Author Topic: ALERT: OccupyWallStreet's foundation and direction is CYBERNETIC DYSTOPIA  (Read 34949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Guest
Adbusters Media Foundation is a not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Adbusters has launched numerous international campaigns, including Occupy Wall Street.

Herman Daly (born 1938) is an American ecological economist and professor.
He was Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank, where he helped to develop policy guidelines related to sustainable development.
He is closely associated with theories of a Steady state economy.
He was a co-founder and associate editor of the journal, Ecological Economics.
He is also a recipient of the Leontief Prize from the Global Development and Environment Institute and was chosen as Man of the Year 2008 by Adbusters magazine.

Leontief prize is a huge nwo prize. That institute is the establishments top ecological institute and its run by a Rockefeller.
Cybernetics is intimately bound up with ecology and ecological economics.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
"Cybernetics in the Service of Communism" 1967 essay by Col. Raymond S. Sleeper


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.


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

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 general 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


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: )

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."

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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Cybernetics is the highest agenda of the elite, and you better understand that

in: R.A. Meyers (ed.), Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology (3rd ed.), (Academic Press, New York, 2001).

Cybernetics and Second-Order Cybernetics

Francis Heylighen
Free University of Brussels

Cliff Joslyn
Los Alamos National Laboratory

I.   Historical Development of Cybernetics
....................................................... 1
A.    Origins.....................................................................................
B .    Second Order Cybernetics ............................................................ 2
C .    Cybernetics  Today...................................................................... 4
II.   Relational Concepts
................................................................................ 5
A.    Distinctions and Relations ........................................................... 5
B .    Variety and Constraint ................................................................ 6
C .    Entropy  and  Information.............................................................. 6
D.    Modelling Dynamics .................................................................. 7
III.   Circular  
Processes................................................................................... 8
A.    Self-Application......................................................................... 8
B .    Self-Organization ....................................................................... 9
C .    Closure
D.    Feedback Cycles .......................................................................11
IV.   Goal-Directedness and Control
A.    Goal-Directedness......................................................................12
B .    Mechanisms of Control ..............................................................13
C .    The Law of Requisite Variety ......................................................14
D.   Components of a Control System ................................................15
E.   Control  Hierarchies....................................................................17
V.   Cognition
A.    Requisite Knowledge .................................................................18
B .    The Modelling Relation .............................................................19
C .    Learning  and  Model-Building......................................................20
D.    Constructivist Epistemology .......................................................22


Variety: a measure of the number of possible states or actions
Entropy: a probabilistic measure of variety
Self-organization: the spontaneous reduction of entropy in a dynamic system
Control: maintenance of a goal by active compensation of perturbations
Model: a representation of processes in the world that allows predictions
Constructivism: the philosophy that models are not passive reflections of reality, but active
constructions by the subject

Cybernetics is the science that studies the abstract principles of organization in complex systems.  It is concerned not so much with what systems consist of, but how they function. Cybernetics focuses on how systems use information, models, and control actions to steer towards and maintain their goals, while counteracting various disturbances. Being inherently transdisciplinary, cybernetic reasoning can be applied to understand, model and design systems of any kind: physical, technological, biological, ecological, psychological, social, or any combination of those.  Second-order cybernetics in particular studies the role of the (human) observer in the construction of models of systems and other observers.

I .    Historical  Development  of  Cybernetics

A.   Origins
Derived from the Greek kybernetes, or “steersman”, the term “cybernetics” first appears in Antiquity with Plato, and in the 19th century with Ampère, who both saw it as the science of effective government. The concept was revived and elaborated by the mathematician Norbert Wiener in his seminal 1948 book, whose title defined it as “Cybernetics, or the study of control and communication in the animal and the machine”. Inspired by wartime and pre-war results in mechanical control systems such as servomechanisms and artillery targeting systems, and the contemporaneous development of a mathematical theory of communication (or information) by Claude Shannon, Wiener set out to develop a general theory of organizational and control relations in systems.

Information Theory, Control Theory and Control Systems Engineering have since developed into independent disciplines. What distinguishes cybernetics is its emphasis on control and communication not only in engineered, artificial systems, but also in evolved, natural systems such as organisms and societies, which set their own goals, rather than being controlled by their creators.

Cybernetics as a specific field grew out of a series of interdisciplinary meetings held from 1944 to 1953 that brought together a number of noted post-war intellectuals, including Wiener, John von Neumann, Warren McCulloch, Claude Shannon, Heinz von Foerster, W. Ross Ashby, Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead. Hosted by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, these became known as the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics. From its original focus on machines and animals, cybernetics quickly broadened to encompass minds (e.g. in the work of Bateson and Ashby) and social systems (e.g.  Stafford Beer’s management cybernetics), thus recovering Plato’s original focus on the control relations in society.

Through the 1950s, cybernetic thinkers came to cohere with the school of General Systems Theory (GST), founded at about the same time by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as an attempt to build a unified science by uncovering the common principles that govern open, evolving systems. GST studies systems at all levels of generality, whereas Cybernetics focuses more specifically on goal-directed, functional systems which have some form of control relation.

While there remain arguments over the relative scope of these domains, each can be seen as part of an overall attempt to forge a transdisciplinary “Systems Science”.  Perhaps the most fundamental contribution of cybernetics is its explanation of purposiveness, or goal-directed behavior, an essential characteristic of mind and life, in terms of control and information. Negative feedback control loops which try to achieve and maintain goal states were seen as basic models for the autonomy characteristic of  organisms: their behavior, while purposeful, is not strictly determined by either environmental influences or internal dynamical processes. They are in some sense “independent actors” with a “free will”. Thus cybernetics foresaw much current work in robotics and autonomous agents.

Indeed, in the popular mind, “cyborgs” and “cybernetics” are just fancy terms for “robots” and “robotics”. Given the technological advances of the post-war period, early cyberneticians were eager to explore the similarities between technological and biological systems. Armed with a theory of information, early digital circuits, and Boolean logic, it was unavoidable that they would hypothesize digital systems as models of brains, and information as the “mind” to the machine’s “body”.

More generally, cybernetics had a crucial influence on the birth of various modern sciences:  control theory, computer science, information theory, automata theory, artificial intelligence and artificial neural networks, cognitive science, computer modeling and simulation science, dynamical systems, and artificial life. Many concepts central to these fields, such as complexity, self-organization, self-reproduction, autonomy, networks, connectionism, and adaptation, were first explored by cyberneticians during the 1940’s and 1950’s. Examples include von Neumann’s computer architectures, game theory, and cellular automata; Ashby’s and von Foerster’s analysis of self-organization; Braitenberg’s autonomous robots; and McCulloch’s artificial neural nets, perceptrons, and classifiers.

B.  Second Order Cybernetics
Cybernetics had from the beginning been interested in the similarities between autonomous, living systems and machines. In this post-war era, the fascination with the new control and computer technologies tended to focus attention on the engineering approach, where it is the system designer who determines what the system will do. However, after the control engineering and computer science disciplines had become fully independent, the remaining cyberneticists felt the need to clearly distinguish themselves from these more mechanistic approaches, by emphasizing autonomy, self-organization, cognition, and the role of the observer in modelling a system. In the early 1970’s this movement became known as second- order cybernetics.

They began with the recognition that all our knowledge of systems is mediated by our simplified representations—or models—of them, which necessarily ignore those aspects of the system which are irrelevant to the purposes for which the model is constructed. Thus the properties of the systems themselves must be distinguished from those of their models, which depend on us as their creators.  An engineer working with a mechanical system, on the other hand, almost always know its internal structure and behavior to a high degree of accuracy, and therefore tends to de-emphasize the system/model distinction,  acting as if the model is the system.

Moreover, such an engineer, scientist, or “first-order” cyberneticist, will study a system as if it were a passive, objectively given “thing”, that can be freely observed, manipulated, and taken apart. A second-order cyberneticist working with an organism or social system, on the
3 other hand, recognizes that system as an agent in its own right, interacting with another agent, the observer. As quantum mechanics has taught us, observer and observed cannot be separated, and the result of observations will depend on their interaction. The observer too is a cybernetic system, trying to construct a model of another cybernetic system. To understand this process, we need a “cybernetics of cybernetics”, i.e. a “meta” or “second-order” cybernetics.

These cyberneticians’ emphasis on such epistemological, psychological and social issues was a welcome complement to the reductionist climate which followed on the great progress in science and engineering of the day. However, it may have led them to overemphasize the novelty of their “second-order” approach. First, it must be noted that most founding fathers of cybernetics, such as Ashby, McCulloch and Bateson, explicitly or implicitly agreed with the importance of autonomy, self-organization and the subjectivity of modelling. Therefore, they can hardly be portrayed as “first order” reductionists.

Second, the intellectual standard bearers of the second order approach during the 1970’s, such as von Foerster, Pask, and Maturana, were themselves directly involved in the development of “first order” cybernetics in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In fact, if we look more closely at the history of the field, we see a continuous development towards a stronger focus on autonomy and the role of the observer, rather than a clean break between generations or approaches.  Finally, the second order perspective is now firmly ingrained in the foundations of cybernetics overall. For those reasons, the present article will discuss the basic concepts and principles of cybernetics as a whole, without explicitly distinguishing between “first order” and “second order” ideas, and introduce cybernetic concepts through a series of models of classes of systems.

