When Big Tech And Big Government Partner To Track Everyone Everywhere

Who is leading whom? The Technocrats of Big Tech can lead government around by the nose, because they have the ultimate tools of scientific social engineering and the government does not. ⁃ TN Editor
 

George Orwell was a brilliant individual.  A man of incredible insight – and foresight.

In his unfathomably predictive novel 1984, Orwell warns of Big Brother:

“(O)stensibly the leader of Oceania, a totalitarian state wherein the ruling party Ingsoc wields total power ‘for its own sake’ over the inhabitants.

“In the society that Orwell describes, every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens.…The people are constantly reminded of this by the slogan ‘Big Brother is watching you’: a maxim that is ubiquitously on display.

“In modern culture, the term ‘Big Brother’ has entered the lexicon as a synonym for abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties, often specifically related to mass surveillance.”

As brilliant as Orwell was, something continuously struck me as incorrect as I read 1984.

Orwell’s government – was extraordinarily competent in its totalitarian imposition of technological power.

In Reality – no government in the history of man has ever been even remotely close to that competent.

For Orwell’s Big Brother dystopia to become Reality – Big Government would need private sector help.

Enter private sector Big Tech.

Big Tech has delivered much of the technology Orwell envisioned.  As but one of many examples – Orwell’s telescreens:

(D)evices that operate as televisions, security cameras, and microphones….(T)elescreens are used by the ruling Party in the totalitarian fictional State of Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania.”

We’re already all the way there – via Big Tech.

How Google and Amazon Are ‘Spying’ on You:

“The study found that digital assistants (Google Home and Amazon Echo) can be ‘awake’ even when users think they aren’t listening….

“(T)he devices listen all the time they are turned on – and Amazon has envisioned Alexa using that information to build profiles on anyone in the room….

“Amazon filed a patent application for an algorithm that would let future versions of the device identify statements of interest, such as ‘I love skiing’, enabling the speaker to be monitored based on their interests and targeted for related advertising.

“A Google patent application describes using a future release of it smart Home system to monitor and control everything from screen time and hygiene habits, to meal and travel schedules and other activities.

“The devices are envisioned as part of a surveillance web in the home to chart a families’ patterns….”

This is ALL insanely creepy.

Big Tech is…insanely big.

Microsoft (Market Cap: $1.1 trillion)

Amazon (Market Cap: $942 billion)

Google (Market Cap: $775 billion)

Facebook (Market Cap: $550 billion)

These four spying companies – are currently worth a combined $3.7 trillion.  Our nation’s entire economy – is $19.4 trillion.

Which means these four companies – all by themselves – are worth 19% of the United States.

But it’s Big Tech doing the spying – not Big Government.

Anyone who looks at Big Tech’s all-encompassing spying ability and thinks Big Government is capable of doing anything remotely similar – hasn’t paid attention to the past 10,000 years of human history.

The ONLY way Big Government can impose Big Brother – is to partner with Big Tech.

Uh oh.

The Role of Tech Companies in Government Surveillance

Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program

Four High-Tech Ways the Federal Government Is Spying on Private Citizens:

“Right now, the government is tracking the movements of private citizens by GPS, reading private citizens’ emails, and possibly even reading what you’re saying on Facebook.”

Big Tech once offered at least token resistance to Big Government’s demands – at least after being outed for acquiescing to Big Government’s demands.

Facebook, Amazon, Google Call for Government Surveillance Reform:

“It first gained attention after the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. Congress is in the process of weighing reforms for the program. It must vote to renew Section 702 before the end of the year, otherwise it will expire.

“The letter, addressed to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asks Congress to consider several reforms to the program to ensure greater transparency and privacy protections.”

We can now officially refer to those – as the Good Old Days.

Why would Big Tech fight Big Government – when they can get paid to join them?

And the Big Government-Big Tech surveillance state – is getting closer and closer to home.

In fact – just outside…and inside it.

Amazon’s Helping Police Build a Surveillance Network with Ring Doorbells:

“Police departments across the country, from major cities like Houston to towns with fewer than 30,000 people, have offered free or discounted Ring doorbells to citizens, sometimes using taxpayer funds to pay for Amazon’s products.

“While Ring owners are supposed to have a choice on providing police footage, in some giveaways, police require recipients to turn over footage when requested….

“(T)he sheer number of cameras run by Amazon’s Ring business raises questions about privacy involving both law enforcement and tech giants….(C)ritics have pointed out the retail giant’s (other) ventures with law enforcement, like offering facial recognition tools….

“More than 50 local police departments across the US have partnered with Ring over the last two years, lauding how the Amazon-owned product allows them to access security footage in areas that typically don’t have cameras — on suburban doorsteps….

“‘What we have here is a perfect marriage between law enforcement and one of the world’s biggest companies creating conditions for a society that few people would want to be a part of,’ said Mohammad Tajsar, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.”

