It’s the Internet, Stupid

By Phil Elmore | August 8, 2012 } WND

Exclusive: Phil Elmore says Obama’s online savvy is reason for his lead over Romney

A tiny logo, and the silhouette of a candidate who could be anyone, greet the reader who visits Mitt Romney‘s official site. The slide show on the page moves quickly – too quickly – and the entire thing looks like a fairly basic WordPress template. The largest picture of Romney on the site doesn’t really look like him. Romney stands alone, holding a microphone. The American flag behind him has stripes so wide they might as well be red and white vinyl siding.

[Read more…]

They Really Do Want To Implant Microchips Into Your Brain

By Michael Snyder | August 1, 2012 | End of the American Dream

Are you ready to have a microchip implanted into your brain?  That might not sound very appealing to you at this point, but this is exactly what the big pharmaceutical companies and the big technology companies have planned for our future.  They are pumping millions of dollars into researching “cutting edge” technologies that will enable implantable microchips to greatly “enhance” our health and our lives.  Of course nobody is going to force you to have a microchip implanted into your brain when they are first introduced.  Initially, brain implants will be marketed as “revolutionary breakthroughs” that can cure chronic diseases and that can enable the disabled to live normal lives.  When the “benefits” of such technology are demonstrated to the general public, soon most people will want to become “super-abled”.  Just imagine the hype that will surround these implants when people discover that you can get rid of your extra weight in a matter of days or that you can download an entire college course into your memory in just a matter of hours.  The possibilities for this kind of technology are endless, and it is just a matter of time before having microchips implanted into your brain is considered to be quite common.  What was once science fiction is rapidly becoming reality, and it is going to change the world forever.

But aren’t there some very serious potential downsides to having microchips implanted into our brains?

Of course there are.

[Read more…]

Major Physicians Group Implores Exemption From Smart Meters – Are You On the List?

By Heather Callaghan | July 19, 2012 | Activist Post

Are you on the doctors’ list of people who should be exempt from Smart Meters?

Dees Illustration

In the last couple years, paying electricity residents have witnessed a startling use of force regarding installation of Smart Meters. This is after complaining to Public Utility Commissions about legitimate and serious health problems that were absent before the installations.

More alarming, is that doctors’ notices on behalf of their patients are completely dismissed. One doctor implored help from a commission that the situation wouldn’t be so urgent if patients had the ability to choose another company or have the ability to opt-out (of something they never asked for or actually protested in the first place).

But, tables are turning as awareness grows and doctors, researchers, and activists are joining forces to resist the Smart Meter invasion.

The prestigious American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has just issued a report emphasizing that patients with any of myriad health issues be accommodated to avoid not only having Smart Meters installed on their own properties, but to be accommodated also for their neighbors’ Smart Meters.

[Read more…]

The Federal Centralization Economy

By James Hall | July 18, 2012 | Activist Post

Click to Enlarge

A new hybrid of the command economy is being adapted to replace the last traces of a free market economy. The federal government, through the increase of administrative regulations and bureaucratic oversight is forcing a dangerous planned economy with dire consequences. It will not resemble the Soviet style of government ownership, because many business decisions will no longer rest with owners, but will need conformity to rules that benefit favored enterprises.

Investopedia explains the old version of the ‘Command Economy’ as a planned economy.

Command economies are unable to efficiently allocate goods because of the knowledge problem – the central planner’s inability to discern how much of a good should be produced.

Shortages and surpluses are a common consequence of command economies. A free-market price system, on the other hand, signals to producers what they should be creating and in what quantities, resulting in a much more efficient allocation of goods.

The Technocracy Boom

By David Brooks | July 19, 2010 | New York Times

When historians look back on the period between 2001 and 2011, they will be amazed that a nation that professed to hate bureaucracy produced so much of it.

During the first part of this period, the Republicans were in control. They expanded a vast national security bureaucracy. In their series in The Washington Post, Dana Priest and William M. Arkin detail the size of this apparatus. More than 1,200 government agencies and 1,900 private companies work on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence programs at around 10,000 sites across the country. An estimated 854,000 people have top-secret security clearance. These analysts produce 50,000 reports a year — a flow of paper so great that many are completely ignored.

In the second part of the period, Democrats were in control. They augmented the national security bureaucracy but spent the bulk of their energies expanding bureaucracies in domestic spheres.

First, they passed a health care law. This law created 183 new agencies, commissions, panels and other bodies, according to an analysis by Robert E. Moffit of the Heritage Foundation. These include things like the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program, an Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee and a Cures Acceleration Network Review Board.

