Re: POLITICS robots to hunt us down

[Guest guest]

,

> Biden's clearly saying he expects some kind of major test and that he

> wants influential people to rally behind the Obama administration when

> it happens, because the administration's actions might not be popular

> at first.

> What should note, though, is that Biden said " I don't know what

> the decicion's going to be " . That's hardly suggestive of some kind of

> detailed and premeditated roadmap for the abolition of capitalism and

> democracy and the institution of a Gnu World Hors d'Oeuvre.

Right. I agree with everything you said. There is what Biden said,

and then what I'm reading into it. Your interpretation accurately

reflects what he said.

My internet crashed when I was sending my response to your other post. Briefly:

The extent of the connection between what Biden said and the long-term

robot plans is that they are creepy. My post was more

stream-of-consciousness than anything else.

> That said, if you define capitalism sufficiently strictly, we haven't

> been a capitalist country for decades, or even forever.

Right, we are say, 40% capitalist or so. Our monetary structure is

probably best described as fascist rather than capitalist, but we

still allow private banking. There is the opportunity for small,

local banks, to thrive in a capitalist way, even though they are

thriving on an essentially anti-capitalist, fascist system of monetary

control. I think we could more or less see the end of that, but we

will see what happens.

It seems to me that the swiftness of the nationalzations, the

centralization over their control in the treasury, the unprecedented

rate of increase in the money supply, and the threats that were used

to pass the bailout bill (one congressman reported on CSPAN that house

members were threatened with martial law in response to the inevitable

1000-point Dow drop that would occur if the bailout bill didn't pass),

projected $2 trillion/yr deficits, all suggest to me very dramatic

decreases in what is left of the free market.

> I'd characterize this more as crony capitalism than anything else, and

> it's quite questionable IMO to call it a financial dictatorship by the

> Treasury department when things seem to be running primarily for the

> benefit of powerful banks. I'd be much happier with a bailout more

> along the lines of the UK's bailout, with strict lending requirements

> and more rigorous taxpayer participation in the form of stock.

I don't see why that weakens its status as a financial dictatorship.

It's financial dictatorshiop by a big banker for the sake of the big

banks.

> Well, first, a lot of these calls are for a new *financial* regulatory

> structure, and in that sense, we had a global financial " order "

> starting right after WWII -- basically designed by the US... and then

> largely abandoned and sabotaged by the US due to stresses caused by

> our endless and unsustainable sinking of money into the military.

I think the result would be the same with any type of deficit

spending, if you are referring to the monetary order.

> You

> and I disagree fairly profoundly on economics and the politics of the

> economy, but regardless of whether you agree that modernized Glass-

> Steagall-style regulations ought to be applied to the entire financial

> system (and regardless of whether you agree that their partial

> dismantlement and the creation of a much less regulated shadow banking

> system led to the current crisis) it's hardly reasonable to describe

> the creation of such a regime as the " abolition " of capitalism or the

> creation of a world government.

Are you suggesting that there is not a movement for world government

per se? Would you consider a global tax, like Brzezinski advocated, a

move towards world government? Does the World Federalist Association

promote world government? Do you consider the European Union a

regional government? Would you consider the consolidation of

nation-states into larger umbrella region-states a move in the

direction of a world-state?

[snip]

> Do you remember the video Osama released shortly before the election?

> Many theorize it was responsible for Bush's reelection. And whether

> you believe that Bin Laden is a CIA tool or a sovereign enemy of the

> US, he obviously stood to benefit from Bush's reelection.

So what exactly is your conclusion from this? I think the neocons

benefit most from terrorist threats and the globalists benefit most

from threats of financial crisis. I don't know what bin Laden

benefits from because it is difficult to assess his " progress " at

anything.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Here's one to go with the robots. Once they capture you, they can erase

your memory. -Sharon

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/10/air-forces-amne.html

Military Investigates Amnesia Beams By Hambling [image:

Email]<d_hambling@...>October

30, 2008 | 1:37:00 PMCategories:

Bizarro<http://blog.wired.com/defense/bizarro/index.html>,

Lasers and Ray

Guns<http://blog.wired.com/defense/lasers_and_ray_guns/index.html>,

Less-lethal <http://blog.wired.com/defense/lesslethal/index.html>

A team of scientists from the United States and China announced last week

that, for the first time, they had found a means of selectively and safely

erasing memories in

mice<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022135801.htm>,

using the signaling molecule ¦ÁCaMKII. It's a big step forward, and one

that

will be of considerable interest to the military, which has devoted efforts

to memory manipulation as a means of treating post-traumatic stress

disorder<http://60minutes./segment/21/memory_drug>.

But some military research has moved in another direction entirely.

In the 1980s, researchers found that even low-level exposure to a beam of

electrons

<http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai? & verb=getRecord & metadataPrefix=html & identifier=ADA1\

26870>caused

rats to forget what had just happened to them (an effect known as retrograde

amnesia ¡½ the other version, anteretrograde

amnesia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesia>,

is when you can't form new memories). The same effect was also achieved with

X-rays. The time factor was not large ¡½ it only caused memory loss about

the

previous four seconds ¡½ but the effect was intriguing.