It must further be noted that the sometimes ideological fervor driving the second-order movement may have led a bridge too far. The emphasis on the irreducible complexity of the various system-observer interactions and on the subjectivity of modelling has led many to abandon formal approaches and mathematical modelling altogether, limiting themselves to philosophical or literary discourses. It is ironic that one of the most elegant computer simulations of the second-order idea that models affect the very system they are supposed to model was not created by a cyberneticist, but by the economist Brian Arthur. Moreover, some people feel that the second-order fascination with self-reference and observers observing observers observing themselves has fostered a potentially dangerous detachment from concrete phenomena.

C.  Cybernetics Today
In spite of its important historical role, cybernetics has not really become established as an autonomous discipline. Its practitioners are relatively few, and not very well organized. There are few research departments devoted to the domain, and even fewer academic programs. There are many reasons for this, including the intrinsic complexity and abstractness of the subject domain, the lack of up-to-date textbooks, the ebb and flow of scientific fashions, and the apparent overreaching of the second-order movement. But the fact that the Systems Sciences (including General Systems Theory) are in a similar position indicates that the most important cause is the difficulty of maintaining the coherence of a broad, interdisciplinary field in the wake of the rapid growth of its more specialized and application-oriented “spin-off” disciplines, such as computer science, artificial intelligence, neural networks, and control engineering, which tended to sap away enthusiasm, funding and practitioners from the more theoretical mother field.

Many of the core ideas of cybernetics have been assimilated by other disciplines, where they continue to influence scientific developments. Other important cybernetic principles seem to have been forgotten, though, only to be periodically rediscovered or reinvented in different domains.  Some examples are the rebirth of neural networks, first invented by cyberneticists in the 1940’s, in the late 1960’s and again in the late 1980’s; the rediscovery of the importance of autonomous interaction by robotics and AI in the 1990’s; and the significance of positive feedback effects in complex systems, rediscovered by economists in the 1990’s. Perhaps the most significant recent development is the growth of the complex adaptive systems movement, which, in the work of authors such as John Holland, Stuart Kauffman and Brian Arthur and the subfield of artificial life, has used the power of modern computers to simulate and thus experiment with and develop many of the ideas of cybernetics. It thus seems to have taken over the cybernetics banner in its mathematical modelling of complex systems across disciplinary boundaries, however, while largely ignoring the issues of goal-directedness and control.

More generally, as reflected by the ubiquitous prefix “cyber”, the broad cybernetic philosophy that systems are defined by their abstract relations, functions, and information flows, rather than by their concrete material or components, is starting to pervade popular culture, albeit it in a still shallow manner, driven more by fashion than by deep understanding. This has been motivated primarily by the explosive growth of information-based technologies including automation, computers, the Internet, virtual reality, software agents, and robots. It seems likely that as the applications of these technologies become increasingly complex, far- reaching, and abstract, the need will again be felt for an encompassing conceptual framework, such as cybernetics, that can help users and designers alike to understand the meaning of these developments.

Cybernetics as a theoretical framework remains a subject of study for a few committed groups, such as the Principia Cybernetica Project, which tries to integrate cybernetics with evolutionary theory, and the American Society for Cybernetics, which further develops the second order approach.  The sociocybernetics movement actively pursues a cybernetic understanding of social systems. The cybernetics-related programs on autopoiesis, systems dynamics and control theory also continue, with applications in management science and even psychological therapy. Scattered research centers, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, are still devoted to specific technical applications, such as biological cybernetics, medical cybernetics, and engineering cybernetics, although they tend to keep closer contact with their field of application than with the broad theoretical development of cybernetics. General Information Theory has grown as the search for formal representations which are not based strictly on classical probability theory.

There has also been significant progress in building a semiotic theory of information, where issues of the semantics and meaning of signals are at last being seriously considered. Finally, a number of authors are seriously questioning the limits of mechanism and formalism for interdisciplinary modeling in particular, and science in general. The issues here thus become what the ultimate limits on knowledge might be, especially as expressed in mathematical and computer-based models.  What’s at stake is whether it is possible, in principle, to construct models, whether formal or not, which will help us understand the full complexity of the world around us.

I I .   Relational  Concepts

A.  Distinctions and Relations
In essence, cybernetics is concerned with those properties of systems that are independent of their concrete material or components. This allows it to describe physically very different systems, such as electronic circuits, brains, and organizations, with the same concepts, and to look for isomorphisms between them. The only way to abstract a system’s physical aspects or components while still preserving its essential structure and functions is to consider relations: how do the components differ from or connect to each other? How does the one transform into the other?

To approach these questions, cyberneticians use high level concepts such as order, organization, complexity, hierarchy, structure, information, and control, investigating how these are manifested in systems of different types. These concepts are relational, in that they allow us to analyze and formally model different abstract properties of systems and their dynamics, for example allowing us to ask such questions as whether complexity tends to increase with time.

Fundamental to all of these relational concepts is that of difference or distinction. In general, cyberneticians are not interested in a phenomenon in itself, but only in the difference between its presence and absence, and how that relates to other differences corresponding to other phenomena.  This philosophy extends back to Leibniz, and is expressed most succinctly by Bateson’s famous definition of information as “a difference that makes a difference”. Any observer necessarily starts by conceptually separating or distinguishing the object of study, the system, from the rest of the universe, the environment. A more detailed study will go further to distinguish between the presence and absence of various properties (also called dimensions or attributes) of the systems.

For example, a system such as billiard ball can have properties, such as a particular color, weight, position, or momentum. The presence or absence of each such property can be represented as a binary, Boolean variable, with two values : “yes”, the system has the property, or “no”, it does not. G. Spencer Brown, in his book “Laws of Form”, has developed a detailed calculus and algebra of distinctions, and shown that this algebra, although starting from much simpler axioms, is isomorphic to the more traditional Boolean algebra.

B.  Variety and Constraint
This binary approach can be generalized to a property having multiple discrete or continuous values, for example which color or what position or momentum. The conjunction of all the values of all the properties that a system at a particular moment has or lacks determines its state. For example, a billiard ball can have color red, position x and momentum p. But in general, the variables used to describe a system are neither binary nor independent. For example, if a particular type of berry can, depending on its degree of ripeness, be either small and green or large and red (recognizing only two states of size and color), then the variables “color” and “size” are completely dependent on each other, and the total variety is one bit rather than the two you would get if you would count the variables separately.

More generally, if the actual variety of states that the system can exhibit is smaller than the variety of states we can potentially conceive, then the system is said to be constrained.

Constraint C can be defined as the difference between maximal and actual variety: C = Vmax -V.   Constraint is what reduces our uncertainty about the system’s state, and thus allows us to make non-trivial predictions. For example, in the above example if we detect that a berry is small, we can predict that it will also be green. Constraint also allows us to formally model relations, dependencies or couplings between different systems, or aspects of systems. If you model different systems or different aspects or dimensions of one system together, then the joint state space is the Cartesian product of the individual state spaces: S = S1 × S2 × ...Sn.  Constraint on this product space can thus represent the mutual dependency between the states of the subspaces, like in the berry example, where the state in the color space determines the state in the size space, and vice versa.

C.  Entropy and Information
Variety and constraint can be measured in a more general form by introducing probabilities. Assume that we do not know the precise state s of a system, but only the probability distribution P(s) that the system would be in state s. Variety can then be expressed through a formula equivalent to entropy, as defined by Boltzmann for statistical mechanics:
H ( P) = − ∑ P( s). log P( s)

H reaches its maximum value if all states are equiprobable, that is, if we have no indication whatsoever to assume that one state is more probable than another state. Thus it is natural that in this case entropy H reduces to variety V. Again, H  expresses our uncertainty or ignorance about the system’s state. It is clear that H = 0, if and only if the probability of a certain state is 1 (and of all other states 0). In that case we have maximal certainty or complete information about what state the system is in.

We defined constraint as that which reduces uncertainty, that is, the difference between maximal and actual uncertainty. This difference can also be interpreted in a different way, as information, and historically H was introduced by Shannon as a measure of the capacity for information transmission of a communication channel. Indeed, if we get some information about the state of the system (e.g. through observation), then this will reduce our uncertainty about the system’s state, by excluding—or reducing the probability of—a number of states. The information I we receive from an observation is equal to the degree to which uncertainty is reduced: I = H(before) – H(after).

If the observation completely determines the state of the system (H(after) = 0), then information I reduces to the initial entropy or uncertainty H.  Although Shannon came to disavow the use of the term “information” to describe this measure, because it is purely syntactic and ignores the meaning of the signal, his theory came to be known as Information Theory nonetheless. H has been vigorously pursued as a measure for a number of higher-order relational concepts, including complexity and organization. Entropies, correlates to entropies, and correlates to such important results as Shannon’s 10th Theorem and the Second Law of Thermodynamics have been sought in biology, ecology, psychology, sociology, and economics.