That’s the outside of your home.  Here’s the in….

The Government Just Admitted It Will Use Smart Home Devices for Spying:

“If you want evidence that US intelligence agencies aren’t losing surveillance abilities because of the rising use of encryption by tech companies, look no further than the testimony…by the (then) director of national intelligence, James Clapper….

“Clapper made clear that the internet of things – the many devices like thermostats, cameras and other appliances that are increasingly connected to the internet – are providing ample opportunity for intelligence agencies to spy on targets, and possibly the masses. And it’s a danger that many consumers who buy these products may be wholly unaware of….

“Privacy advocates have known about the potential for government to exploit the internet of things for years. Law enforcement agencies have taken notice too, increasingly serving court orders on companies for data they keep that citizens might not even know they are transmitting. Police have already been asking Google-owned company Dropcam for footage from cameras inside people’s homes meant to keep an eye on their kids.”

Orwell got the tech right – just not Big Government’s ability to create it for totalitarian ends.

Freedom has allowed for the free markets – that allowed the rise of the private sector Big Tech Orwell thought Big Government would produce.

And now Big Tech and Big Government are partnering – to end that freedom.

Well…for we plebeians, anyway.

I’m sure Big Tech and Big Government will be just fine.

Read full story here…




An Age of Insanity When an Ex-Barmaid Has a National Voice

 It is a disturbing experience to listen to the rambling comments of 30-year old ex-barmaid, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). As you listen to the ignorance, inaccuracies, and naïve views, you understand why the Founding Fathers limited the age of eligibility for President to 35. The question is why do her views receive so much attention?

The answer is because a group of technocrats saw an opportunity to push non-issues onto the stage without the danger of association. It is a technique seen as essential for control in today’s insane world. It is called plausible deniability and Obama was probably as good a practitioner as any to date.

If you lack the abilities required to wangle your way to the top or prefer to control from the shadows, then a public figure is an alternative. Obama started as such, a person chosen by George Soros and created by Valerie Jarrett. He was only supposed to serve one term but became enamored of the power and privilege of the job. In Obama’s third year Soros announced he would not support him for a second term. By that point, Obama decided to run and only succeeded because three million Republicans refused to vote for Romney.

The Democrats have no clear political leader or even a potential leader on the horizon. The ones who are apparently considering the position are so far left that they guarantee a loss at the next election. A large number of Democrats will not vote or even vote for Trump. A report said that some 30% of attendees at his recent rally in Grand Rapids Michigan are registered Democrats. They also have no policies because Trump usurped their traditional sectors of American society and their issues.

AOC is one of hundreds of thousands of people with web sites on which they regularly post commentaries. Her comments are not extraordinary or outside of the ordinary, whatever that is on the internet. The first thing that took her above the mob was an election to Congress, but that raises the same questions. What made her stand out above the large number of Democrats in her New York district? The level of ignorance in all aspects of politics, history, and economics was on display after her election. It was undoubtedly worse before she was elected, which makes the question of how she ran for office more pressing.

AOC introduced the Green New Deal (GND), but it is not new because it is a retread of the climate actions set out in Agenda 21. It is equally obvious that AOC had no part in its production and didn’t understand it. So, why is she talking about it and displaying her ignorance? Simple, she is a puppet of technocrats who want the issues on the front page because it is about using the environment as a global threat that they claim needs total government control. They know from polls that the public is not interested. They know Trump trumped all their traditional issues. Enter, AOC with shallowness and blind ambition which is so ignorant as not even to realize she is ignorant. The perfect dupe as one article reported.

More interestingly, the Democrats have shoved AOC out in front as the spokes-maven for all of their most ambitious and hare-brained socialist ideas. The latest is a so-called “Green New Deal.” The plan would have the US completely dependent on non-fossil fuel by the year 2030.

 

These people know that in the age of political correctness that they created it is very difficult to challenge a woman from a minority presented as epitomizing the American dream. A woman whom the publicity said fought her way out of impossible situations and did it in the face of white male supremacy. AOC is the modern equivalent of Joan of Arc (1412-1431). Nobody ever asks why Joan, an 18-year-old woman, ended up in uniform fighting against the English. Joan was a pawn of the French King, Charles VII, who was losing to the English and wanted a negotiated peace without loss of status. He apparently used her as a person more likely to negotiate peace with the English than a man.

As we see with all these AOC type stories, people, but especially women, are picked out for a cynical political purpose. This exploitation was on full display during the Justice Kavanaugh debacle. They trotted on to the stage a steady stream of women to play a part like Joan, with what they genuinely believed was an important nation saving function. Now, only a year later, they are on the rubbish heap of history. It is unlikely they will receive the forgiveness of an inquiry, like Joan did, and achieve the honored position as a savior of their country. All they got was their Warhol 15 minutes of fame, which consisted of deer blinking in the headlights of cynicism.




Racism, Concentration Camps, Police State: Is China Set To Become The Fourth Reich?