One theory was that the amnesia was a result of the brilliant

flash<http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai? & verb=getRecord & metadataPrefix=html & identifier\

=ADA124822>experienced

when the electron beam struck the retina. And, indeed, it turned

out that it is possible to produce amnesia in rodents using a flash of

light<http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=606943E40A9DF7C9 & id=ADA159149>:

*Retrograde amnesia was demonstrated for the 80-, 85-, and 100-V foot-shock

test trials. At 40 V the voltage may not have been great enough to be felt

by the subject. For groups examined at shock levels above 100 V, the foot

shock was so potent that a photoflash was ineffective in producing RA. Our

conclusion was that the photoflash was an effective amnesiac until the

intensity of the foot shock became more potent than the photoflash; this is

consistent with the recency theory generated in serial learning and memory

tasks.*

This might help explain some of the disorienting effects of strobe lights

used as nonlethal

weapons<http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/strobe-weapons.html>,

but there seems to have been little further research on this.

However, there have been plenty of studies on the physical effects of radio

and microwave exposure on the brain. Many of those investigations have been

conducted by the military.

The Air Force Research Laboratory's Human Effectiveness

Directorate<http://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/he/>has carried out its own

experiments in this area, which did not confirm the

results of earlier studies suggesting that microwaves could cause memory

loss <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991202070403.htm>. (The

report is now removed from the AFRL website, alas.) Most scientists chalk up

such effects to heating. But the Directed Energy Bioeffects

division<http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070418-034.pdf>contin\

ues

to research the human effects of various forms of radiation.

What's more, a 2003 paper on microwave effects on the nervous

system<http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/106565254/PDFSTART>,

from a team that includes Navy and Air Force scientists, states that

" research with isolated brain tissue has provided new results that do not

seem to rely on thermal mechanisms. " It is hard to assess the real effect on

working memory and other brain functions, they add.

* " The many exposure parameters such as frequency, orientation, modulation,

power density, and duration of exposure make direct comparison of many

experiments difficult¡Ä. It is concluded that the diverse methods and

experimental designs as well as lack of replication of many seemingly

important studies prevents formation of definite conclusions concerning

hazardous nervous system health effects from RF [radio frequency] exposure. "

*

Still, it's interesting to see that the notes for a classified course run by

the Directed Energy Professionals

Society<http://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/DEsymp06ShortCourse.html#Class11>(the

people who build laser and microwave weapons) include " memory loss " as

a potential effect of such devices.

I doubt whether they have a functioning *Men In Black*-style " Neuralizer. "

But as memory research continues to advance, it certainly starts to look

like more of a possibility.

*[Photo: Columbia Pictures]*

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Parashis <artpages@...

> wrote:

> This came in on the Info Packets newsletter. I usually click it away as

> soon as it's pesky little self shows up but the subject line said

>

> [10/29] Pentagon Seeks Robots To Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans

>

> so I couldn't resist looking.

>

> http://www.infopackets.com/news/government/2008/

> 20081029_pentagon_seeks_robots_to_hunt_down_uncooperative_humans.htm

>

> Parashis

> artpages@... <artpages%40earthlink.net>

>

> artpagesonline.com

>

>

[Guest guest]

I wonder if they could set up the computers to flash like that via an

internet command and get a bunch of us at once! LOL! Icke

claims the giant shape-shifting space lizards we think are our

elected officials have been able to do that for ages. Literally.

It's how they got their sleeper operatives all over the country who

don't know they're government operatives - because they forgot their

training. I think they're supposed to be able to have photographic

memories or something too.

But seriously and in the same vein, I've just finished watching a

documentary on Telsa and his work with harmonics. They mentioned

HAARP and GWEN, the super secretive giant radio tower arrays in

Alaska and ?Nevada? that some claim can influence weather and seismic

events. Is it fishy that Pakistan is having all these earthquakes?

Sorry I can't find any scientific articles to link to - most of the

sites are those paranoid ones but I saw a special on something like

NOVA narrated by Alan Alda about it way back when. And the fact is

that HAARP and GWEN do exist and the government has spent lots of

money on it but isn't giving straight answers on what it is for.

Here is one reference from BusinessWeek:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc20051020_3237

01.htm

It reminds me of the book " Men Who Stare At Goats " that is a funny

look at some of the goofier ideas of the military (in that case they

were trying to develop psychic power to make them drop dead).

>

> > This came in on the Info Packets newsletter. I usually click it

away as

> > soon as it's pesky little self shows up but the subject line said

> >

> > [10/29] Pentagon Seeks Robots To Hunt Down Uncooperative Humans

> >

> > so I couldn't resist looking.

> >

> > http://www.infopackets.com/news/government/2008/

> >

20081029_pentagon_seeks_robots_to_hunt_down_uncooperative_humans.htm

> >

> > Parashis

> > artpages@... <artpages%40earthlink.net>

> >

> > artpagesonline.com

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

You know, it would be a little easier to digest some of these conspiracy

theories if the authors made sure that our perception of their greed wasn't

clouding our " open-mindedness " ...such as on the educate-yourself site...