We also note that there are other methods of weighting the state of a system which do not adhere to probability theory’s additivity condition that the sum of the probabilities must be 1. These methods, involving concepts from fuzzy systems theory and possibility theory, lead to alternative information theories. Together with probability theory these are called Generalized Information Theory (GIT). While GIT methods are under development, the probabilistic approach to information theory still dominates applications.

D.  Modelling Dynamics
Given these static descriptions of systems, we can now model their dynamics and interactions. Any process or change in a system’s state can be represented as a transformation:

T: S →  S: s(t) →  s(t+1). The function T by definition is one-to-one or many-to-one, meaning that an initial state s(t) is always mapped onto a single state s(t+1). Change can be represented more generally as a relation R ⊂  S × S, thus allowing the modelling of one-to-many or many-to-many transformations, where the same initial state can lead to different final states.  Switching from states s to probability distributions P(s) allows us to again represent such indeterministic processes by a function: M: P(s, t) → P(s, t+1). M is a stochastic process, or more precisely, a Markov  chain, which can be represented by a matrix of transition probabilities: P(sj(t+1)|si (t)) = Mij ∈ [0, 1].
Given these process representations, we can now study the dynamics of variety, which is a central theme of cybernetics. It is obvious that a one-to-one transformation will conserve all distinctions between states and therefore the variety, uncertainty or information. Similarly, a many-to-one mapping will erase distinctions, and thus reduce variety, while an indeterministic, one-to-many mapping will increase variety and thus uncertainty. With a general many-to-many mapping, as represented by a Markov process, variety can increase or decrease, depending on the initial probability distribution and the structure of the transition matrix. For example, a distribution with variety 0 cannot decrease in variety and will in general increase, while a distribution with maximum variety will in general decrease. In the following sections we will discuss some special cases of this most general of transformations.

With some small extensions, this dynamical representation can be used to model the interactions between systems. A system A affects a system B if the state of B at time t+1 is dependent on the state of A at time t. This can be represented as a transformation T: SA × SB → SB: (sA(t), sB(t)) →  sB(t+1). sA here plays the role of the input of B. In general, B will not only be affected by an outside system A, but in turn affect another (or the same) system C. This can be represented by another a transformation T’: SA × SB →  SC : (sA(t), sB(t)) →  sC(t+1). sC here plays the role of the output of B. For the outside observer, B is a process that transforms input into output. If the observer does not know the states of B, and therefore the precise transformations T and T’, then B acts as a black box. By experimenting with the sequence of inputs sA(t), sA(t+1), sA(t+2), ..., and observing the corresponding sequence of outputs sC(t+1), sCt+2), sCt+3), ..., the observer may try to reconstruct the dynamics of B. In many cases, the observer can determine a state space SB so that both transformations become deterministic, without being able to directly observe the properties or components of B.

This approach is easily extended to become a full theory of automata and computing machines, and is the foundation of most of modern computer science. This again illustrates how cybernetic modelling can produce useful predictions by only looking at relations between variables, while ignoring the physical components of the system.

III. Circular  Processes

In classical, Newtonian science, causes are followed by effects, in a simple, linear sequence.  Cybernetics, on the other hand, is interested in processes where an effect feeds back into its very cause. Such circularity has always been difficult to handle in science, leading to deep conceptual problems such as the logical paradoxes of self-reference. Cybernetics discovered that circularity, if modelled adequately, can help us to understand fundamental phenomena, such as self-organization, goal-directedness, identity, and life, in a way that had escaped Newtonian science. For example, von Neumann’s analysis of reproduction as the circular process of self-construction anticipated the discovery of the genetic code. Moreover, circular processes are in fact ubiquitous in complex, networked systems such as organisms, ecologies, economies, and other social structures.

A.  Self-Application
In simple mathematical terms, circularity can be represented by an equation representing how some phenomenon or variable y is mapped, by a transformation or process f, onto itself: y = f(y) (2) Depending on what y and f stand for, we can distinguish different types of circularities. As a concrete illustration, y might stand for an image, and f for the process whereby a video camera is pointed at the image, the image is registered and transmitted to a TV screen or monitor. The circular relation y = f(y) would then represent the situation where the camera points at the image shown on its own monitor. Paradoxically, the image y in this situation is both cause and effect of the process, it is both object and representation of the object. In practice, such a video loop will produce a variety of abstract visual patterns, often with complex symmetries.

In discrete form, (2) becomes yt+1 = f(yt). Such equations have been extensively studied as iterated maps, and are the basis of chaotic dynamics and fractal geometry. Another variation is the equation, well-known from quantum mechanics and linear algebra:
k y = f(y) (3)

The real or complex number k is an eigenvalue of f, and y is an eigenstate. (3) reduces to the basic equation (2) if k = 1 or if y is only defined up to a constant factor. If k = exp (2πi m/n), then fn(y) is again y. Thus, imaginary eigenvalues can be used to model periodic processes, where a system returns to the same state after passing through n intermediate states.

An example of such periodicity is the self-referential statement (equivalent to the liar’s paradox): “this statement is false”. If we start by assuming that the statement is true, then we must conclude that it is false. If we assume it is false, then we must conclude it is true. Thus, the truth value can be seen to oscillate between true and false, and can perhaps be best conceived as having the equivalent of an imaginary value. Using Spencer Brown’s calculus of distinctions, Varela has proposed a similar solution to the problem of self-referential statements.

B.   Self-Organization
The most direct application of circularity is where y ∈S stands for a system’s state in a state space S, and f for a dynamic transformation or process. Equation (2) then states that y is a fixpoint of the function f, or an equilibrium or absorbing state of the dynamic system: if the system reaches state y, it will stop changing. This can be generalized to the situation where y stands for a subset of the state space, y ⊂ S. Then, every state of this subset is sent to another state of this subspace: ∀ x∈ y: f(x) ∈ y. Assuming y has no smaller subset with the same property, this means that y is an attractor of the dynamics. The field of dynamical systems studies attractors in general, which can have any type of shape or dimension, including 0- dimensional (the equilibrium state discussed above), 1-dimensional (a limit cycle, where the system repeatedly goes through the same sequence of states), and fractal (a so-called “strange” attractor).

An attractor y is in general surrounded by a basin B(y): a set of states outside y  whose evolution  necessarily  ends  up  inside:  ∀  s ∈  B (y), s ∉  y, ∃ n such that fn (s) ∈   y. In a deterministic system, every state either belongs to an attractor or to a basin. In a stochastic system there is a third category of states that can end up in either of several attractors. Once a system has entered an attractor, it can no longer reach states outside the attractor. This means that our uncertainty (or statistical entropy) H about the system’s state has decreased: we now know for sure that it is not in any state that is not part of the attractor. This spontaneous reduction of entropy or, equivalently, increase in order or constraint, can be viewed as a most general model of self-organization.

Every dynamical system that has attractors will eventually end up in one of these attractors, losing its freedom to visit any other state. This is what Ashby called the principle of self- organization. He also noted that if the system consists of different subsystems, then the constraint created by self-organization implies that the subsystems have become mutually dependent, or mutually adapted. A simple example is magnetization, where an assembly of magnetic spins that initially point in random directions (maximum entropy), end up all being aligned in the same direction (minimum entropy, or mutual adaptation). Von Foerster added that self-organization can be enhanced by random perturbations (“noise”) of the system’s state, which speed up the descent of the system through the basin, and makes it leave shallow attractors so that it can reach deeper ones.  This is the order from noise principle.

C.  Closure
The “attractor” case can be extended to the case where y stands for a complete state space. The equation (2) then represents the situation where every state of y is mapped onto another state of y by f. More generally, f might stand for a group of transformations, rather than a single transformation. If f represents the possible dynamics of the system with state space y, under different values of external parameters, then we can say that the system is organizationally closed: it is invariant under any possible dynamical transformation. This requirement of closure is implicit in traditional mathematical models of systems. Cybernetics, on the other hand, studies closure explicitly, with the view that systems may be open and closed simultaneously for different kinds of properties f1 and f2. Such closures give systems an unambiguous identity, explicitly distinguishing what is inside from what is outside the system.

One way to achieve closure is self-organization, leaving the system in an attractor subspace.  Another way is to expand the state space y into a larger set y* so that y*  recursively encompasses all images through f of elements of y: ∀ x ∈ y: x ∈ y*; ∀ x’ ∈ y*: f(x’) ∈ y*. This is the traditional definition of a set * through recursion, which is frequently used in computer programming to generate the elements of a set y* by iteratively applying transformations to all elements of a starting set y.

A more complex example of closure is autopoiesis (“self-production”), the process by which a system recursively produces its own network of physical components, thus continuously regenerating its essential organization in the face of wear and tear. Note that such “organizational” closure is not the same as thermodynamic closure: the autopoietic system is open to the exchange of matter and energy with its environment, but it is autonomously responsible for the way these resources are organized. Maturana and Varela have postulated autopoiesis to be the defining characteristic of living systems. Another fundamental feature of life, self-reproduction, can be seen as a special case of autopoiesis, where the self-produced components are not used to rebuild the system, but to assemble a copy of it. Both reproduction and autopoiesis are likely to have evolved from an autocatalytic cycle, an organizationally closed cycle of chemical processes such that the production of every molecule participating in the cycle is catalysed by another molecule in the cycle.