China is a Technocracy but it is also totalitarian, and is exhibiting many of the characteristics of Hitler’s Third Reich: concentration camps, institutionalized racism. ubiquitous command and control, environmental rhetoric, etc. ⁃ TN Editor

More than a million people, for no reason other than their ethnicity or religion, are held in concentration camps in what Beijing calls the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Picture: Chinese police clash with ethnic Uighur women during a protest in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, on July 7, 2009. (Photo by Guang Niu/Getty Images)

More than a million people, for no reason other than their ethnicity or religion, are held in concentration camps in what Beijing calls the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and what traditional inhabitants of the area, the Uighurs, say is East Turkestan. In addition to Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs are also held in these facilities.

Families in this troubled area, shown on maps as the northwestern portion of the People’s Republic of China, are being torn apart. The children of imprisoned Uighur and Kazakh parents are “confined” to “schools” that are separated from the outside by barbed wire and heavy police patrols. They are denied instruction in their own language, forced to learn Mandarin Chinese. The controls are part of a so-called “Hanification” policy, a program of forced assimilation. “Han” is the name of China’s dominant ethnic group.

Because Uighurs and Kazakhs are dying in the camps in considerable numbers, Beijing is building crematoria to eradicate burial traditions while disposing of corpses.

The camps, a crime against humanity, are spreading. China is now building similar facilities, given various euphemistic names such as “vocational training centers,” in Tibet, in China’s southwest.

At the same time, Beijing is renewing its attempt to eliminate religion country-wide. Christians have come under even greater attack across China, as have Buddhists. China’s ruler, Xi Jinping, demands that the five recognized religions — official recognition is a control mechanism — “Sinicize.” The Chinese, as a part of this ruthless and relentless effort, are destroying mosques and churches, forcing devout Muslims to drink alcohol and eat pork, inserting Han officials to live in Muslim homes, and ending religious instruction for minors.

These attempts, which have antecedents in Chinese history, have been intensified since Xi became the Communist Party’s general secretary in November 2012.

At the same time, Xi, far more than his predecessors, has been promoting the concept of a world order ruled by only one sovereign, a Chinese one.

In broad outline, Xi’s vision of the world is remarkably similar to that of the Third Reich, at least before the mass murders.

The Third Reich and the People’s Republic share a virulent racism, in China politely referred to as “Han chauvinism.” The Han category, which is said to include about 92% of the population of the People’s Republic, is in truth the amalgamation of related ethnic groups.

Chinese mythology holds that all Chinese are descendants of the Yellow Emperor, who is thought to have ruled in the third millennium BCE. The Chinese consider themselves to be a branch of humanity separate from the rest of the world, a view reinforced by indoctrination in schools, among other means.

Chinese scholars support this notion of Chinese separateness with the “Peking Man” theory of evolution, which holds the Chinese do not share a common African ancestor with the remainder of humankind. This theory of the unique evolution of the Chinese has, not surprisingly, reinforced racist views.

As a result of racism, many in China, including officials, “believe themselves to be categorically different from and impliedly superior to the rest of the humankind,” writes Fei-Ling Wang, author of The China Order: Centralia, World Empire, and the Nature of Chinese Power.

The racism, therefore, is institutionalized and openly promoted. That was painfully evident last year in the 13-minute skit on China Central Television’s Spring Festival Gala, the premier television show in China. In “Let’s Celebrate Together,” a Chinese actress in blackface played a Kenyan mother, who had an enormous bosom and ridiculously large buttocks. Worse, her sidekick was a human-size monkey. The combination of the monkey and the woman was an echo of the Hubei Provincial Museum exhibit, “This is Africa,” which in 2017 displayed photographs of Africans flush next to images of primates.

In recent years, there have been many ugly portrayals of Africans in Chinese media, and although the skit last year was not the worst, it was striking because the main state broadcaster, by airing it to about 800 million viewers, made it clear Chinese officials think of Africans as both objects of derision and subhuman. In these circumstances, it is a safe assumption that these views are shared by the Beijing leadership, which, alarmingly, is making more frequent race-based appeals to Chinese people — and not only those in China.

Read full story here…




Tim Ball: How Too Many Lawyers Create Legal Chaos

Technocracy rolls on behind the scene while politicians are gridlocked in legislative and legal chaos, while selective deregulation turns over more power to Technocrats advancing Sustainable Development. ⁃ TN Editor

Voltaire said, If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” In this article, the required definitions are explained as follows.

Many people have heard laws and regulations being used in the same sentence. It is also assumed that they are related to each other in many ways. However, definitions of both the words often cause confusion between the two words making people believe that they are the same. These words are different from each other in distinct ways. Laws are rules that are enacted by a governing body, while regulation is the process of monitoring and enforcing the rules.