 

" The video quality is not the highest, since our master tape is a copy of a

copy, but it's acceptable considering the importance of Phil's historic

revelations.  Phil's video is available for a donation of $18 plus shipping.

I've also combined Phil's video with a 1998 lecture by Dr Bob Beck on Blood

Electrification and Dr Ray s on Magnetic Therapy: A three for one combo

deal "

 

If I were truly worried about the planet and humanity, I wouldn't charge for

it.  I would simply place the video online for everyone to look at.  No charge

to me. 

Now, there is a dark cloud above this website and we will all wonder even

more...

Deb in NC

[Guest guest]

>

> You know, it would be a little easier to digest some of these conspiracy

theories if

> the authors made sure that our perception of their greed wasn't clouding

our " open-

> mindedness " ...such as on the educate-yourself site...

>

> " The video quality is not the highest, since our master tape is a copy of

a copy, but

> it's acceptable considering the importance of Phil's historic

revelations.  Phil's video

> is available for a donation of $18 plus shipping. I've also combined

Phil's video with

> a 1998 lecture by Dr Bob Beck on Blood Electrification and Dr Ray s

on

> Magnetic Therapy: A three for one combo deal "

Hi Deb,

I think this is a little like saying " it would be a little easier to accept

that nutritional supplements are a healthy thing to take if the

manufacturers'/distributors' greed wasn't clouding our judgment about the

value of nutritional supplements. "

The point being that there are indeed many nutritional supplements that are

total garbage and sold by hucksters but there are also supplements that are

very high quality, do improve health, and that are sold by people who really

care about quality and don't exaggerate or manufacture claims about their

products.

There are *plenty* of nutty conspiracy theories out there and hucksters who

will try to profit from promulgating them. But there are also some very

solid, evidence-based conspiracy theories. Some folks will also try to

huckster these while others have a true commitment to educate about them

without profiteering.

As with everything else, you need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

>

> If I were truly worried about the planet and humanity, I wouldn't charge

for it.  I

> would simply place the video online for everyone to look at.  No charge to

me.

> Now, there is a dark cloud above this website and we will all wonder even

more...

I have no idea what website you are referring to...but as a general rule,

there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a living so one can feed one's

children, pay bills, etc. It takes time and money to produce documentaries,

run websites, etc. and there's nothing wrong with charging for services or

goods. Having said that, I'm not saying that site you are referring to is

not a huckster site. I don't know anything about it, I'm just saying that as

a rule of thumb it's perfectly OK to make a living while helping humanity

and the planet. Again, there is a difference between unethical profiteering

and making an honest living. For instance, former theologian Ray

has written several books on the 9/11 attacks and goes around the

country lecturing on this subject. Should he give away his books for free?

Obviously not.

Now this doesn't mean that someone should charge you for making a copy of a

copy of a DVD, which may be copyrighted in the first place and any profit

from its sale should likely go to the original maker of the DVD not the

apparent huckster who made a copy of a copy.

Again, as with everything else, you have to use your own judgment, common

sense and research to distinguish junk science vs. real science, junk

conspiracies vs. real conspiracies and junk supplements vs. quality

supplements.

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

> (I am a attorney licensed in

> > the state of Tennessee. I am a mother of three kids. I've never been

> prone

> > to believe conspiracy theories. I'm pretty balanced and normal. I've

> never

> > used drugs. Just letting you know all this as a disclaimer.......so you

> > don't write this email off by concluding I am a fringe weirdo.)

>

> Yeh well I'm a business owner with an Ivy League education, a Masters of

> Science in teaching, and had also never been prone to believing in

> conspiracy theories (other than those that are commonly accepted such as

the

> Mafia) and am pretty balanced and " normal " as much as any WAPF-oriented

> person can claim to be :-)

>

> But of course, I'm just another " fringe weirdo " ' as I also look at the big

> picture that forms from all those separate puzzle pieces.

I want to clarify what I meant here because as I re-read this it doesn't

come off as the way I intended it. I think I did, to some extent, explain

the purpose of stating my professional standing, academic background and

general beliefs regarding conspiracy theories, but let me clarify a bit

further.

First of all, I should've said " AND...I'm a business owner...etc. " rather

than " Yeh well... " because the point I was trying to make was that there are

MANY level-headed, educated professionals who do believe in evidence-based

conspiracy theories and I can be added to that list along with Nanette. I

didn't mean to imply in any way that my job or my academic background is

superior to Nanette's. The point wasn't to *compare* our backgrounds but to

simply add one more person with a similar background to the list of

conspiracy theorists.

Secondly, and I think I probably did already make this point somewhat

clearly, the reason I think that it's worth even mentioning such things, and

I imagine that's why Nanette mentioned her background in the first place, is

because there seems to be some sort of vague concept that conspiracy

theorists aren't normal people just like us but rather they are all strange,

weak-minded fringe weirdos.

It just ain't so.

