990 Playboy Magazine
-squarepusher
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=155533.0

MUST-READ: Hardcore Police State Article from 1974 - And How Vietnam Enabled It
-squarepusher
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=155130.0
That would be relevant if it was not used to justify more draconian control methods.

They want us to curcumvent their BS so they can then say "see the terrorists have found a way around our system so we need to plug it up". What needs to be exposed is the multiple levels of insanity inherent in this mind control grid. The situation we are currently in is that those who cannot be mind controlled are considered ENEMIES OF THE STATE.


Make anti-social behaviour 'abnormal'
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181665.0

HOLY HELL !!! MINORITY REPORT TECH NOW REAL !!!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=181192.0

The ENTIRE PLANET is being turned into an AUTONOMOUS ASSASSINATION GRID
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=176293.0

Creating a smart grid: GE Plan for total enslavement
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=28244.0

IBM SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS ARE ARCHITECTED TO COVER UP CONSPIRATORS IN FALSE FLAGS
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=175748.0

IBM: Transforming the military through Sense & Respond
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=176777.0

One Mainframe To Rule Them All - IBM & Verichip - The Human Microchipping Agenda
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=140642.0




Almost every single issue can now be traced to the cybernetics agenda!

Brzezinski is scared to death that you now know Cybernetics is the real agenda

Extremely Important--Also see:  Global Warming/Climate Change Agenda Is Geo-Cybernetics In Disguise



"(1) In an industrial society the mode of production shifts from agriculture to industry, with the use of human and animal muscle supplanted by machine operation. In the technetronic society industrial employment yields to services, with automation and cybernetics replacing the operation of machines by individuals."
_______________________________________________
"The national community is the obvious one to turn to, and a definition of what a national community is may well become more restrictive as broader transnational cooperation develops. For many peoples the nationstate was a compromise dictated by economics, by security, and by other factors. An optimum balance was eventually struck, often after centuries of conflict. Today the balance is becoming unsettled, because newer and larger frameworks of cooperation are emerging, and the effective integration of much smaller, more cohesive units into much larger wholes is becoming increasingly possible because of computers, cybernetics, communications, and so on."
_______________________________________________
"Solid work has been done by Soviet scholars, primarily in the area of technologicaleconomic forecasting. For example, in 1964 the Soviet philosophical journal, Voprosy Filosofii, began publishing a series of articles on the theme of "The ScientificTechnical Revolution and Its Social Consequences." On the whole, these articles have been serious and frequently very informative treatments of such subjects as the methodology of forecasting, the organizational problems of science in the context of the scientific explosion, the role of cybernetics, comparative analyses of scientific development and projections for the United States and the Soviet Union, to say nothing of more specifically Sovietoriented economic and technological prognoses." 23
_______________________________________________
"Technological adaptation would involve the transformation of the bureaucraticdogmatic party into a party of technocrats. Primary emphasis would be on scientific expertise, efficiency, and discipline. As has already happened in Ulbricht's East Germany, the party would be composed of scientific experts, trained in the latest techniques, capable of relying on cybernetics and computers for social control, and looking to scientific innovation for the preservation of Soviet security and industrial growth.  Nationalism would replace ideological dogmas as the basic integrative principle linking society and the state. The younger, more technologically oriented leaders of the military establishment would, in all probability, favour this pattern. Political leadership, as in the first variant, could remain collective, though it would probably involve a wider coalition of partystate militaryeconomic leaders."
_______________________________________________
"The example of Ulbricht's East Germany may become particularly relevant. Though in Rumania explorations of the scientific revolution's significance have led some communists to suggest that this revolution requires a new theoretical framework based on the principle of universality, 34 Ulbricht has attempted to combine scientific innovation with strict adherence to the LeninistStalinist ideological tradition. Political leadership has remained highly centralized, and ideological dissent has been firmly suppressed. At the same time, Ulbricht, perhaps more than any other communist leader, has emphasized that "the development of the socialist system, above all the implementation of the economic system as a whole, is to a growing extent a matter of scientific leadership. . . . We orient ourselves on the conscious scientific control of complex processes and systems by the people and for the people. We make use of cybernetics in this sense." 35

During the second half of the 1960s, East German leadership made an intense effort to rationalize economic management in order to combine lowerlevel initiative with an effective system of controls and coordination. The Seventh Party Congress (April 1967) set itself the task of developing a general conception of the relations between the various partsystems with the economic system as a whole;more than any other communist country, East Germany utilized cybernetics, operational research, and electronic data processing.  Two years later, at the April 1969 Central Committee Plenum, Politburo member Kurt Hager proudly reported—and he repeatedly used this formula—that East Germany was not only ideologically sound but "correctly programmed."

In line with this "correct programming," the party has emphasized the importance of expertise among its members, 36 and the educational system has been reformed in order to link science closely with industry. † By the late 1960s, East Germany had transformed itself from one of the most warravaged societies into the most economically and ideologically advanced scienceoriented communist state. After a fiftyyear lapse, the combination of Prussian discipline, German scientific efficiency, and LeninistStalinist ideology has thus again made German communism a model for its eastern neighbors.

In the Soviet Union, however, other considerations will in all likelihood impede the pace of a similar "technologization" of the Soviet political system. For one thing, the Soviet Union is a much bigger country, is more difficult to integrate, and has many more areas of socioeconomic backwardness to overcome. In addition, over the last fifty years the ruling party has developed its own traditions and ideological style, and though it favors the acquisition of technical skills by its officials, it is likely to continue to resist the development of an essentially technical orientation among its members, since that would dilute the importance attached to ideology. 37 Moreover, perhaps intensified in the years to come by the SinoSoviet dispute, the role of the security factor in policymaking and of the military in the political process might tend to increase."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942369,00.html

By HP-TIME.COM;EDWIN WARNER
Monday, Oct. 12, 1970

"Contemporary America is often described—especially by the young—as a reactionary country. But in the opinion of Zbigniew Brzezinski, professor of government at Columbia University, the only revolution worth talking about these days is an American one—and it has not been run by the New Left. Brzezinski calls it the technetronic revolution. In Between Two Ages he discusses the repercussions of rapid change from an industrial era—with its emphasis on sheer productivity—to a period that stresses services, automation and cybernetics. Being that rarity among futurists, a cautious man, Brzezinski is not sure if utopia or bedlam will result. Meanwhile, between two ages is a time of uncertainty and some guarded hope.