Donald Trump argues that his deregulations are freeing up and boosting the economy more than all the tax cuts he introduced. It is true, but just as people didn’t know how the addition of those regulations gradually strangled the economy, they are unaware of how they free it. His deregulation removed the “monitoring and enforcing,” but it did not remove the laws written by the enacting body, in this case, Congress.

Deregulation is rare as Trump pointed out. Removal of the laws that required the regulations is even rarer. It is almost impossible to imagine Congress agreeing even to consider removal of the laws that underpin the Trump deregulation examples. This means that throughout US history every law created to resolve an issue remains ‘on the books.’ Because of the legal practice of precedence, this means that an almost unlimited set of laws exist that any lawyer can use to argue a case.

The underlying point, experienced but rarely articulated, is that as soon as government becomes involved in an issue, it is a guarantee for no resolution of the issue. Worse, the resolution will become part of the larger growth of government, laws, and regulations that will eventually smother society. Continued growth of government is proof of my argument.

Because of this, you frequently hear people say, “There is too much government and too many laws.” Thirty minutes later you can hear the same person say about another issue, “Why doesn’t the government do something about this?” Many people claim that politicians don’t listen. What they mean is the politicians don’t seem to do what they want. The politicians do listen and respond but with knee-jerk, completely unnecessary reactions.

Every day new events occur that create a negative impact on at least one segment of society. Usually, there is an outcry and politicians feel obliged to respond. Today, the event and its implications for society, are amplified by the sensationalist media. The politicians respond by producing new legislation to deal with the event.

It is reasonable to assume that most new legislation or rules are not required. The Bible only needed ten rules. It is revealing to look at the original ten as set out in Exodus 20:2-17. There are only two (2) that are relevant in any society over time. 1. You shall not murder, and 2) You shall not steal. Of course, coveting thy neighbor’s wife works both ways and even other ways today.

Today there are so many laws that a lawyer can almost always find something to stretch and bend to overcome any charge. Sadly, it depends on whether you can afford a good lawyer and that in itself makes a mockery of the law and justice.

Lawyers are the largest professional group in politics.

According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the House and 60 Senators are lawyers. 

Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.

Somehow this doesn’t prevent them piling law on law. A new circumstance arises that seems to get people upset. Most of the issues that persist over a few months gather political momentum. These include public and private meetings, the creation of concerned citizens, and corporate-funded lobby groups. Meanwhile, the politician’s setup research groups and ultimately hold public and private hearings. The media confuse the situation by selecting and amplifying specific issues.   There are few days when Congress is in session that you can’t tune to one committee or another holding hearings and special hearings. It is easy to argue that this is their job, but what it does is allow them to perpetuate their job.

In almost every case the conclusion is a recommendation for more legislation, and that means more laws. Trump recommended that politicians eliminate two old regulations for every new regulation. It is an excellent first step, and initially, it is working better than expectations. However, that won’t continue, no matter the benefit to society. At some point, the bureaucrats and lawyers and lawyer/politicians will stop the bleeding because, ultimately, they are in control and will not allow elimination of their positions and power. Undoubtedly, they will use the vast array of laws on the books to make their case.

But this underscores the problem that laws, and the accompanying regulations are self-perpetuating. When a regulation is eliminated the laws stay on the books. It is like erasing a software program. When installed it places controls throughout your computer that remain unless specifically and individually removed, even if you erase the basic program.

The debris accumulates and eventually clogs the system. The laws accumulate in the same way, except that lawyers dig through them, and that is much easier now with computers until they find all or part of one that is close enough to their argument. Almost always this is not related in any way to the original intent of the law. That is why Justice Kavanaugh spoke about how he decides a case – he looks at the Constitution, then Precedent. He only looks at the intent if it is not clear. Is he saying that in every law or portion of the law, and it is always that, lawyers know the intent? Talented as they are, that is not credible.

It is time for a legislative spring cleaning. They should eliminate all deregulated laws. Do not allow any new law that did not get full vetting of overlap with existing law. Gradually eliminate all laws not challenged before the Supreme Court. This could begin by eliminating all other laws over 100 years old and to continue removal until all unnecessary laws are gone.

This will work because it is working in almost every other country in the world. It is not working in America, not just because of the complexity but the prohibitive cost. It alone explains but doesn’t justify why America has more lawyers per capita than any other country in the world – one lawyer per 265 Americans. It is a growth industry that guaranteed its continued existence by saying that America is a nation of laws. Yes, it is because they made it that way.

However, it is not a nation of justice because they made a system so complex and arcane that they retain complete control. Legal technocrats with total control because they defined and created the system, control the society by pretending to deal with social and economic issues when they are actually self-perpetuating. They are the only ones that can afford the law. They use the people’s money to pursue and prosecute those people. They can stretch out and delay at will until justice is denied to the people. It is why British Prime Minister William Gladstone said, justice delayed is justice denied.