Suze

[Guest guest]

On Nov 1, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Suze Fisher wrote:

>

>

> There are *plenty* of nutty conspiracy theories out there and

> hucksters who

> will try to profit from promulgating them. But there are also some

> very

> solid, evidence-based conspiracy theories. Some folks will also try to

> huckster these while others have a true commitment to educate about

> them

> without profiteering.

>

> As with everything else, you need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

>

And as we all know, we can trust wheat.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Secondly, and I think I probably did already make this point somewhat

> clearly, the reason I think that it's worth even mentioning such

> things, and

> I imagine that's why Nanette mentioned her background in the first

> place, is

> because there seems to be some sort of vague concept that conspiracy

> theorists aren't normal people just like us but rather they are all

> strange,

> weak-minded fringe weirdos.

>

> It just ain't so.

>

> Suze

>

Well, no one considers himself/herself to be a 'fringe weirdo',

regardless of education. Well, perhaps that's a slight exaggeration -

I suspect that there are a few highly educated people who take pride

in being fringe weirdos.

[Guest guest]

Don't underestimate the speed of technological advance. It doesn't

operate on the same linear time scale as other things. Such robots will

happen in our lifetime; and likely within the next decade. All the

technological pieces are their already; all that is left is to put them

together.

Idol wrote:

>

>

>

> The prospect of such robots, though, is a long-term one. The prospect

> of some kind of major terrorist or international crisis (beyond the

> current fiscal crisis) striking less than six months into the next

> president's term is, obviously, very near-term. So I'm not sure why

> the former influences your reading of the latter.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> The extent of the connection between what Biden said and the long-term

> robot plans is that they are creepy. My post was more

> stream-of-consciousness than anything else.

What Biden said isn't necessarily creepy. It's quite possible that

the next administration will face significant foreign policy

challenges, regardless of who wins. (In some respects, I almost think

it'd be more likely if McCain were to be elected, because Al Queda /

Bin Laden / whoever if anyone pulls their strings stands to gain

profoundly by sucking us further down the rabbit hole of armed

conflict, and though I'm no fan of Obama's professed policies on this

count, I still think McCain is much more likely to be militarily

adventurous.) And while I guess I see where you're coming from in

your highly speculative reading of the part of his statement in which

he said that it won't initially be clear that the administration's

actions are the correct ones, I think it's at least as plausible that

he's suggesting that Obama would react in a much more calm and

measured way than the Cheney administration (and the press, and just

about everyone with any influence) did after 9/11, and that Obama

would get slammed for not immediately junking all our remaining civil

liberties and mounting a full-scale invasion and nuclear attack of the

perpetrator du jour.

> It seems to me that the swiftness of the nationalzations, the

> centralization over their control in the treasury, the unprecedented

> rate of increase in the money supply, and the threats that were used

> to pass the bailout bill (one congressman reported on CSPAN that house

> members were threatened with martial law in response to the inevitable

> 1000-point Dow drop that would occur if the bailout bill didn't pass),

> projected $2 trillion/yr deficits, all suggest to me very dramatic

> decreases in what is left of the free market.

I have several problems with your analysis. First, there haven't been

a whole lot of actual nationalizations. The initial so-called

" bailout " plan, in fact, was entirely devoid of any ownership

provisions for the government and taxpayers -- it was just free money,

handed away entirely at son's discretion. That stands in stark

contrast to the UK bailout plan, which has strict lending

requirements, stock participation and a number of other reasonable and

necessary measures designed to prevent (or at least reduce)

profiteering while ensuring that bailout funds actually serve their

ostensible purpose of rescuing and stabilizing the financial system.

Even after it became clear that son's pretend bailout plan was

complete BS and a complete ripoff of the taxpaying public, there have

only been very modest changes made to bring it more in line with the

UK's bailout design. All in all, this strikes me as being more like

looting than any kind of systematic transformation of the financial

system. And even if we did get a UK/Sweden-style bailout, the

" nationalization " (if it would even be fair and reasonable to call it

one, which I'd disagree with) would only be temporary. It's not like

the federal government permanently took over the savings and loan

sector after the S & L crisis and the formation of the Resolution Trust

Corporation, after all.

> > I'd characterize this more as crony capitalism than anything else,

> and

> > it's quite questionable IMO to call it a financial dictatorship by

> the

> > Treasury department when things seem to be running primarily for the

> > benefit of powerful banks. I'd be much happier with a bailout more

> > along the lines of the UK's bailout, with strict lending

> requirements

> > and more rigorous taxpayer participation in the form of stock.

>

> I don't see why that weakens its status as a financial dictatorship.

> It's financial dictatorshiop by a big banker for the sake of the big

> banks.

To be a dictatorship, I think son would have to be dictating a lot

more broadly.

> > Well, first, a lot of these calls are for a new *financial*

> regulatory

> > structure, and in that sense, we had a global financial " order "

> > starting right after WWII -- basically designed by the US... and

> then

> > largely abandoned and sabotaged by the US due to stresses caused by

> > our endless and unsustainable sinking of money into the military.

>

> I think the result would be the same with any type of deficit

> spending, if you are referring to the monetary order.

I don't follow what you're saying here.