The purpose of the new apparatus was simple: to give government experts the power to analyze and rationalize the nation’s health care system. A team of experts on the newly created Independent Medicare Advisory Council was ordered to review and streamline Medicare. A team of experts within the Office of Personnel Management was directed to help set standards for insurance companies in the health care exchanges. Teams of experts serving on comparative effectiveness boards were told to survey data and determine which medical treatments work best and most efficiently.

[Read more…]

Introducing The Internet Reformation Society (IRS)

By Ron Holland | July 3, 2012 | The Daily Bell

Ron Holland

For Global Monetary and Political Reform

“Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.” – Ludwig von Mises

The Internet Reformation is Here

Anthony Wile invented the term “Internet Reformation” to brilliantly describe the end of top-down elite control over information flow, history, politics and current events. This control mechanism was used for centuries by the state and behind-the-scenes power elites to control populations and political jurisdictions but now advances in electronic communications, alternative news and social media are threatening their world order.

“The Internet Reformation is the culmination of the power and glory of Western civil society and free-market thinking. It is the apogee of all that is best in a sweep of history that began with the ancient Greeks and has culminated in the hearts and minds of millions of young men and women who industriously add to its impact every day via additional code, non-mainstream news or fundamental scientific commentary.

It is NOT an ‘Internet Revolution.’ The Internet Reformation is a much more deeply disruptive concept. It is truly a revolutionary one, affecting every aspect of human society and human relationships with modern elites. It is focused around the insights generated by the Internet itself. This concept is based on what happened during the era of the Gutenberg press.” – Anthony Wile

[Read more…]

Paul Craig Roberts: Can Americans Escape the Deception?

By Paul Craig Roberts | July 4, 2012 | Institute for Political Economy

Hot Air Day is upon us. On July 4 hot air will spew forth all over the country as dignitaries deliver homilies to our “freedom and democracy” and praise “our brave troops” who are protecting our freedom by “killing them over there before they come over here.”

Not a single one of these speeches will contain one word of truth. No speaker will lament the death of the US Constitution or urge his audience to action to restore the only document that protects their liberty. No speaker will acknowledge that in the 21st century the Bush/Obama Regime, with the complicity of the Department of Justice, federal courts, Congress, presstitute media, law schools, bar associations, and an insouciant public have murdered the Constitution in the name of the “war on terror.”

As in medieval times, American citizens can be thrown into dungeons and never accounted for. No evidence or charges need be presented to a court. No trial is required, and no conviction.

As in tyrannies, US citizens can be executed at the sole discretion of the despot in the Oval Office, who sits there drawing up lists of people to be murdered.

Protestors exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association are attacked by armed police, beaten, tasered, tear-gassed, pepper sprayed, and arrested.

[Read more…]

US Government Gives Classified Tesla Technology to UN for Sustainable Development Scheme [Video]

By Susanne Posel | June 22, 2012 | Activist Post

Wireless energy transfer (WET), a.k.a. wireless energy transmission, is the transference of electromagnetic energy transmitted from a central power source without the use of connecting wires.

Tesla’s coil experiments, proving the feasibility of WET, during his experiments in Colorado in the early 1900s were the pre-cursor to the “inventions” in this field today.After Tesla died, the US government confiscated all documents pertaining to his experiments and classified them. Since the 1950s the US government has held this technology in secret.In the UK, the induction power transfer (IPT) is the first commercially available wireless electric car charger. HaloIPT, a start-up corporation, has released this technology in certain areas of England’s motorways or car parks. Electric cars will be charged automatically when the integrated receiver pad is enabled. General Motors (GM) has invested $5 million into a wireless charging device called PowerMat that uses inductive charging, which transmits electricity via magnets without any actual, physical connection. Since GM is owned by the US government, their new device may have more to do with the release of certain Tesla technology covertly.Marin Soljačić, assistant professor at MIT, searching for ways to transmit power wirelessly, focused on mid-range power that could charge portable devices, such as cell phones, PDAs and laptops. Using the phenomenon of resonant coupling, Soljačić was able to tune two objects to the same frequency to exchange energy.Magnetic resonance can freely transfer magnetic fields with little effect on the surrounding environment. This technique enables devices to automatically recharge by wireless transfer. [Read more…]

Data Mining: Big Corporations Are Gathering Every Shred Of Information About You That They Can And Selling It For Profit

By Michael Snyder | June 21, 2012 | The Economic Collapse Blog

When most people think of “Big Brother”, they think of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Department of Homeland Security and other shadowy government agencies.  Yes, they are definitely watching you, but so are many big corporations.  In fact, there are some companies that are making tens of millions of dollars by gathering every shred of information about all of us that they can and selling it for profit to anyone willing to pay the price.  It is called “data mining”, and these data miners want to keep track of literally everything that you do.  Most people know that basically everything that we do on the Internet is tracked, but data mining goes far beyond that.  When you use a customer rewards card at the supermarket, the data miners know about it.  When you pay for a purchase with a credit card or a debit card, the data miners know about it.  Every time you buy a prescription drug, that information is sold to someone.  Every time you apply for a loan, a whole host of organizations is notified.  Information has become an extremely valuable commodity, and thanks to computers and the Internet it is easier to gather information than ever before.  But that also means that our personal information is no longer “private”, and this trend is only going to get worse in the years ahead.