It is also why Charles Dickens wrote Bleak House in which families are involved in legal disputes through a legal company called Jarndyce and Jarndyce.: The legal issues are resolved by the end of the book, but everybody involved is dead.




The Merging Of Government With Artificial Intelligence

Technocrats are directly encroaching upon government functions. A Federal Data Strategy for AI was created in 2018 providing standards across the entire Federal government on the use of Artificial Intelligence. ⁃ TN Editor

Private businesses already use AI to find efficiencies in their own business and improve the return-on-investment of products and projects.

At the risk of dating myself, one of my favorite movies growing up as a kid was “WarGames” starring Matthew Broderick. I didn’t realize it at the time, but in the climactic scene, the large supercomputer ‘WOPR’ operated by the Defense Department, showed artificial intelligence capabilities. By playing tic-tac-toe against itself, it learned a lesson that prevented global thermonuclear war.

In many ways, Hollywood has warped what many think of when they first hear the term artificial intelligence, or AI. My thoughts used to go to movies like “The Terminator” or “The Matrix” where sentient machines develop the ability to think for themselves and try to overthrow humankind. While this makes for an exciting movie plot, AI has much more tangible—and less threatening—benefits, particularly for government.

In 2018, U.S. Chief Information Officer Suzette Kent announced the creation of the first Federal Data Strategy that will serve as a foundation for how agencies use AI.

Her analogy in describing the need for the strategy was compelling.

“Technology modernization allows us the opportunity to rethink our foundation,” Kent saidat an event announcing the strategy. “We have to move aggressively. We don’t want to build the high-speed train without the track.”

AI can serve as part of that track. As the government collects more and more data, the need for solutions to drive true value from that data grows in importance. AI, in conjunction with big data and analytics, can deliver that baseline value and go beyond traditional solutions to find deeper insights.

Other governments have recognized this as well. For example, the United Arab Emirates was the first nation to appoint a senior cabinet official solely focused on AI empowerment and oversight within the government, appointing a Minister of State for Artificial Intelligencein October 2017. Canada was the first nation to release a national AI strategy. And China has released a 3-year plan to be a leader … if not the leader … in AI.

Understanding AI

So, for those of us whose understanding of AI has heretofore been solely that of the Hollywood blockbuster, AI is the science of training systems to emulate specific human tasks through learning and automation. In short, it’s a technology that makes it possible for machines to learn from experience, adjust to new inputs and perform specific human tasks, such as pattern recognition, finding anomalies in data, image and video analytics, and more. Specific to analytics, AI can help analytics programs in government find connections and trends in the data that human analysts might miss due to scale, complexity, or other factors … and it can do it at a much faster speed. AI can find context in data, gaining insight from previous discoveries to create better outcomes in the future. From an analytics perspective, AI tends to focus in these areas:

  • Machine learning: Machine learning and deep learning find insights hidden in data without explicitly being told where to look or what to conclude. This results in better, faster and more accurate decision-making capabilities.
  • Natural Language Processing: NLP enables understanding, interaction and communication between humans and machines, automatically extracting insights and emerging trends from large amounts of structured and unstructured content.
  • Computer vision: Computer vision analyzes and interprets what’s in an image or video through image processing, image recognition and object detection.
  • Forecasting and optimization: Forecasting helps predict future outcomes, while optimization delivers the best results given resource constraints. This includes enabling large-scale automation for predicting outcomes and optimizing decisions.

Read full story here…




Dr. Tim Ball: Tyranny Of The Technocrat Minority

Technocrats generally don’t believe in voting at all, but rather following the ‘rule of science’ where the last word (final vote) is based on their scientific declarations. Thus, if they declare it, it must be correct… and all else is swept away ⁃ TN Editor

Thank goodness the technocrats are usually in the minority. However, because of this, they constantly work to counteract and overcome this limitation. They do this in many ways, but one of the most effective is to undermine the decree at the heart of democracy that a majority is 50 +1. They convinced people that this resulted in a tyranny of the majority. They replaced it with the current situation that we now realize is a bigger disaster, the tyranny of the minority.

Consider the current situation in the US Senate where the Republicans have a majority with 53 seats to the Democrats 47. Under any fair democratic system that is a majority, but the technocrats forced through a requirement that requires 60 votes for approval on most issues. The argument was that these are so serious that a significant majority must approve. It sounds very reasonable, especially with something of great consequence, but all it does is give power and control to the minority.

I was President of a condominium or Strata that involved 96 private owners. Most issues only required a 50%+1 approval at the Annual General Meetings but any vote involving the expenditure of money required 75% approval. Again, it sounds reasonable adding a further control on careless or wasteful spending. What it did was put control of all expenditures in the hands of 25% of the owners. In most groups, it is always possible to find 25% who will not spend any money if they can. It meant that necessary structural repairs to our property were constantly defeated. It ended up in court where the judge appointed an administrator and effectively took all power away from the Council.