D.  Feedback Cycles
In addition to looking directly at a state y, we may focus on the deviation ∆y = (y - y0) of y from some given (e.g. equilibrium) state y0, and at the “feedback” relations through which this deviation depends on itself. In the simplest case, we could represent this as ∆y(t+∆t ) = k ∆y(t). According to the sign of the dependency k, two special cases can be distinguished.  If a positive deviation at time t (increase with respect to y0) leads to a negative deviation (decrease with respect to y0) at the following time step, the feedback is negative (k < 0). For example, more rabbits eat more grass, and therefore less grass will be left to feed further rabbits. Thus, an increase in the number of rabbits above the equilibrium value will lead, via a decrease in the supply of grass, at the next time step to a decrease in the number of rabbits.  Complementarily, a decrease in rabbits leads to an increase in grass, and thus again to an increase in rabbits. In such cases, any deviation from y0 will be suppressed, and the system will spontaneously return to equilibrium. The equilibrium state y0 is stable, resistant to perturbations. Negative feedback is ubiquitous as a control mechanism in machines of all sorts, in organisms (for example in homeostasis and the insulin cycle), in ecosystems, and in the supply/demand balance in economics.

The opposite situation, where an increase in the deviation produces further increases, is called positive feedback. For example, more people infected with the cold virus will lead to more viruses being spread in the air by sneezing, which will in turn lead to more infections. An equilibrium state surrounded by positive feedback is necessarily unstable. For example, the state where no one is infected is an unstable equilibrium, since it suffices that one person become infected for the epidemic to spread. Positive feedbacks produce a runaway, explosive growth, which will only come to a halt when the necessary resources have been completely exhausted. For example, the virus epidemic will only stop spreading after all people that could be infected have been infected. Other examples of such positive feedbacks are arms races, snowball effects, increasing returns in economics, and the chain-reactions leading to nuclear explosions. While negative feedback is the essential condition for stability, positive feedbacks are responsible for growth, self-organization, and the amplification of weak signals. In complex, hierarchical systems, higher-level negative feedbacks typically constrain the growth of lower-level positive feedbacks.

The positive and negative feedback concepts are easily generalized to networks of multiple causal relations. A causal link between two variables, A → B (e.g. infected people → viruses), is positive if an increase (decrease) in A produces an increase (decrease) in B. It is negative, if an increase produces a decrease, and vice versa. Each loop in a causal network can be given an overall sign by multiplying the signs (+ or –) of each of its links. This gives us a simple way to determine whether this loop will produce stabilization (negative feedback) or a runaway process (positive feedback). In addition to the sign of a causal connection, we also need to take into account the delay or lag between cause and effect. E.g., the rabbit population will only start to increase several weeks after the grass supply has increased. Such delays may lead to an oscillation, or limit cycle, around the equilibrium value.

Such networks of interlocking positive and negative feedback loops with lags are studied in the mathematical field of System Dynamics, a broad program modelling complex biological, social, economic and psychological systems. System Dynamics’ most well-known application is probably the “Limits to Growth” program popularized by the Club of Rome, which continued the pioneering computer simulation work of Jay Forrester. System dynamics has since been popularized in the Stella software application and computer games such as SimCity.

I V . Goal-Directedness  and  Control
A.    Goal-Directedness

Probably the most important innovation of cybernetics is its explanation of goal-directedness or purpose. An autonomous system, such as an organism, or a person, can be characterized by the fact that it pursues its own goals, resisting obstructions from the environment that would make it deviate from its preferred state of affairs. Thus, goal-directedness implies regulation of—or control over—perturbations. A room in which the temperature is controlled by a thermostat is the classic simple example. The setting of the thermostat determines the preferred temperature or goal state. Perturbations may be caused by changes in the outside temperature, drafts, opening of windows or doors, etc. The task of the thermostat is to minimize the effects of such perturbations, and thus to keep the temperature as much as possible constant with respect to the target temperature.

On the most fundamental level, the goal of an autonomous or autopoietic system is survival, that is, maintenance of its essential organization. This goal has been built into all living systems by natural selection: those that were not focused on survival have simply been eliminated. In addition to this primary goal, the system will have various subsidiary goals, such as keeping warm or finding food, that indirectly contribute to its survival. Artificial systems, such as thermostats and automatic pilots, are not autonomous: their primary goals are constructed in them by their designers. They are allopoietic: their function is to produce something other (“allo”) than themselves.

Goal-directedness can be understood most simply as suppression of deviations from an invariant goal state. In that respect, a goal is similar to a stable equilibrium, to which the system returns after any perturbation. Both goal-directedness and stability are characterized by equifinality: different initial states lead to the same final state, implying the destruction of variety. What distinguishes them is that a stable system automatically returns to its equilibrium state, without performing any work or effort. But a goal-directed system must actively intervene to achieve and maintain its goal, which would not be an equilibrium otherwise.

Control may appear essentially conservative, resisting all departures from a preferred state. But the net effect can be very dynamic or progressive, depending on the complexity of the goal. For example, if the goal is defined as the distance relative to a moving target, or the rate of increase of some quantity, then suppressing deviation from the goal implies constant change. A simple example is a heat-seeking missile attempting to reach a fast moving enemy plane.

A system’s “goal” can also be a subset of acceptable states, similar to an attractor. The dimensions defining these states are called the essential variables, and they must be kept within a limited range compatible with the survival of the system. For example, a person’s body temperature must be kept within a range of approximately 35-40° C. Even more generally, the goal can be seen as a gradient, or “fitness” function, defined on state space, which defines the degree of “value” or “preference” of one state relative to another one. In the latter case, the problem of control becomes one of on-going optimization or maximization of fitness.

B.  Mechanisms of Control
While  the perturbations  resisted in a control relation  can originate  either  inside (e.g.  functioning errors or quantum fluctuations) or outside of the system (e.g. attack by a predator or changes in the weather), functionally we can treat them as if they all come from the same, external source. To achieve its goal in spite of such perturbations, the system must have a way to block their effect on its essential variables. There are three fundamental methods to achieve such regulation: buffering, feedback and feedforward (see Fig. 1).

Buffering is the passive absorption or damping of perturbations. For example, the wall of the thermostatically controlled room is a buffer: the thicker or the better insulated it is, the less effect fluctuations in outside temperature will have on the inside temperature. Other examples are the shock-absorbers in a car, and a reservoir, which provides a regular water supply in spite of variations in rain fall. The mechanism of buffering is similar to that of a stable equilibrium: dissipating perturbations without active intervention. The disadvantage is that it can only dampen the effects of  uncoordinated fluctuations; it cannot systematically drive the system to a non-equilibrium state, or even keep it there. For example, however well-insulated, a wall alone cannot maintain the room at a temperature higher than the average outside temperature.
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
USAF admits to GORGON STARE weapon for cybernetic control and manipulation of domestic protests

Air Force to Unleash ‘Gorgon Stare’ on Squirting Insurgents
By Noah Shachtman  February 19, 2009  |  10:48 am  |  Categories: Drones

The award for best — and creepiest — military name of the week? No contest, that’s "Gorgon Stare," the Air Force’s $150 million project to outfit its latest spy drones with super high-powered cameras. By next year, 10 Reaper unmanned aircraft should have a Gorgon Stare sensor, which will film an area, two-and-a-half miles around, from 12 different angles.   "Gorgon Stare will allow a combat controller on the ground, a commander at headquarters and an intelligence officer back in the U.S. all to choose a different angle from the same Reaper," according to Air Force Times‘ Michael Hoffman. The Reaper – and its little drone brother, the Predator – already have video cameras, of course. Gorgon Stare won’t replace those sensors. Instead, it’s meant to supplement the full-motion video with a jumpier, but wider, view.  That’ll allow airmen to ’see the bigger picture’ and have a better idea where to point full-motion video sensors," Hoffman notes. Reapers and MQ-1 Predators are often called on to track vehicles and hover over buildings to watch for "squirters," or insurgents running out of buildings during U.S. operations. Airmen controlling the sensors sometimes lose track of those vehicles or squirters if they drive or run out of view too fast. Gorgon Stare will be invaluable in such instances, Bower said. Even if a vehicle drives out of the view of the full-motion video sensor, it will still be within Gorgon Stare’s range. Even if 12 squirters run in 12 directions, Gorgon Stare could dedicate one angle to each one. But as crazy as that is, Darpa is working on a project that could put Gorgon Stare to shame. The "Argus" program, recently highlighted by David Hambling, uses 92 cameras at once, compared to Gorgon Stare’s measly dozen. But as cool as Argus might turn out to be, it’ll need a revamped name, before it can really compete with Gorgon Stare.
Securing the fascist "homeland", death technologies to prevent all revolt

Air Force to Unleash ‘Gorgon Stare’ on Squirting Insurgents

    * By Noah Shachtman Email Author
    * February 19, 2009  |
    * 10:48 am

The award for best — and creepiest — military name of the week? No contest, that’s "Gorgon Stare," the Air Force’s $150 million project to outfit its latest spy drones with super high-powered cameras.