> Are you suggesting that there is not a movement for world government

> per se? Would you consider a global tax, like Brzezinski advocated, a

> move towards world government? Does the World Federalist Association

> promote world government? Do you consider the European Union a

> regional government? Would you consider the consolidation of

> nation-states into larger umbrella region-states a move in the

> direction of a world-state?

Sure, there's a movement for world government. There's also a

movement for making the US an aryan theocracy. That doesn't mean

either one is going to come to pass.

> So what exactly is your conclusion from this? I think the neocons

> benefit most from terrorist threats and the globalists benefit most

> from threats of financial crisis. I don't know what bin Laden

> benefits from because it is difficult to assess his " progress " at

> anything.

Bin Laden, Al Queda, and any possible powers behind them, benefit from

political polarization and conflict. It increases their ability to

recruit followers, raise financing, and have an impact on the world

stage. I doubt he really believes he can create a new caliphate, but

then I doubt a lot of the theocon leaders here in the US believe every

last thing they say to rally the troops, and I KNOW the neocons don't

buy all the theocon crap they sling around for electoral purposes.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> What Biden said isn't necessarily creepy. It's quite possible that

> the next administration will face significant foreign policy

> challenges, regardless of who wins. (In some respects, I almost think

> it'd be more likely if McCain were to be elected, because Al Queda /

> Bin Laden / whoever if anyone pulls their strings stands to gain

> profoundly by sucking us further down the rabbit hole of armed

> conflict, and though I'm no fan of Obama's professed policies on this

> count, I still think McCain is much more likely to be militarily

> adventurous.) And while I guess I see where you're coming from in

> your highly speculative reading of the part of his statement in which

> he said that it won't initially be clear that the administration's

> actions are the correct ones, I think it's at least as plausible that

> he's suggesting that Obama would react in a much more calm and

> measured way than the Cheney administration (and the press, and just

> about everyone with any influence) did after 9/11, and that Obama

> would get slammed for not immediately junking all our remaining civil

> liberties and mounting a full-scale invasion and nuclear attack of the

> perpetrator du jour.

I agree with you that it is plausible. I think my highly speculative

reading is also plausible. I find this end of the plausible spectrum

of interpretations to be creepy, and the other spectrum that you have

dilineated to be reasonable and sane. However, I don't see why Biden

would think that the rightness of a diplomatic and less aggressive

approach would not be apparent to the people populating an Obama

fundraiser. He seemed to be preparing them to accept things whose

rightness would not be apparent to *them.* Thus, a possible

preparation for betrayal. Not a *warning* of betrayal, but a PR

preparation of one, to encourage a seemingly rational belief in the

need for blind trust. That said, your interpretation is the most

reasonable if one grants to Biden that we can trust his motivations.

>> It seems to me that the swiftness of the nationalzations, the

>> centralization over their control in the treasury, the unprecedented

>> rate of increase in the money supply, and the threats that were used

>> to pass the bailout bill (one congressman reported on CSPAN that house

>> members were threatened with martial law in response to the inevitable

>> 1000-point Dow drop that would occur if the bailout bill didn't pass),

>> projected $2 trillion/yr deficits, all suggest to me very dramatic

>> decreases in what is left of the free market.

>

> I have several problems with your analysis. First, there haven't been

> a whole lot of actual nationalizations.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nationalized -- 80% of the mortgage

market. AIG was 80% nationalized, which is a monstrous international

financial networking firm. These were three very, very large

nationalizations that happened in very rapid succession.

> The initial so-called

> " bailout " plan, in fact, was entirely devoid of any ownership

> provisions for the government and taxpayers -- it was just free money,

> handed away entirely at son's discretion.

Which would allow son to nationalize, or not to nationalize, at

his discretion. It allowed him to purchase assets, which could

constitute equity in companies.

> That stands in stark

> contrast to the UK bailout plan, which has strict lending

> requirements, stock participation and a number of other reasonable and

> necessary measures designed to prevent (or at least reduce)

> profiteering while ensuring that bailout funds actually serve their

> ostensible purpose of rescuing and stabilizing the financial system.

The US plan was designed to promote profiteering. son personally

benefited by $700 million from the AIG bailout.

> Even after it became clear that son's pretend bailout plan was

> complete BS and a complete ripoff of the taxpaying public,

This should have been assumed as the default position until evidence

showed it to be otherwise.

> there have

> only been very modest changes made to bring it more in line with the

> UK's bailout design. All in all, this strikes me as being more like

> looting than any kind of systematic transformation of the financial

> system.

Of course it is looting.

> And even if we did get a UK/Sweden-style bailout, the

> " nationalization " (if it would even be fair and reasonable to call it

> one, which I'd disagree with) would only be temporary.

It would be fair to call it natinoalization if the government ends up

with ownership of equity in the company, regardless of the intentions

and motivations behind it.

> It's not like

> the federal government permanently took over the savings and loan

> sector after the S & L crisis and the formation of the Resolution Trust

> Corporation, after all.