In a rewrite of the legislation governing Stratas, the politicians (technocrats) changed it but didn’t really change it. The 75% was still required, but after several attempts to get that vote, the Strata could go to the court for an adjudicated dispensation.

The level of political game playing with the Senate vote only underscores the problem with a 60% vote. It means that 40% can dictate to the 60% and that is undemocratic and constitutes the tyranny of the minority. Because the Democrats changed the list of what issues required a 60% vote to include Supreme Court Justices they approved, the Republicans were able to appoint Justice Bret Kavanaugh. Now the Republicans are confronted with another 60% vote. It is unlikely they can get it changed because of the tyranny of the minority. Besides, technocrats, including Republicans, warn them off by saying you might want to block something with a 60% vote in the future. This is what is wrong with politics today. They take an apparently reasonable idea and pervert it to achieve control. It is a reason for the growing public anger with politics that they justify a position by saying we will act stupidly because they acted stupidly.

Democracy is the rule of the majority and must be 50 + 1. It is an absolute, like free speech. Either you have it, or you don’t. The minute there is anything else a minority take control to decide which words are allowed. So it is, that if you move away from 50+1. This does not guarantee the rights of minorities, and that is the challenge. It is why Churchill made his famous comment in 1947,

 “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

The Founding Fathers confronted the problem of democracy and created a republic in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. As one author explained,

Our Constitution created a limited representative republic.  A republic is different from a democracy.  In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws.  Basically, in a pure democracy, the majority has unlimited power, whereas in a republic, a written constitution limits the majority and provides safeguards for the individual and minorities.

All that is under attack as a small group of technocrats attempt to bypass the rule of the majority.




Man-Caused Perversion Of Ideas Is As Old As The Hills

Even when good ideas are presented, invariably someone appears to use them for their own self-aggrandizement, leaving the original intent and potential benefits behind. Only by constant vigilance can an idea stay true to its origin. ⁃ TN Editor

The midterm election is the most important since the creation of the US. There is a choice between successful or failed economic policies. Yes, it is that, but it is more profound because of what happens to ideas after implementation. The battle is the classic one seen throughout history between an idea, such as the one envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and the vain self-promoters who pervert the idea through control.

Everything starts with an idea, whether it is a new widget, a religion, or a country. Every year millions of ideas appear, but few ever develop into anything. The people select the ones that do if it fits their needs, satisfies their interests or improves their lives. A new phase must begin after the idea is accepted if it is to achieve wider success. An organization is necessary that takes the idea and spreads it to the world.

A classic example is the idea of Christianity. It wasn’t long before disciples appeared and travelled widely preaching the gospel and putting the idea in a written form that became the New Testament. Some of those ideas were leveraged into the creation of the Catholic Church.

 “The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches.”

Some disagree with this version. It doesn’t matter. What is important is that they created a structure called the Catholic Church with a human being in charge. This structure gradually grew, creating rules and positions inconsistent with the original idea of Christianity. It rapidly changed to ensure its existence and control. The self-promoting narcissists were in charge. The structure they created was rigid, but the world and society are dynamic and ever-changing. It eventually becomes so misaligned that it collapses taking the society down with it. Alternatively, the people revolt.

The drift of the Catholic Church was already evident with such things as the split in the Great Western Schism when two popes were elected, one in Avignon, France and the other in Rome. The division became so apparent that by 1517 Martin Luther (1483-1546) was driven to nail a list of the transgression to the Wittenberg Cathedral door.  The structure always becomes more important than the idea, unless a system is designed to prevent it.

The only serious attempt in history to do that was with the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights created by the Founding Fathers. The original idea was for a Republic with government at all levels elected and accountable to the people. We have direct insight into the thoughts behind their creation known as the Federalist Papers.

You can understand their importance when you recall the real issue in the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. When asked what he considered when making a judgment, he replied, the law as written, and precedence, that is previous judgments that stood the test of time. They then asked if he ever considered the reasoning behind the law; that is, what the legislators were thinking or what was their intent. He replied that most judges do that only helps to clear up ambiguity.

America is at the point where it must refer to the Federalist Papers. There is very little ambiguity in the Constitution, primarily because the Founding Fathers created a system of amendments to overcome rigidity. Amendments are deliberately and correctly difficult to obtain. The need to revisit the Constitution is made necessary by the creation of a rigid, unaccountable structure by the self-promoting elitists. The Founding Fathers tried to build in accountability by having more positions filled by elections than ever before, but there is an obvious limit to that idea, especially since the government has grown exponentially.

This is the critical issue at the heart of the battle between Trump and both other branches of the tripartite system. Today’s bureaucrats are mostly technocrats who control everything including their budgets, the size of their organization and the parameters of their responsibility. Here is a small example of the exploitation of such a system that I witnessed. A Captain was appointed the head of the motor pool on my base. He immediately asked for 25 more people because of work demands. The uninformed politicians agreed but said he could only have 12. That was precisely what he wanted because it increased the pool to a size that the rules required a Major in charge. As soon as he got the ruling, he applied for promotion.