By next year, 10 Reaper unmanned aircraft should have a Gorgon Stare sensor, which will film an area, two-and-a-half miles around, from 12 different angles.

"Gorgon Stare will allow a combat controller on the ground, a commander at headquarters and an intelligence officer back in the U.S.
all to choose a different angle from the same Reaper," according to Air Force Times‘ Michael Hoffman.

The Reaper – and its little drone brother, the Predator – already have video cameras, of course. Gorgon Stare won’t replace those sensors. Instead, it’s meant to supplement the full-motion video with a jumpier, but wider, view.  That’ll allow airmen to ’see the bigger picture’ and have a better idea where to point full-motion video sensors," Hoffman notes.

    Reapers and MQ-1 Predators are often called on to track vehicles and hover over buildings to watch for "squirters," or insurgents running out of buildings during U.S. operations. Airmen controlling the sensors sometimes lose track of those vehicles or squirters if they drive or run out of view too fast.
    Gorgon Stare will be invaluable in such instances, Bower said. Even if a vehicle drives out of the view of the full-motion video sensor, it will still be within Gorgon Stare’s range. Even if 12 squirters run in
    12 directions, Gorgon Stare could dedicate one angle to each one.

But as crazy as that is, Darpa is working on a project that could put
Gorgon Stare to shame. The "Argus" program, recently highlighted by
David Hambling, uses 92 cameras at once, compared to Gorgon Stare’s measly dozen. But as cool as Argus might turn out to be, it’ll need a revamped name, before it can really compete with Gorgon Stare.

Special Forces’ Gigapixel Flying Spy Sees All

    * By David Hambling Email Author
    * February 12, 2009  |
    * 5:47 am

You may think your new ten-megapixel camera is pretty hot –- but not when you compare it to the 1.8 Gigapixel beast built for the Pentagon. The camera is designed as a payload for the A-160T Hummingbird robot helicopter now being quietly delivered to Special Forces. It will give them an unprecedented ability to track everything on the ground in real time. The camera is scheduled for flight testing at the start of next year.

Developed under the auspices of Darpa, the camera is the sensor part of Autonomous Real-time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance - Imaging System or ARGUS-IS. The camera is composed of four arrays, each containing 92 five-megapixel imagers. The other parts of ARGUS are the airborne processing system, which has to deal with a phenomenal torrent of data, and the ground-based element. The airborne part fits into a 500-pound pod.

The Hummingbird is unique in its ability to hover at high altitude (over 15,000 feet) and its endurance of over 20 hours. This means it can park high in the sky and scan a wide area. Robo-chopper camera-maker BAE Systems says that its imager will be able to cover an area of over a hundred square miles. The refresh rate is fifteen frames per second and a "ground sample distance" of 15 centimeters –- this means that each pixel represents six inches on the ground. (The Darpa diagram, above, suggests a smaller area of coverage, 40 square kilometers or 15 square miles, at that resolution.)

The volume of data is too great to be completely transmitted, but users will be able to define at least sixty-five independent video windows within the image and zoom in or out at will. The windows can be set to automatically track items of interest such as moving vehicles.
In fact, the resolution is good enough for it to offer "dismount tracking" or following individual people on foot.

In addition to the windows, ARGUS will provide "a real-time moving target indicator for vehicles throughout the entire field of view in real-time." Basically, nothing can move in the entire area without being spotted. Unlike radar, ARGUS can zoom in and provide a high-resolution image.

The camera is pretty impressive, but it’s the processing and the software behind it that will make this such a capable system. It would take a human a very long time to scan the whole area under surveillance if they were looking for something – but this is exactly the type of task which the swarming software we looked at last week excels at. Luckily enough, that just happens to be a Darpa program too. The technique of looking at small windows of interest also means that it may be possible to speed the frame rate up considerably – we previously looked at a windowing system so fast it could follow speeding bullets.

The ARGUS-IS mounted on the Hummingbird could be a significant battlefield asset for getting a real-time picture of what’s on the other side of the hill. And no doubt there will be civilian agencies who think it might be quite a useful capability for them to have too.

Mythological Footnote: Someone in Darpa may be a fan of the classics – Argus or Argos Panoptes was a giant, unsleeping watchman with a hundred eyes all over his body.
Unfortunately he was killed by Hermes; according to the myth, his eyes were placed on the tail of the peacock.

[Image: DARPA]

Software Swarm to Spot Rockets Before They’re Fired

    * By David Hambling Email Author
    * February 4, 2009  |
    * 12:24 pm

There are plenty of systems out there to identify the direction of a shooter after he has opened fire. But it might be too late by then. That’s why Darpa is developing a system to spot a rocket propelled grenade before it’s fired. It’s a major challenge, but the solution may lie with a swarm of software agents.

The Rocket Propelled Grenade Pre-launch Detection and Cueing Program aims to deliver "an omni directional, visual, and vehicle-mounted surveillance system for threat detection using cognitive swarm-recognition technology to rapidly detect and identify the locations of attackers with RPGs before they are launched." Fitting a set of video cameras giving 360-degree coverage is easy enough, but the hard part is the software.

Machines are notoriously bad at identifying things. Recognizing a chair or an apple is one of those everyday skills that humans take for granted, but it is incredibly difficult to replicate. (Darpa’s Grand Challenge driverless car contests were, in many ways, just fancy ways of getting machines to see the world more clearly.) Objects do not come in standard shapes and sizes, and they may be partly concealed or at an unusual angle. So Darpa is simplifying the approach by just looking for one fairly standard object, an RPG launcher. This is a cheap, widely available weapon used by insurgents everywhere in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other places. There are of course many versions, but the Russian RPG-7 and its many clones are the most common, and the ones to look for.

Even looking for one specific object takes a vast amount of processing power, however. The normal technique is to have an analysis window scanning across the image, looking for a match. This is not fast enough –- it’s no use having a system telling you that it spotted an RPG 30 seconds ago. Even if you have a large number of search windows scanning at the same time, they’re too slow.

The search can be sped up using a technique called Particle Swarm Optimization.
First developed in 1995, it’s based on the flocking behavior of birds and insects. Instead of having the search windows scanning in fixed paths or at random, they react to each other and work together like swarming insects.

Imagine the search is being carried out by a large number of software agents -– like the hordes of Agent Smiths in the Matrix series — who all start out looking in different directions and reporting what they see:

Smith #1 : Just empty road here
Smith #2 : There’s some trees … might be something, I need to look more
Smith #3 : Nothing here at all
Smith#4:  Just a bare field here…

As they know that there is a more promising area to search, Smiths #1, #3 and #4 now start scanning the same general area as Smith #2. By exchanging information rather than continuing to search in less promising areas, the Smiths can focus their efforts where they are most likely to be fruitful and complete the search more quickly. If there’s nothing to find, they will continue scanning the entire area including the less likely areas. But if there is something there, they’re likely to find it much more quickly.

HRL Laboratories, a company that works with Darpa in the field of distributed computing, has shown that in a sample application of spotting a pedestrian in a picture, the swarm recognition technique finds the pedestrian 70 times faster.

The other advantage of the swarm approach is in reducing false alarms. Because most of the system’s attention is rapidly focused on objects of potential interest, there is much less chance of a false positive getting through.

"This combination of accuracy and speed is superior to any published results known to us," HRL notes in an article about the technique.

Darpa’s RPG-spotter is intended to have an accuracy of 95 percent and be able to cope with up to five simultaneous threats, with a minimum of false alarms. The project has a budget of $3 million for this fiscal year, which will be spent on developing and maturing the detection and classification algorithms.

If it works, it could be a real life saver, keeping a 24/7 lookout for threats in all directions. And spotting RPGs may only be the start.

If the software pans out, later versions can look for other types of threat as well -– both hardware and human. As the algorithms improve and processors get faster, picking out a known terrorist face from a crowd in an instant might become a real possibility.

[Photo: Warner Bros.]


you might consider DELETing this but I think it's relevant to the whole NWO-tech issue...

Israel is sort of a pioneer in ROBOTIC WARFARE. unquote

WALL STREET JOURNAL news report on the ROBOTIC WARRIORS being built by Israel; boats, air vehicles and land vehicles.

The Pentagon set aside its long-held skepticism about the advantages of unmanned aircraft and, in the early 1980s, bought a prototype designed by former Israeli Air Force engineer Abraham Karem. That prototype morphed into the modern-day Predator, which is made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. [read the full article on WSJ]

Most of interest is THE GUARDIAN, an unmanned ground vehicle that races along the ISraeli border under its own A.I. choosing its own targets to shoot.

Seriously, you egghead morons, have none of you seen the TERMINATOR films?

Hooked up to the TIA global control grid. joined and controlled by the US military and the Pentagon. Sooner or later, that device will hunt dissidents down and either eliminate or capture the prisoner.

It makes perfect sense.
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 Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Cybernetics is just mind blowing. Think of the possibilities! Total control. And predictive!
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Cybernetics is just mind blowing. Think of the possibilities! Total control. And predictive!

Just to be clear, we know over 90% of the people there are genuinely looking for answers, but with cybernetic SMART protests, that is what the elite want. They want discouraged masses to be sleep deprived and confused for so long that any demand will seem to be the right ones if they are stated in a charismatic manner.