Whatever military and political reverses it may have suffered, the U.S. is plunging ahead in the realm of technology and dragging the rest of the world with it. Such progress—if that is what it is—largely results from the fact that the U.S. spends more on scientific education and research than any other nation; it has indeed drained the world of the brains needed for its technical endeavors. "What makes America unique in our time," Brzezinski writes, "is that confrontation with the new is part of the daily American experience. For better or for worse, the rest of the world learns what is in store for it by observing what happens in the United States: whether it be the latest scientific discoveries in space and medicine or the electric toothbrush in the bathroom; pop art or LSD; air conditioning or air pollution; old-age problems or juvenile delinquency."

Polish-born Brzezinski has something of the pride of an adopted son in such achievements, though he recognizes that in some ways the U.S. is its own worst enemy. For the technetronic revolution it exports causes profound disturbances in the less developed nations. Suddenly aware of material progress, they conspicuously and maddeningly lack the means to achieve it. Their acute frustration causes not a revolution in rising expectations, says Brzezinski, but a "specter of insatiable aspirations."

Just as the technetronic revolution has further divided rich from poor nations, so is it beginning to fracture the nation-state. But the result of the breakup is not likely to lead to One World. Brzezinski amends Marshall Mc-Luhan's thesis that the world is shrinking into a "global village." A village implies shared tradition and intimacy. Today's technetronic world resembles rather a "global city—a nervous, agitated, tense, and fragmented web of interdependent relations." To recover some sense of identity, people are desperately turning back to their origins in race or region.

Flood of Technocrats. The New American Revolution, according to Brzezinski, is also fragmenting the mind of man. More than ever before, society is rigidly divided between those who think and those who feel. On the one side are the quiet, methodical technocrats who run the new machines pretty much without questioning their aims.On the other are the emotionalists, who have rebelled against the dehumanization of computer society.

Brzezinski harbors a good deal of contempt for what he calls the "new class" of alienated students and those intellectuals of the "Violent Left" who feel superfluous to society and for that reason want to bring the whole thing down. Paradoxically, he fears fellow technocrats even more than the New Left. Goaded mercilessly from the left, often deficient in traditional humanitarian values, a New Right of technocrats might eventually seize power. Unlike the left, they would know how to use it. To forestall such a disaster, Brzezinski strives for a formula that will fuse together the divided halves of the American soul. Lacking confidence in liberalism—partly because it lacks confidence in itself—Brzezinski proposes a kind of participatory democracy in which government, private business and the academic world join hands to solve the nation's social problems.

This limited solution, not so very different from a number of New Left panaceas, scarcely bears the weight of Brzezinski's earlier complaint. Like so many analysts, he is better at stating the problem thin supplying an answer. But, as he sees it, the problem may just turn out to be the answer. For if the miracles of technology have fragmented the world, they have made man more humble in the face of his own awesome creations. As Brzezinski suggests, man can no longer subscribe to one all-encompassing ideology; he must tolerate the existence of several world views. Between Two Ages is rich in respect for variety. Proposing neither to predict nor control the future, Brzezinski brilliantly explores some of its options and suggests that they can perhaps be lived with. These days that is a comforting view.

Edwin Warner



Napolitano Bombshell:

"We track every single thing you do on the Internet"


Napolitano:
Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Fake Homegrown Terrorism

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/napolitano-internet-monitoring-needed-fight-homegrown-terrorism/
Published June 18, 2010 | Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens [This is a lie, the CIA recruits American citizens. Terrorists do not recruit shit, anyone not an American who even sneazes "allah akbar" is tracked 24/7 (also illegally). And if they interact with any American citizen it is because the CIA wants that interaction to occur], the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. [THIS IS EXACTLY THE HITLER, BUSH, MAO, STALIN DOCTRINE!]

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training [This is a lie of the highest degree. The top 100 sites used for so called recruiting are run out of Langley, 10 Downing Street, or Tel Aviv. Everybody knows this, is she trying to completely discredit herself?]. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents. [Another lie, just because they initiated Project Northwoods which is so obvious with the Chistmas Underwear Intelligence Op and the Times Square Drill does not mean they can use their own false flag black ops to force us into burning the constitution]

"The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet," Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. [Has she completely lost her f**king mind? What? What the hell do they have to do with each other? And why has terrorism grown while we have spent over $5 Trillion on exterminating over 1 million so called terrorists while raping another million, maiming many millions, and causing massive exoduses. And all this time causing PTSD and radiation in over a million soldiers, causing over 20,000 dead soldiers through the battlefield or by damaging their minds so much that they end up committing suicide. After all the world gave to this massive undertaking we are supposed to believe that so calld terrorism by random nuts increased? How is this even possible? Do you think maybe there is some other hidden agenda going on? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2502830637471895940]

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

The administration has faced a number of civil liberties and privacy challenges in recent months as it has tried to increase airport security by adding full-body scanners, or track suspected terrorists traveling into the United States from other countries.

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists. [So the slave Napolitano was not enough for the banksters, Rothschild ordered AP to add that cherry of a comment. Hey Rothschild, we know that both Fort Hood and Times Square were protected patsies by the Terrorist Industrial Complex and that it is funded by Bilderberg and acts on behalf of Bilderberg. Bilderberg had the largest motive for the Fort Hood massacre and then ran the 24/7 psyops about so called Homegrown Terrorism and the evil Internet. Thanks for confirming this "kill the Internet" motive.]

And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people's privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss -- such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
[THEY HAD THESE RAPE SCANNERS AT THE AIRPORT HE FLEW OUT OF! UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE KENNEDY EXPLAINED IN A LIVE PRESS CONFERENCE THAT HE WAS PUT ON THE PLANE EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND HAD NO PASSPORT BY A US INTELLIGENCE OFFICER!!!! THESE RAPE SCANNERS CANNOT STOP THE CIA FROM CONDUCTING FALSE FLAGS!!!]