[Read more…]

Bye Bye Privacy: Personal Data are Being Extracted and Refined to Power Big Business/Big Government

You for Sale: Mapping, and Sharing, the Consumer Genome

By Natasha Singer | June 16, 2012 | New York Times

Justin Bolle for The New York Times
Acxiom’s headquarters in Little Rock, Ark. Analysts say the company has amassed the world’s largest commercial database on consumers.

IT knows who you are. It knows where you live. It knows what you do.

Steve Keesee/Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Scott E. Howe, the chief executive of Acxiom since last summer, has said he sees the company as a new-millennium “data refinery,” rather than a data miner.

It peers deeper into American life than the F.B.I. or the I.R.S., or those prying digital eyes at Facebook and Google. If you are an American adult, the odds are that it knows things like your age, race, sex, weight, height, marital status, education level, politics, buying habits, household health worries, vacation dreams — and on and on.

Right now in Conway, Ark., north of Little Rock, more than 23,000 computer servers are collecting, collating and analyzing consumer data for a company that, unlike Silicon Valley’s marquee names, rarely makes headlines. It’s called the Acxiom Corporation, and it’s the quiet giant of a multibillion-dollar industry known as database marketing.

Few consumers have ever heard of Acxiom. But analysts say it has amassed the world’s largest commercial database on consumers — and that it wants to know much, much more. Its servers process more than 50 trillion data “transactions” a year. Company executives have said its database contains information about 500 million active consumers worldwide, with about 1,500 data points per person. That includes a majority of adults in the United States. [Read more…]

Real-Time Tax System: The IRS’s Trojan horse

By  | June 15, 2012 | The Daily Caller

It may be another 10 months before Tax Day rears its ugly head again, but that doesn’t mean that the American people should take their eyes off the IRS and the 70,000-page tax code. IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman’s term is ending soon, and he wants to leave a lasting legacy. In other words, reach for your wallet, because Shulman wants to implement what is called a real-time tax system.

Currently, the IRS can only check tax returns for accuracy after the fact. A real-time tax system would have employers and taxpayers report information to the IRS throughout the year, so the IRS can conduct audits in real time, supposedly to increase compliance.

[Read more…]

Victor Davis Hanson: The Liberal Super Nova

By Victor Davis Hanson | June 11, 2012 | PJ Media

Two parties, left and right, are central to good consensual government — one the perennial check on the other, both within the general boundaries of constitutional free-market capitalism.

Yet the hard-Left takeover of the Democratic Party has meant that there is no longer a credible balance in our system, as almost all the tenets of contemporary left-wing ideology are blowing up, imploding super nova style — unsustainable ideas that are contrary to human nature and demand coercion for their implementation, given that they are increasingly anti-democratic and have to be implemented from high by an elite technocracy whether in Brussels, Sacramento, or Washington.

Far too much is always seen as not enough: Greeks are angry that there was too much “austerity” and not enough of the old borrow and spend; Obama is blamed for only borrowing $5 trillion for too “little” stimulus; Democrats threaten to withhold from the community-organizer Obama because he was not hard enough on “fat cats” and the capitalist state; in California, a 10.3% income tax is too low, not too high. When the remedy is seen worse than the disease, then the patient is indeed terminal.

Let me do a brief survey of the fissuring liberal world in which we live:

[Read more…]

Flame: The Skype-Sniffing, Bluetooth-Enabled Super Spy Tool Is A Harbinger

By Neal Ungerleider | May 29, 2012 | Fast Company

Flame can listen in on Skype conversations, record keystrokes, steal files, and hack a smartphone’s call records. Here’s how it works–and how Flame evaded detection for years.

The news from cybersecurity researchers this Memorial Day sounded like a plot device from a science fiction movie. A hyper-secret surveillance program laid dormant on computers around the world for years, secretly turning on microphones, taking screenshots, copying files, recording keystrokes, fiddling with Bluetooth, and sending all the information off to unknown parties. Following an investigation request by the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union, the discovery of Flame–the world’s most sophisticated known weapon of cyberwar–was made public. Many of the infected computers belonged to deliberately targeted home users; the exquisitely crafted software escaped evasion by the world’s best antivirus software suites for years.