What does then have to do with now? The gov't took over FM/FM and

AIG. Those were then nationalizations I was referring to, all of

which took place before the balout bill passed.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

Sorry I somehow missed the last part of your post.

>> I don't see why that weakens its status as a financial dictatorship.

>> It's financial dictatorshiop by a big banker for the sake of the big

>> banks.

> To be a dictatorship, I think son would have to be dictating a lot

> more broadly.

We have yet to see what son will do. The bill claims broad

discretion for him and says his decisions are not subject to review.

That is very dictatorial power. He has yet to spend most of the

money, but my understanding is that some the bank giveaways were given

under the appearance of threat, which indicates son's willingness

to strong-arm in gov't giveaways and/or purchases of equity.

>> > Well, first, a lot of these calls are for a new *financial*

>> regulatory

>> > structure, and in that sense, we had a global financial " order "

>> > starting right after WWII -- basically designed by the US... and

>> then

>> > largely abandoned and sabotaged by the US due to stresses caused by

>> > our endless and unsustainable sinking of money into the military.

>> I think the result would be the same with any type of deficit

>> spending, if you are referring to the monetary order.

> I don't follow what you're saying here.

If you mean the gold window, which Nixon closed in 1971, and which had

dramatic consequences for the CPI, which in my view was probably one

of the most important factors in the increase in wealth disparity in

the following era, this was sabotaged by monetary inflation in excess

of what could could support the gold window. Monetary inflation is

tied to deficit spending, which itself is largely the result of

welfare and warfare programs.

>> Are you suggesting that there is not a movement for world government

>> per se? Would you consider a global tax, like Brzezinski advocated, a

>> move towards world government? Does the World Federalist Association

>> promote world government? Do you consider the European Union a

>> regional government? Would you consider the consolidation of

>> nation-states into larger umbrella region-states a move in the

>> direction of a world-state?

> Sure, there's a movement for world government. There's also a

> movement for making the US an aryan theocracy. That doesn't mean

> either one is going to come to pass.

I don't think the movement for world government will be successful,

but I think it has enough high-level supporters that they could make a

mess attempting to set it up.

>> So what exactly is your conclusion from this? I think the neocons

>> benefit most from terrorist threats and the globalists benefit most

>> from threats of financial crisis. I don't know what bin Laden

>> benefits from because it is difficult to assess his " progress " at

>> anything.

> Bin Laden, Al Queda, and any possible powers behind them, benefit from

> political polarization and conflict. It increases their ability to

> recruit followers, raise financing, and have an impact on the world

> stage. I doubt he really believes he can create a new caliphate, but

> then I doubt a lot of the theocon leaders here in the US believe every

> last thing they say to rally the troops, and I KNOW the neocons don't

> buy all the theocon crap they sling around for electoral purposes.

Yes, I see your point now.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I agree with you that it is plausible. I think my highly speculative

> reading is also plausible. I find this end of the plausible spectrum

> of interpretations to be creepy, and the other spectrum that you have

> dilineated to be reasonable and sane. However, I don't see why Biden

> would think that the rightness of a diplomatic and less aggressive

> approach would not be apparent to the people populating an Obama

> fundraiser. He seemed to be preparing them to accept things whose

> rightness would not be apparent to *them.* Thus, a possible

> preparation for betrayal. Not a *warning* of betrayal, but a PR

> preparation of one, to encourage a seemingly rational belief in the

> need for blind trust. That said, your interpretation is the most

> reasonable if one grants to Biden that we can trust his motivations.

Actually, looking back at the actual text of Biden's remarks, I think

my interpretation is much more plausible than yours.

>> And he's going to have to

>> face some tough, I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I

>> promise you it will occur... I guarantee you it's going to happen...

>> And he's going to need help. The kind of help he's going to need is,

>> not financially to help him, we're going to need your influence, your

>> influence in the community, to stand with him. Because it's not going

>> to be apparent, it's not going to be apparent that we're right. "

Note what he's saying: (1) Obama will have to make a tough decision;

(2) he's going to need help in the form of influence from the people

Biden is speaking to, because (3) it's not going to be immediately

obvious that the Obama administration's decision will be the correct

one. Nowhere in Biden's remarks does he say that " YOU " (IOW the

influential backers he's speaking to) will think Obama's decision is

the wrong one, only that it will not be immediately apparent in a

general, and therefore presumably wider, sense, that he's right. It's

enormously more likely, IMO, that he's speaking of the opposition and

the public at large, not the core supporters he's addressing.

> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nationalized -- 80% of the mortgage

> market. AIG was 80% nationalized, which is a monstrous international

> financial networking firm. These were three very, very large

> nationalizations that happened in very rapid succession.

Actually, I think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are rather different,

given that they were government institutions to start with. AIG was

nationalized, more or less, but it remains to be seen what the

functional effects of this will be.

> The US plan was designed to promote profiteering. son personally

> benefited by $700 million from the AIG bailout.

Yes, well, that's my point: the US plan is really about profiteering

rather than about nationalization or the rescue of the financial system.

> > Even after it became clear that son's pretend bailout plan was

> > complete BS and a complete ripoff of the taxpaying public,

>

> This should have been assumed as the default position until evidence

> showed it to be otherwise.