He is accused of trying to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear, but the explosives failed, and only burned Abdulmutallab.

U.S. officials, said Napolitano, have worked to institute a number of restrictions on the scanners' use in order to minimize that. The scans cannot be saved or stored on the machines by the operator, and Transportation Security Agency workers can't have phones or cameras that could capture the scan when near the machine. [These scanners are controlled by NRO, she has no power whatsoever on what they do. What a joke]



NSA Must Examine
All Internet Traffic
to Prevent Cyber Nine-Eleven, Top Spy Says


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/01/feds-must-exami/
By Ryan Singel   January 15, 2008  |  9:55 am

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/01/feds-must-exami/#ixzz0rUmRfZgY

The nation’s top spy, Michael McConnell, thinks the threat of cyberarmageddon! is so great that the U.S. government should have unfettered and warrantless access to U.S. citizens’ Google search histories, private e-mails and file transfers, in order to spot the cyberterrorists in our midst. That’s according to a sprawling 18-page story on the Director of National Intelligence by Lawrence Wright in the January 21 edition of the New Yorker. (The story is not online). In the piece, McConnell returns, in flamboyant style, to his exaggerating ways, hyping threats and statistics to further his bureaucratic aims. For example, McConnell regurgitates the hoary myth that computer crime costs America $100 billion a year. THREAT LEVEL traced down the source of that fake-factoid in September to a former privacy officer for the state of Colorado. Presumably using unsupported stats like that, in May 2007 McConnell convinced President Bush that a massive cyber-attack on a single U.S. bank would be worse for the economy than than the deadly terrorist attacks of September 11, the article reports. In response, the NSA developed a mind-boggling, but still incomplete, plan to eavesdrop on the internet in order to protect it.

In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.’" It says something ominous about McConnell’s priorities if he believes a DDOS attack on Bank of America, or even a computer intrusion that wiped out its database (and magically purged its backup tapes), would be worse than an attack that killed 3,000 Americans. Still, it’s hardly a surprising plan — given that McConnell was one of the main backers of the Clipper Chip, the government’s failed, early 1990’s proposal to put a backdoor in every encryption product. McConnell also makes an astounding assertion that the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently crippled the NSA’s overseas signals intelligence collection with a string of soft-on-terror rulings.  McConnell said that federal judges had recently decided, in a series of secret rulings, that any telephone transmission or e-mail that incidentally flowed into U.S. computer systems was potentially subject to judicial oversight. According to McConnell the capacity of the NSA to monitor foreign-based communications had consequently been reduced by seventy per cent. In other words, McConnell claims the NSA couldn’t intercept a terrorist’s e-mail by tapping a fiber optic cable in Pakistan, if there was a chance the message would pass through a U.S. router or end up in a Hotmail account. I’m no rich man, but I’ll bet any reader $1,000 that, when and if those rulings are ever released, we’ll see they say no such thing. Send me an e-mail to take me up this bet. U.S. government officials are welcome to participate. The FISA law that created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court only applies to intercepts that physically happen within the borders of the United States. The NSA has always been free to intercept foreign communications overseas — the mission for which they were created and funded — even if the call passes through a U.S. switch.

So in the case of the now debunked Iraqi kidnappers anecdote that leads off the New Yorker story, the NSA would only have needed to get a court order if its Iraqi targets initiated communications that flowed through U.S. servers or switches and the NSA decided to tap them physically at a United States internet or telecom facility, by burglarizing it, digging up its cables or getting the company to cooperate. (As for why that happens and how common it is, check my story: NSA’s Lucky Break: How the U.S. Became the Switchboard to the World.) Simply put, the FISA law is intended to prevent the NSA from operating inside the United States. In any event, that restriction collapsed this summer with the fear-induced, strong-armed passage of the so-called Protect America Act. That law radically re-architected the nation’s surveillance apparatus. Now the NSA can turn Gmail’s servers and AT&T’s switches into de facto arms of the surveillance industrial complex without any court oversight.

And though the law ostensibly sunsets in February, any orders in effect at that time will have power for another 12 months. Moreover, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is reportedly planning to discard legislative attempts to rein in these new powers and will instead simply push to extend the current scheme another 12 months. In short, McConnell’s politically convenient exaggerations have already worked well for him in winning domestic spying powers, despite their flimsiness under any real scrutiny. That track record bodes ill for anyone concerned about his new plans to push for sweeping and unnecessary powers to put the NSA in the wires of the internet in order to prevent a computer attacks. The Wall Street Journal’s intelligence guru Siobhan Gorman’s take is here. Gorman wrote a groundbreaking story on the cyberspace initiative last September while at The Baltimore Sun.

UPDATE: Ex-spook Michael Tanji guest-posting over at Danger Room writes:

It’s bad enough that the Director of National Intelligence is trotting out a bogus threat so the government can snoop on all Internet traffic.  What’s worse is that this kind of mass surveillance is a pretty lame way to catch the honest-to-God bad guys.  Of more interest to observers of intelligence activities is the issue of quality vs. quantity and the slow creep towards doom that these efforts foretell. The fact that we are essentially attempting to gill-net bad guys is a fairly strong indicator that the intelligence community has yet to come up with an effective strategy against information-age threats. [...] Its not a question of listening in to you whispering sweet nothings into the ear to your significant other, it is simply a case of – as the late Sam Kinison joked – going where the food is. That our intelligence agencies can intercept adversary communications is largely a given, they just want to do it from the convenience of the homeland, not some remote switch in the darkest hinterlands.

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/01/feds-must-exami/#ixzz0rUmbXKjz
_________________________________
Cyberwar Doomsayer Lands $34 Million in Government Cyberwar Contracts
By Ryan Singel   April 13, 2010  |  6:04 pm

Read More http://webmonkey.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/booz-allen/#ixzz0rUmmg9io



Last month, the former Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell boldly took to the Senate floor and the Washington Post’s editorial page to declare “The United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing.” Thankfully for the American people, his company — the giant defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton — has now landed the contract to build the Pentagon’s cyberwar control center. For a measly $14.4 million in taxpayer money, the outfit will help build a new cyberwar bunker for the U.S. Cyber Command.