So what have we seen so far in the way of demands...there are many end the fed'ers there which is awesome, but the guys that started this thing believe in the fake model of scarcity. The entire agenda of the 99% is that there is a limited number of resources, wealth, etc. and it must be more equally distributed. I got news for everyone...the constitution does not give a flying crap how much an individual has, it cares about the protection of the individual's ability to attain wealth without the burden of taxation, regulation, slavery, infringement of speech, religion, etc.

The model being used is one that says...all wealth = X and 99% need to get a more equal share. That is cybernetics, that is communism. What we need to do is to expose the artificial limitations of wealth, of resources, of services, etc. We need to expose the fraud, theft, illegal occupations, infringements on the rights of the individual.

I do not give a shit if someone has $100 million if they made it legitimately. I care that an anti-constitutional heirarchy is telling me what I can produce, how I can produce it, when I can produce it, who I can work with, how I can farm, what I can consume, how much I can consume, etc.

We are the 99% is a con, it is a complete charade, it is cybernetics and sustainability whether the people following it know it or not.

We have already exposed that there is a common theme between the fake war on terror and the fake global warming scam...that thing in common is cybernetics. The solution to every terror issue and every climate issue has been cybernetics....more continual feedback via OODA loop, incereased cybernetic surveillance or the individual, fincences, thoughts.

So all the elite are doing is creating another problem before solving any previous issue and then the solution to all the protests will be a cybernetic solution. I have 100% belief that this is what will occur unless people can research it themselves and awaken others to what they find out.

The Story of the Millennium: The A.G.I. Manhattan Project [Must Read]

The Story of the Millennium:
The A.G.I. Manhattan Project
Are you ready for the future?

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.


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.


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,


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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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 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:


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


"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

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Just brilliant, Dig!
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Dig

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


AGI Manhattan Project:

Architectures for Cognitive Information Processing (ACIP)
Biologically-Inspired Cognitive Architectures
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
Towards a Unification of Inference, Reasoning and Learning
Global Autonomous Language Exploitation (GALE)
Self-Regenerative Systems (SRS)
Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics (SyNAPSE)
[The parallel efforts by the other agencies aren't all laid out in a nice program per page fashion like DARPA does it. You have to go thru their budgets proposals for each year. But it's all in there. [
National Nanotechnology Initiative
Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance
Singularity University
Apple buys DARPA’s Skynet precursor “Siri”. Where’s our tax refund?



NSA Wiretaps:

Online activity:,000


Cell Phones:





3D surveillance:
Mind's Eye
Fine Detail Optical Surveillance (FDOS)
Flow-based Information Theory Tracking (FITT)
Persistent Stare Exploitation and Analysis System (PerSEAS)
Exploitation of 3-D Data (E3D)

Police State:

Youth Brigades:

Cyber Warfare:

Soft Kill:



Mind War:

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
These are two very good documentaries about cybernetics and the way it is used to control us. 

Adam Curtis
"All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace"

"The Net" by Lutz Dammbeck (not the Sandra Bullock film), this film is a little harder to find but if you are a demonoid user I have two torrents of this up, the full version and the film only depending on how interested you are.  This can be found on Youtube in bits and pieces(you know how that is).  There is a very good extra on this film that has an interview with Paul Garrin on who actually controls the infrastructure of the internet,

Darpa IXO

Ptech built Supply Chain Infrastructure

Paul Garrin on the government monopoly (via ICANN) over top level domains. Very interesting... must dig up the rest of it.

10 min.

Google TechTalks July 26, 2006 Luis von Ahn is an assistant professor in the Computer Science Department at Carnegie Mellon University, where he also received his Ph.D. in 2005. Previously, Luis obtained a B.S. in mathematics from Duke University in 2000. He is the recipient of a Microsoft Research Fellowship. ABSTRACT Tasks like image recognition are trivial for humans, but continue to challenge even the most sophisticated computer programs. This talk introduces a paradigm for utilizing human processing power to solve problems that computers cannot yet solve. Traditional approaches to solving such problems focus on improving software. I advocate a novel approach: constructively channel human brainpower using computer games. For example, the ESP Game, described in this talk, is an enjoyable online game -- many people play over 40 hours a week -- and when people play, they help label images on the Web with descriptive keywords. These keywords can be used to significantly improve the accuracy of image search. People play the game not because they want to help, but because they enjoy it. I describe other examples of "games with a purpose": Peekaboom, which helps determine the location of objects in images, and Verbosity, which collects common-sense knowledge. I also explain a general approach for constructing games with a purpose.

Using Image Attributes for Human Identification Protocols
Hassan Jameel1, Heejo Lee2, and Sungyoung Lee1
1 Department of Computer Engineering, Kyung Hee University, 449-701 Suwon, South Korea {hassan,sylee},
2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 136-701, South Korea [email protected]

Abstract. A secure human identification protocol aims at authenticating human users to a remote server when even the users’ inputs are not hidden from an adversary. Recently, the authors proposed a human identification protocol in the RSA Conference 2007, which is loosely based on the ability of humans to efficiently process an image. The advantage being that an automated adversary is not effective in attacking the protocol without human assistance. This paper extends that work by trying to solve some of the open problems. First, we analyze the complexity of defeating the proposed protocols by quantifying the workload of a human adversary. Secondly, we propose a new construction based on textual CAPTCHAs (Reverse Turing Tests) in order to make the generation of automated challenges easier. We also present a brief experiment involving real human users to find out the number of possible attributes in a given image and give some guidelines for the selection of challenge questions based on the results. Finally, we analyze the previously proposed protocol in detail for the relationship between the secrets. Our results show that we can construct human identification protocols based on image evaluation with reasonably “quantified” security guarantees based on our model.


1. Hassan Jameel, Riaz Ahmed Shaikh, Heejo Lee and Sungyoung Lee: Human Identification Through Image Evaluation Using Secret Predicates. Topics in Cryptology - CT-RSA 07, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag. 4377 (2007) 67–84
2. Matsumoto, T., Imai, H.: Human Identification through Insecure Channel. Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 91, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer- Verlag. 547 (1991) 409–421
3. Jermyn, I., Mayer, A., Monrose, F., Reiter, M., Rubin, A.: The design and analysis of graphical passwords. 8th USENIX Security Symposium (1999).Page 24
4. Wang, C.H., Hwang, T., Tsai, J.J.: On the Matsumoto and Imai’s Human Iden- tification Scheme. Advances in Cryptology - EUROCRYPT 95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag. 921 (1995) 382–392
5. Matsumoto, T.: Human-computer cryptography: An attempt. 3rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ACM Press. (1996) 68–75
6. Xiang-Yang Li, Shang-Hua Teng: Practical Human-Machine Identification over In- secure Channels. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization. 3 (1999) 347–361
7. Hopper, N.J., Blum, M.: Secure Human Identification Protocols. Advances in Cryp- tology - Asiacrypt 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag. 2248 (2001) 52–66
8. Luis von Ahn, Manuel Blum, Nicholas Hopper, John Langford: CAPTCHA: Using Hard AI Problems for Security. Advances in Cryptology – Eurocrypt 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag. (2003) 294–311
9. Shujun Li, Heung-Yeung Shum: Secure Human-computer identification against Peeping Attacks (SecHCI): A Survey. Unpublished report, available at Elsevier’s Computer Science Preprint Server. (2002)
10. Rachna Dhamija, Adrian Perrig: Deja Vu: A user study using images for authen- tication. Proc. of the 9th USENIX Security Symposium. (2000) 45–58
11. Passfaces Corporation: PassfacesTM; The science behind PassfacesTM. Visit (2005)
12. Vince Sorensen: PassPic-Visual Password Management. Visit (2002)
13. The CAPTCHA project: ESP-PIX. Visit
14. Daphna Weinshall: Cognitive Authentication Schemes Safe Against Spyware (Short Paper). 2006 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. (2006) 295–300
15. Philippe Golle and David Wagner: Cryptanalysis of a Cognitive Authentication Scheme. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2006/258.
16. HUMANOIDs. Visit
17. The CAPTCHA project: Gimpy. Visit
18. Young, A., Yung, M.: Deniable Password Snatching: On the Possibility of Evasive Electronic Espionage. IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy. (1997) 224–235.
19. Juels, A., Weis, S.: Authenticating pervasive devices with human protocols. In Proc. Advances in Cryptology, Crypto 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag. 3621 (2005) 283–308
Chaotic Dynamics White Papers:
Digital Libraries:
Artificial Intelligence:
Information Retrieval:
Human-Computer Interaction:
Networking and Internet Architecture:
Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems:
Computers and Society:
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition:
Computer Science and Game Theory (incl. Economic Predictability Models...i.e. RAND's John Nash):
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
Re: ALERT: OccupyWallStreet's foundation and direction is CYBERNETIC DYSTOPIA
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2011, 10:43:47 pm »
The Cultural Logic of Computation
Through Cybernetics, the elite can gain more power without the public knowing

Do computers by definition set us free? Advocates make sweeping claims for their inherently transformative power: new and different from previous technologies, their widespread use constitutes a fundamental shift in our orientation towards established power, and by their very existence they effect positive political change in an “open,” “democratic” direction. Just keep in mind that the people who hold real power are probably OK with you thinking that.