I should've worded that better -- it was clear to me from the

beginning, as I'm sure it was clear to you and to many other people,

but at least at first, there was a fair amount of weight being thrown

behind the initial son proposal, so it wasn't necessarily clear to

everyone, or even to anything resembling a majority.

> > And even if we did get a UK/Sweden-style bailout, the

> > " nationalization " (if it would even be fair and reasonable to call

> it

> > one, which I'd disagree with) would only be temporary.

>

> It would be fair to call it natinoalization if the government ends up

> with ownership of equity in the company, regardless of the intentions

> and motivations behind it.

Perhaps, but I think it's extremely important to distinguish between a

nationalization that amounts to a seizure with the intent to exert and

maintain control for a long time or indefinitely, and a

" nationalization " that amounts to a significant but temporary taxpayer

investment intended to rescue a company or system.

> > It's not like

> > the federal government permanently took over the savings and loan

> > sector after the S & L crisis and the formation of the Resolution

> Trust

> > Corporation, after all.

>

> What does then have to do with now? The gov't took over FM/FM and

> AIG. Those were then nationalizations I was referring to, all of

> which took place before the balout bill passed.

I was essentially elaborating on the point I made more succinctly just

above -- that a so-called " nationalization " of an institution or a

sector of institutions doesn't necessarily amount to a long-term,

transformative nationalization of an entire system, as exemplified by

the S & L bailout of the Reagan era.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Note what he's saying: (1) Obama will have to make a tough decision;

> (2) he's going to need help in the form of influence from the people

> Biden is speaking to, because (3) it's not going to be immediately

> obvious that the Obama administration's decision will be the correct

> one. Nowhere in Biden's remarks does he say that " YOU " (IOW the

> influential backers he's speaking to) will think Obama's decision is

> the wrong one, only that it will not be immediately apparent in a

> general, and therefore presumably wider, sense, that he's right. It's

> enormously more likely, IMO, that he's speaking of the opposition and

> the public at large, not the core supporters he's addressing.

He could have made that clearer, but yes that's entirely possible and

is a much more conservative interpretation of what he meant, though

again, it depends on the presupposition that what Biden says has some

relationship to what he intends, which I think is generally a useful

presupposition but loses its value a lot when assessing the intentions

of politicians.

>> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nationalized -- 80% of the mortgage

>> market. AIG was 80% nationalized, which is a monstrous international

>> financial networking firm. These were three very, very large

>> nationalizations that happened in very rapid succession.

> Actually, I think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are rather different,

> given that they were government institutions to start with. AIG was

> nationalized, more or less, but it remains to be seen what the

> functional effects of this will be.

A nationalization is a nationalization. They were nationalized at

first, then pseudo-privatized, then nationalized again. There was a

mortgage market before the two institutions, so the original

nationalization was essentially the nationalization of a private

market.

>> The US plan was designed to promote profiteering. son personally

>

>> benefited by $700 million from the AIG bailout.

> Yes, well, that's my point: the US plan is really about profiteering

> rather than about nationalization or the rescue of the financial system.

The British one is too -- it just has a few more populist aspects to

it. But, since the " financial system " is specifically designed to

create unjust, anti-market profiteering, any rescue of it is primarily

for the purpose of profiteering. The Federal Reserve was created

precisely to maintain the solvency of a fundamentally insolvent

system. Fractional reserve banks are intrinsically bankrupt.

>> > Even after it became clear that son's pretend bailout plan was

>> > complete BS and a complete ripoff of the taxpaying public,

>> This should have been assumed as the default position until evidence

>> showed it to be otherwise.

> I should've worded that better -- it was clear to me from the

> beginning, as I'm sure it was clear to you and to many other people,

> but at least at first, there was a fair amount of weight being thrown

> behind the initial son proposal, so it wasn't necessarily clear to

> everyone, or even to anything resembling a majority.

Didn't the polling show most people against it even from the outset?

> Perhaps, but I think it's extremely important to distinguish between a

> nationalization that amounts to a seizure with the intent to exert and

> maintain control for a long time or indefinitely, and a

> " nationalization " that amounts to a significant but temporary taxpayer

> investment intended to rescue a company or system.

Out of all the " temporary " goverment programs that have been

instituted, how many have been repealed as promised?

> I was essentially elaborating on the point I made more succinctly just

> above -- that a so-called " nationalization " of an institution or a

> sector of institutions doesn't necessarily amount to a long-term,

> transformative nationalization of an entire system, as exemplified by

> the S & L bailout of the Reagan era.

I'm not familiar with that bailout beyond its existence and generally

when it occurred. Were the institutions purchased by the government?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Sorry I somehow missed the last part of your post.

I guess you missed the new forum rule which states that missing any

part of my posts is punishable by death, eh? Oh well. It's been nice

knowing you!

> We have yet to see what son will do. The bill claims broad

> discretion for him and says his decisions are not subject to review.