Read More http://webmonkey.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/booz-allen/#ixzz0rUmxlFpw



Additionally, Booz Allen Hamilton won another contract for $20 million to “foster collaboration among telecommunications researchers, University of Maryland faculty members and other academic institutions to improve secure networking and telecommunications and boost information assurance,” Washington Technology reports. While that might sound like a lot of money to set up a mailing list and a wiki, please don’t be cynical. Undoubtedly, McConnell’s crack team of consultants are providing the researchers with around-the-clock bodyguards and state-of-the-art bullet-proof monitors. Meanwhile, we urge U.S. netizens to refrain from un-patriotic musings that McConnell intentionally uses fear and exaggerated rhetoric to land these kinds of contracts for his company and instead, be vigilant and keep their eyes out for signs of Chinese hackers (one telltale sign is a “Made in China” label on the bottom of your laptop). Otherwise you might soon find yourself facing a Red Screen of Death (RSOD), making you just one more casualty in this tragic cyberwar we Americans are all bravely enduring as one nation united.

Read More http://webmonkey.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/booz-allen/#ixzz0rUn8lKi8


Quotes from the movie Edge of Darkness with Mel Gibson....

Spook: ...I know you don't smoke. I saw your DARPA file, and that's my way of telling you - you've got a DARPA file.

MG: You gonna tell me what that is?

Spook: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Their slogan is "scientia est potentia", and I know you know latin.

DARPA's slogan is "Knowledge is POWER".

Scientia Est Potentia (Knowledge Is Power)
http://www.bdragon.com/lair/2002/11/14_scientia_est_potentia_knowl/

    I'm sorry... but aren't you WORRIED yet...???!!! You should be:

    If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:
    Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database." To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you -- passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance -- and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen. This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks. This is not fiction, and it is no longer something you can afford to disregard - the freedoms that we've cherished for so long in this country are being ripped out from under your feet. Don't think it doesn't matter to you, that it won't affect you - because by the time it does, it will be too late to do a thing about it.

Thread about DARPA's recent news: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=174241.msg1035568#msg1035568


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

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
From EFF.ORG

New FBI Documents Provide Details on Government’s Surveillance Spyware

Commentary by Jennifer Lynch

EFF recently received documents from the FBI that reveal details about the depth of the agency's electronic surveillance capabilities and call into question the FBI's controversial effort to push Congress to expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) for greater access to communications data.
The documents we received were sent to us in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we filed back in 2007 after Wired reported on evidence that the FBI was able to use “secret spyware” to track the source of e-mailed bomb threats against a Washington state high school. The documents discuss a tool called a "web bug" or a "Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier" (CIPAV), which seems to have been in use since at least 2001.

What is CIPAV and How Does It Work?
The documents discuss technology that, when installed on a target's computer, allows the FBI to collect the following information:

    * IP Address
    * Media Access Control (MAC) address
    * "Browser environment variables"
    * Open communication ports
    * List of the programs running
    * Operating system type, version, and serial number
    * Browser type and version
    * Language encoding
    * The URL that the target computer was previously connected to
    * Registered computer name
    * Registered company name
    * Currently logged in user name
    * Other information that would assist with "identifying computer users, computer software installed, [and] computer hardware installed"

It's not clear from the documents how the FBI deploys the spyware, though Wired has reported that, in the Washington state case, the FBI may have sent a URL via MySpace's internal messaging, pointing to code that would install the spyware by exploiting a vulnerability in the user's browser. Although the documents discuss some problems with installing the tool in some cases, other documents note that the agency's Crypto Unit only needs 24-48 hours to prepare deployment. And once the tool is deployed, "it stays persistent on the compromised computer and . . . every time the computer connects to the Internet, [FBI] will capture the information associated with the PRTT [Pen Register/Trap & Trace Order].

Where Has CIPAV Been Used and What Legal Process Does the FBI Rely On to Use It?

It is clear from the documents we received that the FBI—and likely other federal agencies—have used this tool a lot. According the documents, the FBI has used CIPAV in cases across the country—from Denver, El Paso, and Honolulu in 2005; to Philadelphia, California, and Houston in 2006; to Cincinnati and Miami in 2007. In fact, one stack of documents we received consists entirely of requests from FBI offices around the country to the agency's Cryptologic and Electronic Analysis Unit ("CEAU") for help installing the device.

The FBI has been using the tool in domestic criminal investigations as well as in FISA cases, and the FISA Court appears to have questioned the propriety of the tool. Other agencies, and even other countries have shown interest in the tool, indicating its effectiveness. Emails from 2006 discuss interest from the Air Force, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations, while another email from 2007 discusses interest from the German government.

The FBI's Crypto Unit appears to have viewed the CIPAV as a proprietary tool. In one email, an agent grumbled, "we are seeing indications that [CIPAV] is being used needlessly by some agencies, unnecessarily raising difficult legal questions (and a risk of suppression without any countervailing benefit)." In another email, an agent stated, "I am weary [sic] to just hand over our tools to another Gov't agency without any oversight or protection for our tool/technique."And a third email noted, "[w]e never discuss how we collect the [data CIPAV can collect] in the warrants/affidavits or with case agents. AUSAs, squad supervisors, outside agencies, etc."

It appears from the documents that the FBI wasn't sure what legal process to seek to authorize use of the spyware device. Some emails discuss trying to use a "trespasser exception" to get around a warrant, while others discuss telling the AUSA (government attorney) to cite to the "All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)."And one email suggests some agents thought the tool required no legal process at all. In that email, the FBI employee notes he considers the tool to be "consensual monitoring without need for process; in my mind, no different than sitting in a chat room and tracking participants' on/off times; or for that matter sitting on P2P networks and finding out who is offering KP."