[Read more…]

Madison Ruppert: Secret backdoors in microprocessors discovered [Video]

Google warns hundreds of thousands may lose Internet in July

Staff Report | May 25, 2012 | Fox News

DNSChanger warning.JPG

May 22, 2012: Google plans to aid an FBI awareness campaign with these warnings, which should crop up on the search results pages of more than half a million infected web browsers. (GOOGLE)

WASHINGTON –  Google plans to warn more than half a million users of a computer infection that may knock their computers off the Internet this summer.

Unknown to most of them, their problem began when international hackers ran an online advertising scam to take control of infected computers around the world. In a highly unusual response, the FBI set up a safety net months ago using government computers to prevent Internet disruptions for those infected users. But that system will be shut down July 9 — killing connections for those people.

The FBI has run an impressive campaign for months, encouraging people to visit a website that will inform them whether they’re infected and explain how to fix the problem. After July 9, infected users won’t be able to connect to the Internet.

[Read more…]

U.S. Army General: The Whole Northern Hemisphere is at Risk of Becoming Largely Uninhabitable

By Mac Slavo | May 25, 2012 | SHTF Plan

You may have entertained the idea of an improbable civilization ending events such as a ‘global killer’ asteroid, earth crust displacement or massive solar storms, but what if there existed a situation right now that was so serious that it literally threatened our very existence?

According to a host of scientists, nuclear experts and researchers, were are facing exactly such a scenario – and current efforts may not be able to stop it.

When the Fukushima nuclear plants sustained structural damage and a catastrophic failure of their spent fuel cooling systems in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami in 2011, it left the government of Japan, Tokyo Power and nuclear regulatory agencies around the world powerless to contain the release of deadly radiation. A year on, the battle for control of Fukushima continues to no avail.

[Read more…]

Why Congress Must Confront the Administrative State

By  | April 2, 2012 | Heritage Foundation

Abstract: The triumph of the administrative state has been made possible by the emasculation of the legislative power. Washington’s problem is not merely federal spending and debt; it is the arrogance of centralized power. The time is therefore ripe for a major national discussion not only about the size of government, but also about the processes of government. Americans have a choice: to be governed by the rule of law, as hammered out in open legislative debate carried on by elected representatives who are directly accountable to us, or the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us. The rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government—exactly what the Founders wished to prevent in crafting the Federal Constitution.

Steve Kroft of CBS recently interviewed President Barack Obama. In response to a question on his job performance, the President ranked himself fourth among America’s chief executives (behind Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln) in the production of policy initiatives.[1]

Critics quickly ridiculed his self-assessment as narcissistic nonsense. They’re wrong.

President Obama is transforming American government. Few Presidents have enjoyed more success in enacting such a large policy agenda in such a short period of time.

  • Within weeks of his inauguration, the President signed into law a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid.
  • He quickly followed this up with the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus” bill), adding $831 billion to our deficits.
  • In 2010, Congress passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd–Frank bill), providing for massive and far-reaching financial regulation.
  • And on March 23, 2010, he signed into law the 2,800-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). It is the largest single piece of social legislation in American history, expanding federal control over one-sixth of the American economy and the personal lives of more than 300 million citizens.

Combine this massive legislative production with his zealous regulatory program. While Washington’s bureaucratic regime has been growing since the early 1900s, under President Obama its growth has exploded. In 2009 and 2010 alone, federal agencies issued 7,076 final rules.[2]

While the President insists that his regulatory output is less than that of President George W. Bush, a closer look reveals that his “major” regulations—those having an annual impact of at least $100 million each—were more numerous. Since President Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies have issued 75 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $38 billion.[3] Taken altogether, the Small Business Administration last year estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion—more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes.[4]

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are at the center of this regulatory storm. They alone account for 43 percent of all rules in the federal pipeline.[5] Of the 43 major rules issued in 2010, 10 were based on EPA mandates.[6] With the President’s health and environmental initiatives alone, the Obama White House has dwarfed the regulatory agenda of its predecessors.

The national health law expands the administrative power of the HHS Secretary beyond anything previously attempted. The Secretary is required to act—indicated by the statutory language “shall”—1,563 times in the final language of the legislation, and 40 specific provisions of the law mandate or permit the issuance of regulations.[7] Senate Republican Policy Committee staff estimate that the new law creates 159 new agencies or entities, but the Congressional Research Service says that the exact number is “unknowable” inasmuch as certain powerful federal offices are created administratively without direct congressional authorization.