In The Cultural Logic of Computation, David Golumbia, software-design veteran turned Professor of English, Media Studies, and Linguistics at the University of Virginia, confronts this orthodoxy, arguing instead that computers are cultural “all the way down”—that there is no part of the apparent technological transformation that is not shaped by historical and cultural processes, or that escapes existing cultural politics.

From the perspective of transnational corporations and governments, computers enable the exercise of already-existing power much more fully than they provide the masses with means to distribute or contest it. Despite this, our thinking about computers has ossified into an ideology, nearly invisible in its ubiquity, that Golumbia dubs “computationalism”—an ideology that shapes our thinking not just about computers, but about economic and social trends as sweeping as globalization.

Driven by a programmer’s knowledge of computers as well as by a deep engagement with contemporary literary and cultural studies and poststructuralist theory, The Cultural Logic of Computation establishes a forceful and considered corrective to the glib, uncritical enthusiasm for computers that dominates the popular cultural discourse around them.

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
Re: ALERT: OccupyWallStreet's foundation and direction is CYBERNETIC DYSTOPIA
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2011, 11:24:27 pm »
Open Society:
Reforming Global Capitalism

by George Soros

WikiLeaks: Educating Americans About Open Society

WikiLeaks: Educating Americans About Open Society

Open society

The open society is a concept originally developed by philosopher Henri Bergson and then by Austrian and British philosopher Karl Popper. In open societies, government is responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. It is as opposed to closed society. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are the foundation of an open society. In Karl Popper's definition, found in his two-volume book The Open Society and Its Enemies, he defines an "open society" as one which ensures that political leaders can be overthrown without the need for bloodshed, as opposed to a "closed society," in which a bloody revolution or coup d'état is needed to change the leaders.

He further describes an open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society."[1]

In this context, tribalistic and collectivist societies do not distinguish between natural laws and social customs. Individuals are unlikely to challenge traditions they believe to have a sacred or magical basis. The beginnings of an open society are thus marked by a distinction between natural and man-made law, and an increase in personal responsibility and accountability for moral choices. (Note that Popper did not see this as incompatible with religious belief.[2]) Popper argues that the ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism cannot be suppressed once people become aware of them, and therefore that it is impossible to return to the closed society.[3]

Popper's concept of the open society is epistemological rather than political.[4] When Popper wrote The Open Society and its Enemies he believed that the social sciences had failed to grasp the significance and the nature of fascism and communism because these sciences were based on faulty epistemologies.[5] Totalitarianism forced knowledge to become political which made critical thinking impossible and led to the destruction of knowledge in totalitarian countries.[6] Popper's theory that knowledge is provisional and fallible implies that society must be open to alternative points of view. An open society is associated with cultural and religious pluralism; it is always open to improvement because knowledge is never completed but always ongoing.

Closed society claims to certain knowledge and ultimate truth lead to the attempted imposition of one version of reality. Such a society is closed to freedom of thought. In contrast, in an open society each citizen needs to engage in critical thinking, which requires freedom of thought and expression and the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this.[7]

Democracies are examples of the "open society,"

whereas totalitarian dictatorships, theocracy, and autocratic monarchies are examples of the "closed society."

Humanitarianism, equality and political freedom are fundamental characteristics of an open society. This was recognised by Pericles, a statesman of the Athenian democracy, in his funeral oration: "... advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life."[8]

George Soros, a student of Karl Popper, has argued that the sophisticated use of powerful techniques of deception borrowed from modern advertising and cognitive science by political operatives such as Frank Luntz and Karl Rove casts doubt on Popper's original conception of open society.[9] Because the electorate's perception of reality can easily be manipulated, democratic political discourse does not necessarily lead to a better understanding of reality.[10] Soros argues that besides the requirements for the separation of powers, free speech, and free elections, we also need to make explicit a strong commitment to the pursuit of truth.[11] "Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception."[12]

Organisations such as the Open Society Institute and Open Society Foundation of South Africa aim to actively promote the open society through lobbying and public involvement.

In 1947, Popper founded with his close friend Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and others the Mont Pelerin Society to defend classical liberalism, in the spirit of open society.

George Soros

George Soros (Hungarian: Soros György; pronounced /ˈsɔroʊs/ or /ˈsɔrəs/,[2] Hungarian: [ˈʃoroʃ]; born August 12, 1930, as Schwartz György) is a Hungarian-American financier, businessman and notable philanthropist focused on supporting liberal ideals and causes.[3] He became known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England" after he made a reported $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crises.[4][5] Soros correctly anticipated that the British government would have to devalue the pound sterling.[6]

Soros is Chairman of the Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute and a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. He played a significant role in the peaceful transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary (1984–89)[5] and provided Europe's largest-ever higher education endowment to Central European University in Budapest.[7] Later, the Open Society Institute's programs in Georgia were considered by Russian and Western observers to have been crucial in the success of the Rose Revolution. In the United States, he is known for donating large sums of money in an effort to defeat President George W. Bush's bid for re-election in 2004. In 2010, he donated $1 million in support of Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana in the state of California. He was an initial donor to the Center for American Progress, and he continues to support the organization through the Open Society Foundations. The Open Society Institute has active programs in more than 60 countries around the world with total expenditures currently averaging approximately $600 million a year.

In 2003, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker wrote in the foreword of Soros' book The Alchemy of Finance.

Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism by George Soros

According to the CIA in May 2001 as dictated by John C. Gannon, CIA and Advisor of the ANSER Homeland Security Institute (established officially 5 months before 9/11 attacks)...

Mastering open source information will be an imperative, not an option, for the intelligence business because it will increasingly contain the answers to critical national security questions.

So what do they mean by "OPEN"?

They mean controlled, they mean your mind is OPEN to their manipulation and not CLOSED to it. They talk about it as a revolution in thinking, it is not, it is a revolution in controlling the mind, the codes, the sources of everything. OPEN means OPEN to the I-BEAM, PROJECT BLUEBEAM, MK ULTRA, MASS MIND CONTROL...

You are being psyopped by "invasive measures" to accept "non-invasive" ones

...such as "non-invasive" MIND CONTROL

Here's a brief synopisis:

You know how they can fly planes by remote control... dropping bombs on innocent people thousands of miles away?


Now, subsitute the plane with a human being.

They want to remote control human beings, and whatever devices are attached to human beings, by using remote control via computers that can communicate directly with your central nervous system.  You are a node on the network. You will be controlled by a computer programmed to make the most of what you have to offer in terms of your biological ability: you can be made to put a nail into a piece of wood, the same way, all day, every day... or you can be made to fire a gun at an enemy you may not even be aware of - you won't have to think about that, the computer will decide for you. You may not even be aware of what you're doing - they have an app for that. You might be watching reruns of American Idol on your embedded display unit (your eyes), while the computer uses your body to wage war.

It seems clear that the latest and greatest technology is developed for the military; for applications of dominance and control. The only time we see 'helpful' applications of this technology is when they need some positive PR to get continued funding. The slide below is presenting the real agenda:

*  Use brain activity to control an existing machine
So someone (or something) will "USE" your brain activity to control an "existing machine". There's nothing that says it couldn't be a machine using your brain to control another machine. Your brain will provide the right feedback information needed by the controlling machine in order to decide what the right next step will be.

Machine A --------> You and your brain ------------> Machine B

I don't know why people in the military can't see that they are the "brain" in the middle.  Their brains are needed -- but NOT because of their intelligence or ability to think strategically -- that strategic thinking, experience and intelligence won't be necessary. The brain is necessary only because it functions to process signals; it's a cpu without need for a disk full of information; relying only on bootup code - because the intelligence is in the offsite remote computer that drives the brain. Literally - it will drive the brain. The only reason the brain is needed is because it processes signals and will provide feedback to the controlling computer, like running your pc's resident applications but using a remote server to do the grunt work.  You are the device, the remote server. You will be accessed remotely and driven by algorithms that use your feedback to calculate next steps and give you further instructions.  This use of your brain's intellect brings too much risk to the 'mission'. If you are using your brain to THINK, then your decisions will be susceptible to influence by your emotions: compassion, pity, fear, joy, love, jealousy, bravery. They don't want that to affect your decisions; they want ONLY that part of your brain that is the primitive automatic/autonomic response mechanism built into your central nervous system, where there is no concept of 'conscience'.






Pentagon's militarization of social networks will be the goal of next false flag

U.S. forced to 'Connects The Dots' To Win in Iraq and Afghanistan
by Tom Gjelten December 3, 2010
Marines on patrol in Afghanistan's Helmand province walk near a blast crater from a homemade explosive device. Roadside bombs are the leading killer of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American military has turned to mathematics and social network analysis to help identify bombers and their supporters. With his doctorate from Princeton, Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has become the prime example of a special breed of soldier: the warrior-scholar, trained in history and politics as well as how to fight wars. Now there's a variation on the theme: the warrior mathematician, adept in the complex modeling that has become a key part of military planning. With roadside bombs the leading killer of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, military commanders have turned increasingly to the use of social network analysis to identify the key players in the groups responsible for the bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. The approach is rooted in the belief that a roadside bomb is never the work of one individual alone.