Eventually, the FBI seems to have sought a legal opinion on the proper use of the tool, both from the Office of General Counsel and from the National Security Law Branch, and ultimately, the agency seems to have settled on a "two-step request" process for CIPAV deployments -- a search warrant to authorize intrusion into the computer, and then a subsequent Pen/Trap order to authorize the surveillance done by the spyware.

What Does This Mean for the FBI's Push for New Back Doors into Our Internet Communications?
Over the past few months, we've heard a lot from the FBI about its need to expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a law that that requires all telecommunications and broadband providers to be technically capable of complying with an intercept order. Federal law enforcement officials have argued that under current regulations they can't get the information they need and want to expand CALEA to apply to communications systems like Gmail, Skype, and Facebook. However, these documents show the FBI already has numerous tools available to surveil suspects directly, rather than through each of their communications service providers. One heavily redacted email notes that the FBI has other tools that "provide the functionality of the CIPAV [text redacted] as well as provide other useful info that could help further the case."Another email notes that CIPAVs are used in conjunction with email intercepts, perhaps using similar spyware-type tools. If the FBI already has endpoint surveillance-based tools for internet wiretapping, it casts serious doubt on law enforcement's claims of "going dark."

A device that remains "persistent" on a "compromised computer" is certainly concerning. However, if the FBI obtains a probable cause-based court order before installing tools like CIPAV, complies with the minimization requirements in federal wiretapping law by limiting the time and scope of surveillance, and removes the device once surveillance concludes, the use of these types of targeted tools for Internet surveillance would be a much more narrowly tailored solution to the FBI’s purported problems than the proposal to undermine every Internet user's privacy and security by expanding CALEA. We will continue to report on both the FBI's use of endpoint surveillance tools and on the agency's push to expand CALEA as more documents come in.

[Documents and References - More on EFF.ORG...]

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

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The Story of the Millennium:
The A.G.I. Manhattan Project
Are you ready for the future?

http://agimanhattanproject.com/index.html

What does this man mean by becoming "gods", and has his war already begun?

What is AGI, and how large is the effort to make it happen? Will humans as we know ourselves today remain the dominant species on the planet in the near future? Why did the economic meltdown occur? Can we look forward to a future of economic prosperity? What do we have to fear, and what don't we? What does the War on Terror have in common with Global Warming? What will government look like in the near future? Are we becoming slaves, and how can we be empowered like never before? What is the true struggle of the 21st Century? What are the dangers of emerging technology?

These are just some of the realities and implications you're about to discover, and the AGI Manhattan Project is the key to it all.

Part 1: The AGI Manhattan Project
Page last updated: 7/15/2010


First we must establish the what the AGI Manhattan Project is, and what is is about.

Radical life extension and cognitive augmentation are the overarching goals of the technological establishment. These types of advances are each aspects of the growing movement known as "Transhumanism", where the goals is to modify humans using various technologies to transform into a dominant new species of "posthumans". They literally believe they'll be able to live for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and have superior cognitive and physical abilities by utilizing various emerging technologies such as biotechnology and nanotechnology. 
The first and foremost "holy grail" in this overall effort is Strong AI, aka Artificial General Intelligence. The world is full of AI: from video games to the stock market. But these AI's are "narrow" in ability. AGI refers to a "general" intelligence. Generally intelligent, not narrowly. Human level and beyond intelligence would greatly accelerate their other technological goals kicking off what they call the "Technological Singularity".

Regardless of whether or not you believe this to be possible they're actively doing it. Regardless of whether or not you agree they're taxing you to do it. There is absolutely no debate or refutation to this fact whatsoever. This isn't even to say their dreams are possible, but they're trying with all of their might (and your money) to do it. It's right on public military websites, and in video statements by the higher ups and even heads of top tech corporations. The New York Times even recently did a piece, titled "Merely Human? That’s So Yesterday", that championed Ray Kurzweil, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Peter A. Thiel, Peter H. Diamandis and Keith Kleiner as being at the forefront of the Singularian Movement. The Singularity University, located at NASA's Ames Research Center, is their epicenter.

Perhaps most importantly, especially considering how if they succeed it would be undoubtedly the biggest event in human history, and most potentially devastating, with almost no chance of turning back, it's all happening without an ounce of public discourse or debate.

This overall effort openly involves virtually every government agency and department, every branch of military, which are all funded by Congress, and led by the administrations of both George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. It also involves the projects and supercomputers at literally all major all national laboratories, along with virtually all national universities, and all of the above tied in with the majority of the crony heads of the top technology corporations.

The Intelligence Industrial Complex
In July of 2010, the Washington Post unveiled "Top Secret America", a massive 2 year investigative journalism story with an interactive presentation detailing the post-9/11 security and intelligence apparatus. Their investigation into this realm of the Military Industrial Complex uncovered some 1,271 government organizations, 1,931 private companies in about 10,000 locations, an estimated 854,000 contractors holding top-secret security clearances,  all working on programs related to counter-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence  across the United States. In Washington, and the surrounding area 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.

All of that based on the premise of stopping Al Qaeda. Now 100% of the above wouldn't be exactly be specifically about building AGI, but that is the overall security and domestic spying apparatus. What their massive report didn't tabulate is the direct AGI Manhattan Project efforts being conducted primarily by DARPA, NASA, NIST and the NSF.

DARPA

The Pentagons mad science coordination division, aka Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), sits at the top of this dragnet of science research & development (R&D) gathering. Enter the heart of science pyramid... the AGI Manhattan Project.

DARPA is the lead agency. They are both the capstone, and the foundation. They coordinate national labs & universities, companies and corporations, and agencies with all branches of military. Their scientific "thrusts" run the entire gauntlet of transhumanism related efforts, from cybernetics to life extension to next-gen Skynet level artificially intelligent cognitive computers. They direct the R&D to the most appropriate groups and institutions, and then help orchestrate systems wide integration upon completion.