While the law’s schedule of implementation stretches out over eight years, the most far-reaching provisions—the mandates on individuals, employers, and states—take effect in 2014. Nonetheless, in less than two years, the national health law has already generated over 11,000 pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines and related paperwork in the Federal Register.

Just consider the law’s 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The powerful board will make its initial recommendations for detailed and specific Medicare payment cuts in January 2015, and the Secretary is empowered to put them into effect unless Congress enacts an alternative set of payment cuts to meet statutory Medicare spending targets.[8] The board’s automatic recommendations are subject to neither administrative nor judicial review, and the law further requires a three-fifths Senate majority to block IPAB’s prescriptions.

Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has observed that the extraordinary power of this new board is “the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve.”[9]

In 2010 alone, Congress enacted 217 bills that became law, but that same year, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules covering a wide variety of economic activities.[10] Today, more than at any other time in our history, we are less and less governed by the rule of law, hammered out in legislative deliberations as the Founders intended, and more and more governed by the rule of regulation. We are subject to edicts promulgated by administrators—persons we do not know and will never know, persons protected by civil service law and tenure who are not accountable to us and will never be accountable to us. Nonetheless, the administrators’ detailed decisions have the force of law.

Regulation, as law, can and does directly affect whether or not we can start or run our businesses, determine how many persons we can or cannot afford to hire, how we may or may not use our land or dispose of our property. Not only do administrators publish thousands of pages of regulations, but our fellow citizens can sometimes also go to jail for violating them.


Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the triumph of the administrative state, but that conquest is only possible because of the emasculation of the legislative power. The Founders made Congress the lawgiver, as clarified in Article I, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution. So much of their focus, reflected in The Federalist and other writings, was on how to check and balance the predominant legislative power, to channel and contain personal ambition and factional interest, to restrain potentially tyrannical majorities and safeguard the rights of beleaguered minorities, to secure personal liberty and protect the rights of property.

Though federal power has grown steadily since President Washington took the oath of office, today the relationship between the individual and the government is changing in a qualitative way. Americans are increasingly the subjects of an administrative regime rather than the free citizens of a democratic republic with a limited government.

Picking Winners and Losers. This steady transfer of legislative power to administrators has another inescapable consequence: arbitrary rule. The champions of administrative power invariably couch their arguments in appeals to expertise. The more complex the economic sector to be planned or regulated, the more that strict uniformity in the application of the rules becomes problematic.

In broad congressional grants of power, lawmakers give administrators wide latitude in the development and enforcement of the rules, so those who make the rules can also unmake them by granting waivers and exemptions. In the case of the health care law, HHS has already granted over 1,722 temporary waivers to certain businesses, unions, and gourmet restaurants in San Francisco that don’t have to comply with national coverage rules that apply to other companies throughout the country.

Treating similarly situated Americans differently, either as individual citizens or as citizens of a particular state, amounts to arbitrary rule; and arbitrary rule is inherently unjust.


Today’s debate over the powerful bureaucracy is usually framed in terms of economic impact: How will federal rules affect economic growth and job creation, the price of gasoline or electricity, the cost of health insurance or the quality of medical care? While this level of debate is necessary, it is insufficient. Yes, we cannot neglect the trees, but it is really the health of the forest that matters.

The big question is this: How does this bureaucratic ascendancy affect ordinary Americans? My answer: Our very civic life is at stake, not just our prosperity.

The current trend is an affront to our self-government. The tacit assumption: Millions of us are not smart enough to make our own decisions for ourselves. Rather, we need to be closely supervised by officials. They will prescribe for us, for example, what kind of light bulbs and washing machines we should use. The provision of nutritional or caloric information on restaurant menus, or food items dispensed through vending machines, is now a federal mandate under Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act.

Our supervision, though distant and impersonal, becomes more precise and detailed. We are to become increasingly dependent on government for our well-being. Today, almost half of Americans (48.5 percent) live in households that are getting some form of government assistance, largely funded from federal revenues, but nearly half (49.5 percent) of our citizens pay no federal income taxes. But today’s Progressives are still dissatisfied. In their view, the many are to be even more dependent on the few, and the few (the hated “rich,” however they are defined) should be paying even more in taxes than they do today.

Over time, these dynamics will change the character of our people, with corrosive consequences for our political culture and our economic prosperity. America will have a progressively larger class of dependent citizens, and that spirit of freedom and independence for which the Founders risked their lives and fortunes will be broken.