> That is very dictatorial power. He has yet to spend most of the

> money, but my understanding is that some the bank giveaways were given

> under the appearance of threat, which indicates son's willingness

> to strong-arm in gov't giveaways and/or purchases of equity.

Didn't the final bill work in some degree of oversight?

At any rate, I did read that he leaned on every national bank to take

bailout money so that he wouldn't wind up revealing which banks were

in the most trouble by giving only them money, which is understandable

in a way and yet also quite troubling.

> Monetary inflation is

> tied to deficit spending, which itself is largely the result of

> welfare and warfare programs.

Unlike you, I don't think deficit spending is inherently immoral, but

at any rate, deficit spending certainly isn't the only factor involved

in monetary inflation. Also, exactly how broadly are you defining

welfare?

> > Bin Laden, Al Queda, and any possible powers behind them, benefit

> from

> > political polarization and conflict. It increases their ability to

> > recruit followers, raise financing, and have an impact on the world

> > stage. I doubt he really believes he can create a new caliphate, but

> > then I doubt a lot of the theocon leaders here in the US believe

> every

> > last thing they say to rally the troops, and I KNOW the neocons

> don't

> > buy all the theocon crap they sling around for electoral purposes.

>

> Yes, I see your point now.

I should add that just as Al Queda and their ilk benefits from a

militaristic USA, neocons and other such interests benefit from Al

Queda. It's a twisted sort of symbiotic relationship.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Didn't the final bill work in some degree of oversight?

I didn't read it myself, so I'm not sure. I don't think I saw any

concrete statements on it.

> Unlike you, I don't think deficit spending is inherently immoral, but

> at any rate, deficit spending certainly isn't the only factor involved

> in monetary inflation. Also, exactly how broadly are you defining

> welfare?

By no means is it the only factor; however, if the Fed limits itself

to purchasing T-bills, which it is no longer doing as of recently but

which it was doing for a while, then although T-bill issuance does not

ipso facto create monetary inflation, the ability of the Fed to

monetarily inflate is essentially limited by the issuance of T-bills.

Regardless of inherent immorality, the main enabler of deficit

spending is a central bank, and the main purpose of a central bank is

war. Historically, formation of a central bank greatly increases

warfare. In our own country, after Madison fulfilled the Jeffersonian

promise to let the central bank's charter run out, he created another

one after the imperialists kept agitating for it, realizing they

couldn't fund the war of 1812 well without it. Bank of England led to

a century of four wars plunging the country into massive debt and

leading it to tax the American colonies. Fed here led to two world

wars. Obviously not the only factor but the central bankers funded

all sides of both world wars, and the wars couldn't have been what

they were without the financing.

I think the definition of welfare is pretty broad, but usually when

people talk about the " welfare state " they mean a large state with

large entitlement programs or other active programs putatively meant

for the general welfare.

Chris

[Guest guest]

While the definition of " long-term " depends to a degree on the eye of

the beholder, there's no way there are going to be generally useful

autonomous hunter-killer robots within the next 4 years, and I'm

extremely doubtful that we'll see anything like them within ten years

either. Shape and pattern recognition has proceeded EXTREMELY slowly,

as has any genuine progress in artificial intelligence, so the most

that we can expect in the relatively short term would be a robot that

would simply seek out any and all humans in a given target area, or

which might possibly distinguish between people based on chemical

signatures (e.g. scent). In context of the actual discussion,

however, which pertained to the hypothesis that there will be a major

terrorism-type crisis next year, hunter-killer robots are completely

and totally irrelevant except to whatever degree such an attack could

be exploited to push for funding of hunter-killer robot development.

> Don't underestimate the speed of technological advance. It doesn't

> operate on the same linear time scale as other things. Such robots

> will

> happen in our lifetime; and likely within the next decade. All the

> technological pieces are their already; all that is left is to put

> them

> together.

>

> Idol wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > The prospect of such robots, though, is a long-term one. The

> prospect

> > of some kind of major terrorist or international crisis (beyond the

> > current fiscal crisis) striking less than six months into the next

> > president's term is, obviously, very near-term. So I'm not sure why

> > the former influences your reading of the latter.

[Guest guest]

I think that you underestimate the speed of technological advance. I

wouldn't be surprised if we seem them within a few hours, or perhaps

minutes. We all know that the flying cars arrived much faster than

they said, and god knows that everyone walks around with those large

heads predicted in the comic books years ago as the signature physical

characteristic of future humans.

> Don't underestimate the speed of technological advance. It doesn't

> operate on the same linear time scale as other things. Such robots

> will

> happen in our lifetime; and likely within the next decade. All the

> technological pieces are their already; all that is left is to put

> them

> together.

>

> Idol wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > The prospect of such robots, though, is a long-term one. The

> prospect

> > of some kind of major terrorist or international crisis (beyond the

> > current fiscal crisis) striking less than six months into the next

> > president's term is, obviously, very near-term. So I'm not sure why

> > the former influences your reading of the latter.

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> I think that you underestimate the speed of technological advance. I

> wouldn't be surprised if we seem them within a few hours, or perhaps

> minutes.

Hmm, if they're time-traveling killer robots from the future, then you

may be right!

-