To cite all relevant quotes from their various programs could take half a book. At this juncture there's only space to list and link the programs, which are basically all modules of the same goal:
Architectures for Cognitive Information Processing (ACIP), Biologically-Inspired Cognitive Architectures (BICA), Omnipresent High Performance Computing (OHPC), Real-World Reasoning (REAL), Cognitive Assistant that Learns (CALO), Deep Green (DG), Cognitive Information Processing Technology, Physical intelligence (PI), NetTrack (NT), Bootstrapped Learning (BL), Deep Learning, Integrated Learning (IL), Transfer Learning (TL), Accelerated Learning, Machine Reading (MR), Robustness of Biologically-Inspired Networks (RoBIN), Ubiquitous High Performance Computing (UHPC), Neurotechnology for Intelligence Analysts, Bio-Molecular Nano-Devices/Systems (MOLDICE), Biomimetic Computing, RealNose, Towards a Unification of Inference, Reasoning and Learning, Global Autonomous Language Exploitation (GALE), Self-Regenerative Systems (SRS), and Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics (SyNAPSE).

This video was made using all government / military quotes and imagery.

It's very difficult to even attempt to place budget figures on DARPA. They have their budget, as well as their cousins IARPA & HSARPA, while a lot of work by NASA, the NSF is in lockstep, not to mention military black budgets and secretive CIA & DIA budgets.

Funding for virtually every aspect of government agendas has hardly even decreased, while many areas have seen increases. The unique thing about DARPA is they aren't limited by their budget alone.

NASA

Singularity University, Intelligent Archives (IA), Intelligent Systems, High-End Computing Capability (HECC), Integrated Systems Research, Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Cognitive Sciences, and a dizzying array of other complex projects in those research areas. One project in particular stands out here:

NASA's "Planetary Skin" program seeks to build a "global nervous system" network of sensors to monitor the entire planet, with all nations hooked into the system. It's being sold on over-hyped Global Warming alarmism, and it intends to help the global management of resources, building a new carbon based economy. Watch the video. By its very nature it's the ultimate act of high treason, a total stampede over national privacy and sovereignty, that's costing us $100 million in it's initial phase.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Adaptive Systems Technology (AST), Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI), Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS), Emerging Frontiers (EF), Core BIO Investments, Adaptive Systems Technology (AST), Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS), Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law, Cyber-physical Systems, Cognitive Engineering, Mapping the Brain in Time and Space, Cognitive Engineering,

NNI

One good example of virtually every government agency working in lockstep towards the Technological Singularity is the National Nanotechnology Initiative. The following institutions are all coordinated under the NNI, by the cabinet level National Science and Technology Council (NSTC):
Bureau of Industry and Security, Consumer Product Safety Commission,USDA, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), Army Engineering R&D Center, Army Research Laboratory (ARL), Army Research Office (ARO), DARPA, Defense Research & Engineering (DDR&E), Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, EPA, FDA, Forest Service, US Intelligence Community, U.S. International Trade Commission, NIH, NIST, NASA, NSF, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Patent and Trademark Office and the US Geological Survey.



NBIC Conference

Another prime example of the system wide drive for the Singularity is a 2001 conference organized by the Dept. of Commerce and the NSF, which produced a 482 page document titled "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance". It had representatives and speakers from the following institutions:

The White House, National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Commerce, Newt Gingrich, NASA, National Institutes of Health, Hewlet Packard, Institute for Global Futures, National Science and Technology Councils Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology (NSET), IBM, Raytheon, Lucent, University of California, Stanford University, Sandia National Labs, Brandeis University, MIT, University of Washington, University of Strathclyde, Tissue Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, University of Louisville, NYU Medical School, University of Calgary, Duke University, University of Texas, UCSB, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Carnegie Melon University, Department of Defense, DARPA, Naval Research Laboratory, Defense For Research, New England Complex Systems Institute, University of Virginia, University of Maryland, Institute of Nanotechnology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Commission on the Future of Aerospace, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, The EPA, Department of Chemistry, Princeton Materials Institute …

The goal of the meeting wasn't merely to promote the 4 "NBIC" technologies:

"Four transforming tools have emerged: nanotechnology for hardware, biotechnology for dealing with living systems, information technology for communication and control, and cognition-based technologies to enhance human abilities and collective behavior."

Instead it was about structuring collaborative research to promote the converging of the 4 revolutionary science paradigms into an all new form of substrate. The goal being eventually to create and merge humans with new forms of synthetic "life", to become "Post Humans", and to merge humans into a brain implant enabled "hive mind" (that's a quote):

Hive Mind
If we can easily exchange large chunks of knowledge and are connected by high-bandwidth communication paths, the function an d purpose served by individuals becomes unclear. Individuals have served to keep the gene pool stirred up and healthy via s exual reproduction, but this data-handling process would no longer necessarily be linked to individuals. With knowledge no longer encapsulated in individuals, the distinction between individuals and the entirety of humanity would blur. Think Vulcan mind-meld. We would perhaps become more of a hive mind —an enormous, single, intelligent entity.

Singularity University
Another choice example of cross-sector collaboration to construct the Singularity, is the Singularity University, which is housed at none other than the NASA Ames Reserch Center (ARC), in Silicon Vally. It's partners include Google, ePlanet, Autodesk, Motorola, FIAP, Steelcase, 23andMe, Canon, LinkedIn, Wordpress, KurzweilAI, University of California, Stanford and others.

Google
Google was the primary institution behind the Singularity University, which is no surprise considering Google's co-founders have repeatedly stated on the record that they intend to develop AI that in their words "would be like the mind of God", which by default would be AGI. AGI is in effect the first sentence on their corporate philosophy page. Their mission statement is to gather and organize all of the worlds information (literally all of it), and their statements are for their machine to understand all it it better than you or I ever could. This includes every book, scientific paper, web page, email, instant message, news & magazine article,      ever written by humans that they can manage to get their hands on. It also includes images, user made videos (not even only those posted on YouTube), every movie and TV show ever recorded.