The Founding Fathers considered the importance of numbers, only to reduce concentration of power. For example, they considered appointing two Presidents. Here are other salient quotes from the Founding Fathers that speak to the challenge in the US today. Most speak to power and its control.

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” –James Madison

“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” –James Madison

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams 

“In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” –James Madison

 “If it be asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.” –Alexander Hamilton

“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature.” –Alexander Hamilton

All of these concerns were accentuated and exploited by former President Barack Obama and continued by the radical left. The talent of the Founding Fathers centered on their unblinkered understanding of human nature. Benjamin Franklin demonstrated this ability when he described Barack Obama 300 years ago.

“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.”

Thomas Jefferson described Obama’s drop of reason.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” –Thomas Jefferson

Will the unique idea of America survive the attacks and deliberate undermining, now so deeply entrenched by technocrats? They dragged the nation away from the original idea. Now, the people must know the original idea and intent. There is a glimmer of hope in the survival of the idea of Christianity: Despite the destructive actions of the Catholic Church, Christianity survives, protected from the meddling of man, in the heart and soul of the individual. The idea of the US is also there in the American people as Trump showed, which is why the narcissistic left is so blinded by hate.




Udi Greenberg: ‘The Obama Administration Was Defined By Technocracy’

This is a portion of an interview in Spiked Review. Again, Technocracy is front and center as the dominant theme in progressive and left-wing memes. Although there are similarities, it is Technocracy, not Fascism. Technocracy will continue to rise in public discussion. ⁃ TN Editor

This does not mean to say that everyone who invokes the Weimar or Nazi analogy immediately ends up an anti-democrat, but Professor Bessner and me worry that we could eventually end up in a similar place. We are both scholars of the Cold War, and we both studied how political theorists in the 1940s and 1950s claimed that in order to achieve stable democracy you need to limit political activism and people’s involvement in politics. And we were worried that the same logic might lead us in the same direction today.

In our view, the right, progressive response to the contemporary moment should be a doubling down in our commitment to democracy, limiting technocracy and increasing democratic and grassroots involvement in politics.

review: Yet it does seem that the predominant response to the populist moment, certainly in left-wing and liberal circles in both the US and the UK, has been to make a stronger appeal to technocracy, to a rule by expertise.

Greenberg: That is true for some, certainly. It has actually been developing since at least the 1990s, with the so-called left moving more and more in the direction of technocracy, and trying to achieve progress through technocracy, rather than through more popular control of the economy. And I think that is born of a deep disappointment with the masses, and a belief that the masses cannot be trusted to make the right economic decisions. And that tendency developed and deepened right through to the Obama administration, which was very much defined by technocracy.

The reason this recent development on the left stood out for us was that too many on the left today make the same argument as the militant democrats – both contend that technocracy is the best means to preserve democracy. So, if the masses are not to be trusted, then you have to transfer as much power as possible into the hands of technocrats, who know what’s good for the masses, who will make the right call. And you have to shield technocrats from democratic accountability precisely to make those calls.

We have seen this logic operating in the past two decades among centrist politicians, and political elites more generally. And we were worried that the rise of populism on the right will further exacerbate and intensify this technocratic way of thinking. We believe that the left should adopt a very different model of thinking. In some ways, we believe that the logic of militant democracy and technocracy is precisely what led us to where we are now.

Read full story here…




Chinese Communist Party Funds Washington Think Tanks

Chinese Technocrats are using propaganda with every nickel and opportunity to build up a positive public sentiment for China, and to influence public policy. In the U.S., they are using our own institutions against us. ⁃ TN Editor

China’s Communist Party is intensifying covert influence operations in the United States that include funding Washington think tanks and coercing Chinese Americans, according to a congressional commission report.

The influence operations are conducted by the United Front Work Department, a Central Committee organ that employs tens of thousands of operatives who seek to use both overt and covert operations to promote Communist Party policies.

The Party’s United Front strategy includes paying several Washington think tanks with the goal influencing their actions and adopting positions that support Beijing’s policies.

“The [Chinese Communist Party] has sought to influence academic discourse on China and in certain instances has infringed upon—and potentially criminally violated—rights to freedoms of speech and association that are guaranteed to Americans and those protected by U.S. laws,” the report says.

“Despite the CCP’s candid discussion of its United Front strategy, the breadth and depth of this issue remain relatively unknown to U.S. policymakers.”

The report said the Johns Hopkins School of Advance International Studies, a major foreign policy education and analysis institute, has received funding from Tung Chee-hwa, a vice chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the party group that directs the United Front Work Department and includes a member of the Politburo Standing Committee, the collective dictatorship that rules China.

The funding for Johns Hopkins came from Tung’s non-profit group in Hong Kong, the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation, which is a registered Chinese agent.