'Attack The Network'
"Someone has to build it, someone has to place it, someone has to do surveillance on the place where you place it," said Kathleen Carley, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University and the unofficial godmother of social network analysis as applied to the IED problem. "If you're trying to defeat IEDs, what you're talking about is understanding that whole process — who is involved, how they are connected to each other — so that you can figure out where the best place is to intervene," Carley said. The idea is that an analysis of the social network behind roadside bombing attempts will make it possible to identify which members of the group are most vital to the operation and most important to stop, in order to disrupt the entire network. "Any organization has relationships," said Army Maj. Ian McCulloh, deputy director of the Counter-IED Operations Integration Center in Baghdad and one of Carley's former students. "Civilian firms have used social network analysis for decades to map out those relationships and identify the organization's vulnerabilities. The same principles apply to threat networks. This helps us identify their vulnerabilities," he said.  The U.S. military's biggest success so far in the use of network analysis was the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003. He was found after soldiers diagrammed the social networks of his chauffeurs and others close to him. The technique is now used extensively to identify the key figures in insurgent groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan. "Attack the Network" is the motto of the anti-IED effort. Much is at stake. Of 3,486 U.S. service members killed in Iraq since 2003 by hostile action, 2,196 have died as a result of IED explosions, according to figures released by the Pentagon and other sources. In Afghanistan, nearly 90 percent of U.S. military deaths due to hostile action — 1,075 as of Dec. 2 — have been caused by IEDs.

Connecting The Dots
McCulloh, who received his doctorate in network science from Carnegie Mellon, is an expert in the application of relational algebra to the study of IED networks. He teaches other soldiers in the analytical techniques. While on leave last month from his post in Baghdad, McCulloh taught a one-week class in "Advanced Network Analysis and Targeting" to a group of Iraq-bound soldiers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Each of the soldiers was to be involved with the anti-IED effort in Iraq, primarily in the selection of targets for military operations. In this case, Habib Muhammed, who is connected to three others in the network, is the "most central" node. One of the goals listed in McCulloh's course guide is to help soldiers "mathematically quantify influential network nodes ... in order to provide warfighters with objective measures for the relative values of various potential targets." For many of the soldiers in the course, the mathematics instruction was daunting. "I took some math in high school, but mainly it was statistics," said Chief Warrant Officer John Fleshman, an 18-year Army veteran. "Fortunately, Major McCulloh breaks it down to high school level." Fleshman, an artillery targeting officer, said the mathematics he learned in his Fort Bragg class made it easier to identify the most important targets for anti-IED and other counterinsurgency operations. "You have to know where to look, and this helps you know where to look," he said. In McCulloh's class, "connecting the dots" is taken literally. He shows his students how to visualize a network of all of the people involved in an IED cell. On a computer screen, each individual is a "node,"
displayed as a dot linked by lines to other dots.
Some nodes are more important than others,

depending on their "betweenness" scores, determined, basically, by how well connected an individual is to others in the network. "From these guys and these guys, it's a lot shorter to go through D than it is to go through E and F," McCulloh points out to one of his soldier students. "So that's what gives D high betweenness centrality. He also has an average shorter distance to everybody, so in many ways, D is the highly central node."  When the U.S. military is looking for key people to capture or kill, you do not want to be identified as "a highly central node."

Same Conclusions, But Faster
Military commanders and intelligence analysts have long understood the need to study relationships among individuals on the enemy side. What's new is how sophisticated and mathematical the process has become. McCulloh, a brainy young officer who also teaches at West Point, thinks the Army needs more warrior-mathematicians like himself. Still, the lanky redhead had to learn some humility when he went to work a couple of years ago in Afghanistan alongside grizzled intelligence veterans. "I thought I was going to go in there with my network analysis and my academic background, and I was going to find all of the hidden nodes, the key guys," McCulloh says. "I was going to find bin Laden and all the guys that were leading the terrorism. And I was actually a little disappointed to find that everybody I found in any of the data sets that I looked at, we already knew about." The veterans had used hunches and intuition to figure out the networks. But McCulloh says his math and computer science training did help him work more quickly than the old-timers could. "The first network I looked at probably had about 200 to 300 nodes in it," he says. "It took an analyst with 26 years of experience about five days to look through it and identify where they felt the key vulnerabilities were. I was able to put it into the software that I use and do some basic network analysis and in about 15 to 20 minutes I had the same conclusion."

Advantages To Mathematical Precision
As with any computer operation, the quality of the analysis depends on the quality of the data going in. Carley, the Carnegie Mellon University professor who has been working with the military since she got out of college, says if soldiers are to understand a roadside bombing network, they need information — from people they capture, from informants and from intercepted phone calls. "You try to find things about who else they know," Carley says, "who they're related to, where they've been in the past, where were they trained, what other kind of groups did they belong to, things like that." In this regard, Carley says, network analysis presents yet another advantage. A computer-generated network diagram can help soldiers "see" what data they are missing and still need to gather. The mathematical precision that comes with this analysis also gives soldiers more confidence in their judgments than might be the case with hunches and intuition. That's important to military lawyers who have to approve an operation to capture or kill someone. Maj. Eugene Vindman, a JAG officer, or judge advocate general, says McCulloh's network analysis course put him and other military lawyers in a better position to carry out oversight responsibilities in Iraq. "[You could] maybe do a little bit of analysis on your own or ask some intelligent questions of the targeteers," Vindman says, "to make sure that the target they've identified is not a guy that might have made a wrong phone call to a bad guy but actually has enough links to that bad guy through other activities to actually be a bad guy and therefore be a legal military target."

The Problem: Assessing The Enemy
Soldiers who will be involved in the effort to prevent roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, are presented with the following scenario:
You are an infantry patrol leader and your unit encounters the following chain of events:Raheim, a known enemy operative, was found carrying a cell phone which he has used to maintain constant contact with two individuals, Jalil Al Tikrit and Farrah Imir. Text messages on Raheim's phone reveal a plot by Jalil Al Tikrit and another unknown individual to place an IED in a culvert along a supply route commonly used by U.S. forces. Raheim is immediately taken into custody and handed over to local authorities. Hours later, a local shopkeeper named Ibraheem is seen talking to a man named Habib Muhammed, but Ibraheem was not seen with anyone else.  Later, an unidentified individual and Habib Muhammed are captured in a culvert.  Habib Muhammed was found to be carrying a credit card owned by Farrah Imir along with a list of supplies in Farrah Imir's handwriting that seems to be a manifest for building and placing an IED. As you ponder the events of the day, it dawns on you that the unknown individuals are not unknown at all. You know their identities. The task: Build a model of the network of individuals and use it as part of your analysis to develop a target.

Answer: The Network
In the exercise above and the solution below, each individual is a "node," displayed as a dot linked by lines to other dots. Some nodes are more important than others, depending on their "betweenness" scores, determined, basically, by how well connected an individual is to others in the network.

When a "highly central node" emerges, that is a person the military may try to capture or kill.

Courtesy of Kathleen Carley and Course Guide,

Advanced Network Analysis and Targeting:  
A Social Networks Approach to Targeting,

by Ian McCulloh, Anthony Johnson, and Helen Armstrong.

So what the hell are they talking about...

HIGHLY CENTRAL NODE = Node that can influence others outside of the Central Control Perception Management Messaging Systems.

HIDDEN NODE = Closed "node" or someone who does not wish to be a mind controlled slave in the so called "OPEN SOCIETY".

MEASURING BETWEENNESS = IBM Analytics to do continual loop sense and response autonomy based on trillions of data gathering censors interoperably capable of information flow.

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


  • Guest
Re: ALERT: OccupyWallStreet's foundation and direction is CYBERNETIC DYSTOPIA
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2011, 03:23:46 pm »
i dont know what they are talking about but i know its to do with command and control of the earth and everything living on it

and i know these protestors demanding it will not worry the elite


  • Guest
Re: ALERT: OccupyWallStreet's foundation and direction is CYBERNETIC DYSTOPIA
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2011, 07:55:44 pm »
The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are continuing their march toward globalism as they have now endorsed a global tax system, to be instituted and monitored by a new global government. With the G20 summit set to take place November 3 in France, the directors of the Wall Street protests are now setting their sights on the implementation of the “Robin Hood tax” on all transactions involving shares, bonds, and derivatives, and possibly other items as well.

Manifesto: United for Global Democracy
« On 15th October 2011, united in our diversity, united for global change, we demand global democracy: global governance by the people, for the people. Inspired by our sisters and brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Palestine-Israel, Spain and Greece, we too call for a regime change: a global regime change. In the words of Vandana Shiva, the Indian activist, today we demand replacing the G8 with the whole of humanity - the G 7,000,000,000.

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: ALERT: OccupyWallStreet's foundation and direction is CYBERNETIC DYSTOPIA
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2011, 08:13:20 pm »
A global Marxist Revolution?

(based on nothing)
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.