GOOGLE GODzilla from IIB IIF on Vimeo.
From there, Google is rapidly expanding into the phone and soon to be TV markets. While the TV side will only let them spy on you as well as the TV can, the phone market gives them real time GPS tracking with audio & camera monitoring. They're on the record saying they already monitor everyone via their PC microphones, and it doesn't end there. Google’s model from the ground up is in building what they call “the mind of god”, knowing and "understanding everything in the world", and in this pursuit they’re connected to the government and military to the core. The Google Boys truly are brilliant, as they’ve designed their system and all of their products to make the system smarter every time all of their users use them. Meaning, every time you use their ‘free’ services, and things like their phones, you help bring their “mind of god” scenario closer to reality. It's important to note that Google has a 1.2 million square foot research complex leased on NASA's ARC, which is a borderline military facility. The main Googleplex HQ is almost literally next door neighbors of the ARC, and they use it to land their corporate and private aircraft. Google was a NASA / DARPA / NSF / CIA funded startup, and today they're openly partnered with the NSA which has an open record of spying on the U.S. populace.


Google is but one corporate example.

Apple
Apple recently purchased a DARPA AGI-precursor pet project named "Siri" (PAL / CALO), for a cool $200 million. They didn't actually buy it from DARPA, instead they bought it from Stanford Research Institute (SRI) who DARPA paid $150 million to make. That's right, US taxpayers paid SRI $150 million to then turn around and sell the product to Apple for another $200 million, while themselves keeping what they need to build even more powerful AI in less time.

IBM
While Google is at the AGI forefront in software, IBM is leading the AGI renaissance in revolutionary hardware and mammalian brain simulation. Projects range from their Blue Brain to DARPA's SyNAPSE (as explained by them in the video above). IBM's Almaden Research Center is a major hub in AGI coordination where they host annual conferences for AGI luminaries to have a gathering of the minds.

Intel
When talking about hardware don't leave out Intel. The Singularity is the passion of their CTO, as he explains in the video above and countless others. They're even working on brain implants, perhaps to help Google reach their dream of everyone having Google built into their brains.

HP
Hewlet Packard's 10 year "Central Nervous System for the Earth" (CeNSE) program is likely the inspiration behind NASA's Planetary Skin. They seem to have been in the lead of their own little realm of AGI Panopticon, while the other bigshot corporations take care of the rest of its aspects.

Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, Yahoo, Sun, and endless others are also lockstep in the AGI Manhattan Project, all envious of Google's leading role. It needs to be noted that federal funding budgets don't include the funding allocated by these corporations themselves, or other outsiders, making assessing the true funding of the AGI Manhattan Project virtually impossible, but just going by non-secretive federal budget numbers it's in the billions annually, not to mention parallel efforts in the UK & EU.


Congress
The 110th U.S. Congress, released a report on the Singularity, in 2007:

Every exponential curve eventually reaches a point where the growth rate becomes almost infinite. This point is often called the Singularity. If technology continues to advance at exponential rates, what happens after 2020? Technology is likely to continue, but at this stage some observers forecast a period at which scientific advances aggressively assume their own momentum and accelerate at unprecedented levels, enabling products that today seem like science fiction. Beyond the Singularity, human society is incomparably different from what it is today. Several assumptions seem to drive predictions of a Singularity. The first is that continued material demands and competitive pressures will continue to drive technology forward. Second, at some point artificial intelligence advances to a point where computers enhance and accelerate scientific discovery and technological change. In other words, intelligent machines start to produce discoveries that are too complex for humans. Finally, there is an assumption that solutions to most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved by technology, if not by us, then by the computers we eventually develop.

Obama

While the AGI Manhattan Project really came to being under Bush (the "Christian"), Obama has brought it out of the lab and into his house. Obama, who likes to talk about innovation in technological revolutions, put one Zachary Lemnios as DoD Director of Defense Research & Engineering. This guy helped setup DARPA’s IPTO to spearhead the type of AI you see in the movies.

“America risks being left behind in the global economy: Revolutionary advances in information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology and other fields are reshaping the global economy. Without renewed efforts, the United States risks losing leadership in science, technology and innovation.”

That's what Obama's campaign website said the day he was elected (which is completely removed now). The “Revolutionary” advances he’s talking about are Artificial General Intelligence (“information technology”), genetic engineering / synthetic biology & designer babies (“biotechnology”), and too much in terms of nanotechnology to sound-byte like the others. The “other fields” he mentioned is almost certainly the other field he didn’t mention, cognitive sciences.

Google is at the forefront of this thing, with as deep of governmental integration as is possible (literally), including today with agents embedded in the Obama administration. Google CEO Eric Schmidt and their "Chief Internet Evangelist" Vint Cerf were on Obama's campaign team, and campaigned with him on the Obama jet, and was then immediately appointed 'Special Economic Adviser' on a panel of Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs henchmen. Today he sits on Obama's President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. Google managers and employees were some of the strongest supporters of candidate Obama, donating around $803,000 to his presidential campaign, according to the website OpenSecrets.org. Among corporate employees, only staffers at Goldman Sachs and Microsoft gave more.
...
Google's fingerprints are visible on a broad new report on the future of the Internet and information commissioned by the Knight Foundation and the Aspen Institute. The paper calls for greater broadband deployments and "open-access policies." FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and the administration's chief technology officer, Aneesh Chopra, praised the report, saying it would guide Obama's web policy. The co-chair of the commission that wrote the report? Google vice president Marissa Mayer.

Read my lips: 'No Lobbyists In My Administration'! Some other Google agents in the Obama administration include Sonal Shah, Sumit Agarwal, Andrew McLaughlin and formerly Katie Jacobs Stanton.

Ray Kurzweil is essentially the messiah of the transhumanist movement, and in 2007 he did a double-header keynote speech with Obama in front of United Church of Christ in Hartford, Connecticut.

Al Gore

At the SC09 (Supercomputing 2009) conference, Gore, the main keynote speaker at the event, in his speech titled "Building Solutions - Energy, Climate and Computing for a Changing World", to an audience of 11,000 top technologists and technocrats, he argued that 'supercomputing' will save us from Global Warming.  This wouldn't be the first time he's implied supercomputers will be our savior. In 2005, in front of nearly 2,000 technologists and technocrats, at Stanford's Memorial Auditorium, Al Gore had then also appealed to massive supercomputers as being the savior from global warming. The audience was filled with Silicon Valley luminaries: Apple's Steve Jobs; Google's Larry Page and Eric Schmidt; Internet godfather Vint Cerf; Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang; venture capitalists John Doerr, Bill Draper, and Vinod Khosla; former Clinton administration defense secretary William Perry; and a cross section of CEOs, startup artists, techies, tinkerers, philanthropists, and investors of every political and ethnic stripe.