It does not have to be this way. Our task is to paint the big picture, the overarching framework of American civic life. The great medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, the “First Whig,” defines law as an edict of reason, promulgated by the sovereign for the common good of the community.[11] The law instructs citizens in their rights and duties, and thus has a teaching function. That being the case, as lawmakers, you must become teachers of the Constitution, carriers of our rich political culture of republican government.

What must we do to preserve and protect the constitutional traditions of limited government, individual liberty, the separation of powers, and the unique advantages of federalism? James Madison, “the Father of The Constitution,” was not a lawyer, but he was a Congressman. And in that role, he was also a teacher: He routinely employed his formidable talents in the education of his colleagues and fellow citizens on the first principles of government.

In my reading of the public mood, you also have an eager audience. More and more Americans hunger for the wisdom of the Founders, are reading their biographies, and seek to understand their tightly reasoned arguments for the adoption of our Constitution. They are also becoming aware that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which they are being governed and that this process deviates from the intentions of the Founders. They correctly sense that modern government is ever more distant and disconnected from them. They are right.


President Obama, like President Woodrow Wilson, is a real “Progressive,” but what does that mean? In his recent speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, he recalled President Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism.”[12] A genuine Progressive, TR favored the imposition of inheritance taxes and the income tax and became the standard bearer of the Progressive Party in 1912.

Reflecting that tradition, President Obama and his ideological allies are also vigorous champions of aggressive executive power.[13] Commenting on President Obama’s governance, New York Times columnist David Brooks predicts, “When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era…. It’s a progressive era based on faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.”[14]

Welcome to the “100 Years War” of American politics. Progressivism, after all, was America’s dominant political movement from 1890 to 1920. While the Progressives are identified with social reform and the reining in of corporate interests and trusts, they focused intensely on structural reform of government, particularly civil service reform and the democratization of our politics.

No modern American political movement has been more successful. Within a relatively short span of time, progressives backed the adoption of four transformative amendments to the Constitution. They fostered the income tax (Sixteenth Amendment) and secured direct election of U.S. Senators (Seventeenth Amendment); many backed Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment); and they allied with the suffragettes (Nineteenth Amendment). In the several states, they broke the power of the political bosses and enacted initiative and referenda and the recall of public officials.

Long before the New Deal of the 1930s, Progressives concentrated power in Washington. With the backing of the Progressives, Congress created the Federal Reserve System (1913) and the Federal Trade Commission (1914). Federal employment soared.[15] During the Great War, Congress (in the Overman Act of 1918) gave President Wilson enormous discretionary power to consolidate and rearrange executive offices and agencies. Meanwhile, dissent, especially criticism of America’s entry into the war, was suppressed.

“Permissiveness,” the hallmark of the Sixties, was never welcome among Progressives, old or new. Under the rule of the new Progressives, if you want to just “do your own thing,” you won’t. You will do what you are told. If you think you can just “turn on, tune in, and drop out,” think again. You will be forced, for example, to buy government-approved health benefits—including federally certified abortifacients—or pay a fine. You will behave. You will conform. You will comply. You will not march to a different drummer.

The old Progressives were earnest and well-intentioned—old-fashioned “do gooders.” They were also stern and sober social reformers. During the Progressive Era, Congress suppressed the lottery business and interstate prostitution. They enforced prohibition on the sale and manufacture of alcohol,[16] and they imposed taxes on narcotics. Personal vice had become a public enemy. Professor Charles Beard, a leading Progressive historian, wrote in 1930: “Perhaps no country in the world, except Russia, places so many restraints on what is called ‘personal liberty,’ the right to do as one pleases in personal conduct and on the use of property.”[17]

Because Progressivism is an old and recurrent stream in our public life, its influence on public policy is so immense that it is a given: part of our national landscape. Progressive intellectuals generally had—and still have—a profound faith in social science, a conviction that scientific expertise was the key to social progress, especially in a social and economic order that was increasingly complex. Administration was to be the change agent. Again, Beard: “Thus, in our day, a new social science is being staked out and developed—the science of administration in a ‘great society.’ If the ‘great society’ is to endure, then it must make itself master of administration.”[18]

For Progressives, true liberty was not merely freedom from, or “negative” liberty, meaning freedom from arbitrary rule or tyrannical coercion, as embodied in the venerable natural rights tradition of the American Revolution. True liberty was the freedom to be, to act, to grow personally and to fulfill one’s potential.

This was “positive” liberty. It was to be achieved by the removal of economic and customary restraints, creating fairness in social and economic relations, liberating all persons, regardless of class or condition, from the unwelcome vicissitudes of the market and providing child care, education, universal health care, and pensions: in short, security. Justification for government action would be grounded, as Beard argued, not in power, but in service. This new liberty would be secured through broad-scale central planning and social and economic regulation.