In addition to Johns Hopkins, other think tanks linked to China and influential in American policy circles include the Brookings Institution, Atlantic Council, Center for American Progress, EastWest Institute, Carter Center, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The Exchange Foundation is tied to Chinese government influence operations and uses the same public relations firm as the Chinese embassy.

A spokesman for the Center for American Progress (CAP) said the center has received no money from China. CAP cooperated with the U.S.-China Exchange Foundation in producing a joint report in 2014 but received no financial contribution from CUSEF.

According to the commission report, CUSEF “spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for ‘China-U.S. relations’ as a registered foreign agent.”

China’s goal in funding think tanks is to attempt to change debates on China without Beijing having to use its own voice.

China Commission member Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence officer once posted to China, said the report is important for exposing the activities of the United Front Work Department and the China People’s Political Consultative Conference.

“Most Americans and many members of Congress have no idea of the range of activities undertaken by this Chinese Communist Party web,” Wortzel said. “It is a form of activity by Communist parties that dates back to the days of Lenin.”

Wortzel said now that Congress has been alerted to the Chinese influence operations, “Congress should consider legislation requiring anyone associated with the China People’s Political Consultative Conference, CUSEF, or the United Front Work Department to register as a foreign agent,” he said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) has said the collusion between American groups and United Front Work Department operatives is the Chinese party using Americans to “unwittingly promote CCP ideology” in a “countering voice” in debates over China.

“Beijing seeks to outsource its messaging in part because it believes foreigners are more likely to accept propaganda if it appears to come from non-Chinese sources,” the report said.

Chinese intelligence agents also work with the United Front Work Department to recruit students who are then called on to curtail universities’ discussion of China.

China targets students through 142 Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSA) in the United States.

Read full story here…




Technocrats Rule: Democracy Is OK As Long As The People Rubberstamp Our Leadership

Charles Hugh Smith makes the case that Technocrats are the guiding hand behind government and industry alike. If you cross them, you’re simply out of the game. The rising power of Technocrats has gone unchecked for way too long, and promises a Scientific Dictatorship if not dealt with soon. ⁃ TN Editor

Technocrats rule the world, East and West alike.

We are in a very peculiar ideological and political place in which Democracy (oh sainted Democracy) is a very good thing, unless the voters reject the technocrat class’s leadership. Then the velvet gloves come off. From the perspective of the elites and their technocrat apparatchiks, elections have only one purpose: to rubberstamp their leadership.

As a general rule, this is easily managed by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising and bribes to the cartels and insider fiefdoms who pony up most of the cash.

This is why incumbents win the vast majority of elections. Once in power, they issue the bribes and payoffs needed to guarantee funding next election cycle.

The occasional incumbent who is voted out of office made one of two mistakes:

1. He/she showed a very troubling bit of independence from the technocrat status quo, so a more orthodox candidate is selected to eliminate him/her.

2. The incumbent forgot to put on a charade of “listening to my constituency” etc.

If restive voters can’t be bamboozled into passively supporting the technocrat status quo with the usual propaganda, divide and conquer is the preferred strategy. Only voting for the technocrat class (of any party, it doesn’t really matter) will save us from the evil Other: Deplorables, socialists, commies, fascists, etc.

In extreme cases where the masses confound the status quo by voting against the technocrat class (i.e. against globalization, financialization, Empire), then the elites/technocrats will punish them with austerity or a managed recession.The technocrat’s core ideology boils down to this:

1. The masses are dangerously incapable of making wise decisions about anything, so we have to persuade them to do our bidding. Any dissent will be punished, marginalized, censored or shut down under some pretext of “protecting the public” or violation of some open-ended statute.

2. To insure this happy outcome, we must use all the powers of propaganda, up to and including rigged statistics, bogus “facts” (official fake news can’t be fake news, etc.), divide and conquer, fear-mongering, misdirection and so on.

3. We must relentlessly centralize all power, wealth and authority so the masses have no escape or independence left to threaten us. We must control everything, for their own good of course.

4. Globalization must be presented not as a gargantuan fraud that has stripmined the planet and its inhabitants, but as the sole wellspring of endless, permanent prosperity.

5. If the masses refuse to rubberstamp our leadership, they will be punished and told the source of their punishment is their rejection of globalization, financialization and Empire.

Technocrats rule the world, East and West alike. My two favorite charts of the outcome of technocrats running things to suit their elite masters are:

The state-cartel-crony-capitalist version: the top .1% skim the vast majority of the gains in income and wealth. Globalization, financialization and Empire sure do rack up impressive gains. Too bad they’re concentrated in the top 1.%.

The state-crony-socialist version: the currency is destroyed, impoverishing everyone but the top .1% who transferred their wealth to Miami, London and Zurich long ago. Hmm, do you discern a pattern here in the elite-technocrat regime?

Ideology is just a cover you slip over the machine to mask what’s really going on.

Read full story here…