The goal: to enlist the assembled leaders in finding market-driven, technological solutions to global warming and then, in quintessential Silicon Valley style, to rapidly disseminate their ideas and change the world. "I need your help here," an emotional Gore pleaded at the end of the evening. "Working together, we can find the technologies and the political will to solve this problem." The crowd fell hard. "People were surprised," says Wendy Schmidt, who helped organize the event and, with her husband, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, supported Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

Ever since Al "lost" the 2000 election, he's been serving on the Senior Board of Directors at Google, as well as at Apple Computer since 2003. The 1986 “National Science Foundation Authorization Act”, which was, in part, for the establishment of a global warming policy. What’s typically overlooked is the 2nd part of that same Act that was for the drive for the NSF/DARPA “supercomputing” program. Then, only 2 years later, in 1988, Gore authored legislation to:

“ESTABLISH A HIGH-CAPACITY NATIONAL RESEARCH COMPUTER NETWORK, DEVELOP AND DISTRIBUTE SOFTWARE, DEVELOP ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS“

Al also campaigned for U.S. President that year, and according to him, his main goal of that campaign was more about increasing awareness of global warming than it was about actually winning.

Today Google enjoys perhaps the deepest government integration in history, with their primary operations being centered around AGI, and Apple just recently bought DARPA's 'Skynet precursor' from SRI. Until 2009, Eric Schmidt sat on Apple's Board of Directors with Al Gore, both of whom were implicated in a 2006 stock options backtrading scandal with Steve Jobs.

Newt Gingrich

Decades ago he was closely allied with Al Gore's "Atari Democrats", and futurist Alvin Toffler, which had left a lot of people scratching their heads as to why he was the top "Republican" for so long. At that "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance" event, Newt Gingrich did the key keynote presentation, and in it he refers to our current era in time as the “Age of Transitions”:

We are starting to live through two patterns of change. The first is the enormous computer and communications revolution described above. The second, only now beginning to rise, is the combination of  the nanotechnology-biology-information revolution. These two S curves will overlap. It is the overlapping period that we are just beginning to enter, and it is that period that I believe will be an Age of Transitions.

Focusing on computers and communications is only the first step toward understanding the Age of Transitions. While we are still in the early stages of the computer-communications pattern of change, we are already beginning to see a new, even more powerful pattern of change that will be built on a synergistic interaction between three different areas: the nano world, biology, and information. The sciences have reached a watershed at which they must combine in order to advance most rapidly. The new renaissance must be based on a holistic view of science and technology that envisions new technical possibilities and focuses on people. The unification of science and technology can yield results over the next two decades on the basis of four key principles: material unity at the nanoscale, NBIC transforming tools, hierarchical systems, and improvement of human performance. After he resigned (right while Bill Clinton was being impeached), he went on to stand together with Hillary Clinton in setting up computerized health records. One the one hand it can help some people, on the other it completely deprivatizes our health records by allowing the federal government instant access.

Bill Clinton

Quote:

"We want to live forever, and we're getting there."



Manhattan Project v2.0
National laboratories are the final "public" realm. Literally all of them, and their supercomputers are fully integrated into the aforementioned apparatus. One example of choice would be Los Alamos, which was the home of the original Manhattan Project. They're hooked up, along with many leading universities, into the NSF's TeraGrid network, which is a super high speed advanced version of the Internet, designed specifically for large scale science collaboration across institutions, enabling access to the various different top-in-class supercomputers. What puts DARPA at the top of the scientific pyramid is that they have access to mining literally every resource, meaning even indirectly supportive work done at different levels are still at their disposal for concept and results mining.

It can be ascertained that the countless thousands of people indirectly involved in it don't even realize what they're a part of. With global telecommunications now being radically different than 60 years ago, private intranets can connect up any remote office or personal computer as a collective.

This means that a modern day Manhattan Project could be operated across the planet in 'secret' with great ease. This would especially be the case if you had literally a million or more parallel platformed CPU’s at your disposal (like Google does). Consider that computing power per $1,000 is literally less than millionth what was during the Manhattan Project, and that project only cost about US$24 billion. Anything even resembling a modern semiconductor computer hadn’t even been invented yet. Meanwhile, every year their capabilities expand as CPU prices drop and work gets easier, exponentially, thanks to Moore’s Law and the Law of Accelerating Returns. The original Manhattan Project had about 100,000 workers, mostly all doing physical labor. The AGI Manhattan Project can easily have more than that figure, mostly all doing direct scientific research.

The Debate Over The AGI Manhattan Project Is Over!
Unlike the issues being exploited to operate it, there's no debating the existence of the AGI Manhattan Project. It can be ascertained that the countless thousands of people indirectly involved in it don't even realize what they're a part of. With global telecommunications now being radically different than 60 years ago, private intranets can connect up any remote office or personal computer as a collective. This means that a modern day Manhattan Project could be operated across the planet in 'secret' with great ease. This would especially be the case if you had literally a million or more parallel platformed CPU’s at your disposal (like Google does).

Consider that computing power per $1000 is literally less than millionth what was during the Manhattan Project, and that project only cost about US$24 billion. Anything even resembling a modern semiconductor computer hadn’t even been invented yet. Meanwhile, every year their capabilities expand as CPU prices drop and work gets easier, exponentially, thanks to Moore’s Law and the Law of Accelerating Returns. The original Manhattan Project had about 100,000 workers, mostly all doing physical labor. The AGI Manhattan Project can easily have more than that figure, mostly all doing direct scientific research.

The issue is what the intentions of the true elites that shape U.S. policy have in mind for all of this. Listening to the PR people of transhumanism should offer a safe insight: becoming "gods".

There's a war being waged against us. A great many of the people on the planet are feeling the effects from this already, via the economic meltdown. While the economic war didn't against us started generations ago, the modern technological war came before the economic assault, so we'll explore that first.
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