Positive liberty, therefore, was to be achieved through the positive state. Think personal “growth” in a straitjacket.

Such ideological assumptions justified a federal role in health care and a national system of social insurance (based on the German model) for pensions in the Progressive Party platform of 1912. They explain the passion for centralization of power, particularly in the executive branch of national government, where scientific expertise would be able to work its will. “Progressivism,” wrote Professor Ralph Gabriel of Yale University, “was an aspect of the rising cult of science.”[19]

But Progressivism carries within it the seeds of contradiction. While Progressives long championed the democratization of our institutions, sunlight in government, and the elimination of the baneful influence of corporate interests, they clung stubbornly to a faith that public problems could be effectively solved through bureaucratic decision-making: little bands of experts appointed to an expanding number of government boards, commissions, or panels. That is at the heart of the Progressive conception of modern government.[20]

Populist rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality of Progressive rule is profoundly undemocratic, precisely because it takes crucial decision-making that directly affects the lives of millions of citizens “out of politics.” Thus, you have the administrative state: the rule of administrators.

Read the full article here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

By  | July 2010 – August 2010 Issue | American Spectator

The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary. Our special Summer Issue cover story.

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several “stimulus” bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

The Political Divide

Important as they are, our political divisions are the iceberg’s tip. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences “undecided,” “none of the above,” or “tea party,” these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate — most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics.

Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority’s demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace’s taunt “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans’ conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.

While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people’s realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers — easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.

Far from speculating how the political confrontation might develop between America’s regime class — relatively few people supported by no more than one-third of Americans — and a country class comprising two-thirds of the country, our task here is to understand the divisions that underlie that confrontation’s unpredictable future. More on politics below.

The Ruling Class

Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?

The most widespread answers — by such as the Times‘s Thomas Friedman and David Brooks — are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg’s notion that America is now ruled by a “newocracy”: a “new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization — including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy.” In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.

Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities’ priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston’s Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate — just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative “nonprofit” and “philanthropic” sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America’s Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter’s grievances.

Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity — being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment’s parts.

If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can “write” your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was “inadvertent,” and you can count on the Law School’s dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that “closes” the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about “global warming” to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps.

Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France’s ruling class are bright people — certifiably. Not ours. But didn’t ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn’t most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d’Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France’s ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America’s “top schools” is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. And it is an open secret that “the best” colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. No, our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to criticism nor release their academic records. Thus does our ruling class stunt itself through negative selection. But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.

The Faith

Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that “we” are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. How did this replace the Founding generation’s paradigm that “all men are created equal”?

The notion of human equality was always a hard sell, because experience teaches us that we are so unequal in so many ways, and because making one’s self superior is so tempting that Lincoln called it “the old serpent, you work I’ll eat.” But human equality made sense to our Founding generation because they believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, because they were yearning for equal treatment under British law, or because they had read John Locke.

It did not take long for their paradigm to be challenged by interest and by “science.” By the 1820s, as J. C. Calhoun was reading in the best London journals that different breeds of animals and plants produce inferior or superior results, slave owners were citing the Negroes’ deficiencies to argue that they should remain slaves indefinitely. Lots of others were reading Ludwig Feuerbach’s rendition of Hegelian philosophy, according to which biblical injunctions reflect the fantasies of alienated human beings or, in the young Karl Marx’s formulation, that ethical thought is “superstructural” to material reality. By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called “all men are created equal” “a self-evident lie,” much of America’s educated class had already absorbed the “scientific” notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class’s religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.

Thus began the Progressive Era. When Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was asked “can’t you let anything alone?” he answered with, “I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill.” Wilson spoke for the thousands of well-off Americans who patronized the spas at places like Chautauqua and Lake Mohonk. By such upper-middle-class waters, progressives who imagined themselves the world’s examples and the world’s reformers dreamt big dreams of establishing order, justice, and peace at home and abroad. Neither were they shy about their desire for power. Wilson was the first American statesman to argue that the Founders had done badly by depriving the U.S. government of the power to reshape American society. Nor was Wilson the last to invade a foreign country (Mexico) to “teach [them] to elect good men.”

World War I and the chaos at home and abroad that followed it discredited the Progressives in the American people’s eyes. Their international schemes had brought blood and promised more. Their domestic management had not improved Americans’ lives, but given them a taste of arbitrary government, including Prohibition. The Progressives, for their part, found it fulfilling to attribute the failure of their schemes to the American people’s backwardness, to something deeply wrong with America. The American people had failed them because democracy in its American form perpetuated the worst in humanity. Thus Progressives began to look down on the masses, to look on themselves as the vanguard, and to look abroad for examples to emulate.

The cultural divide between the “educated class” and the rest of the country opened in the interwar years. Some Progressives joined the “vanguard of the proletariat,” the Communist Party. Many more were deeply sympathetic to Soviet Russia, as they were to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Not just the Nation, but also the New York Timesand National Geographic found much to be imitated in these regimes because they promised energetically to transcend their peoples’ ways and to build “the new man.” Above all, our educated class was bitter about America. In 1925 the American Civil Liberties Union sponsored a legal challenge to a Tennessee law that required teaching the biblical account of creation. The ensuing trial, radio broadcast nationally, as well as the subsequent hit movie Inherit the Wind, were the occasion for what one might have called the Chautauqua class to drive home the point that Americans who believed in the Bible were willful ignoramuses. As World War II approached, some American Progressives supported the Soviet Union (and its ally, Nazi Germany) and others Great Britain and France. But Progressives agreed on one thing: the approaching war should be blamed on the majority of Americans, because they had refused to lead the League of Nations. Darryl Zanuck produced the critically acclaimed movie [Woodrow] Wilson featuring Cedric Hardwicke as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who allegedly brought on the war by appealing to American narrow-mindedness against Wilson’s benevolent genius.

Franklin Roosevelt brought the Chautauqua class into his administration and began the process that turned them into rulers. FDR described America’s problems in technocratic terms. America’s problems would be fixed by a “brain trust” (picked by him). His New Deal’s solutions — the alphabet-soup “independent” agencies that have run America ever since — turned many Progressives into powerful bureaucrats and then into lobbyists. As the saying goes, they came to Washington to do good, and stayed to do well.

As their number and sense of importance grew, so did their distaste for common Americans. Believing itself “scientific,” this Progressive class sought to explain its differences from its neighbors in “scientific” terms. The most elaborate of these attempts was Theodor Adorno’s widely acclaimed The Authoritarian Personality (1948). It invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the “F scale” (F for fascist), interviewed hundreds of Americans, and concluded that most who were not liberal Democrats were latent fascists. This way of thinking about non-Progressives filtered down to college curricula. In 1963-64 for example, I was assigned Herbert McCloskey’s Conservatism and Personality (1958) at Rutgers’s Eagleton Institute of Politics as a paradigm of methodological correctness. The author had defined conservatism in terms of answers to certain questions, had defined a number of personality disorders in terms of other questions, and run a survey that proved “scientifically” that conservatives were maladjusted ne’er-do-well ignoramuses. (My class project, titled “Liberalism and Personality,” following the same methodology, proved just as scientifically that liberals suffered from the very same social diseases, and even more amusing ones.)

The point is this: though not one in a thousand of today’s bipartisan ruling class ever heard of Adorno or McCloskey, much less can explain the Feuerbachian-Marxist notion that human judgments are “epiphenomenal” products of spiritual or material alienation, the notion that the common people’s words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class. They absorbed it osmotically, second — or thirdhand, from their education and from companions. Truly, after Barack Obama described his opponents’ clinging to “God and guns” as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said “whateverybody knows is true.” Confident “knowledge” that “some of us, the ones who matter,” have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives into a class long before they took power.

The Agenda: Power

Our ruling class’s agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a “machine,” that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members. Such parties often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods and enhance mightily the upper levels’ wealth. Because this is so, whatever else such parties might accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges — civic as well as economic — to the party’s clients, directly or indirectly. This, incidentally, is close to Aristotle’s view of democracy. Hence our ruling class’s standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government — meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves, to profit those who pay with political support for privileged jobs, contracts, etc. Hence more power for the ruling class has been our ruling class’s solution not just for economic downturns and social ills but also for hurricanes and tornadoes, global cooling and global warming. A priori, one might wonder whether enriching and empowering individuals of a certain kind can make Americans kinder and gentler, much less control the weather. But there can be no doubt that such power and money makes Americans ever more dependent on those who wield it. Let us now look at what this means in our time.

Dependence Economics

By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. While the economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices — even to buy in the first place — modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency’s value for all.

Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others because their senators offered key political support, but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass what indirect taxes onto the general public. The financial regulation bill of 2010, far from setting univocal rules for the entire financial industry in few words, spends some 3,000 pages (at this writing) tilting the field exquisitely toward some and away from others. Even more significantly, these and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others. Thus in 2008 the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, then let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, its Democratic successor used similarly naked discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it. Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don’t have to. Because modern laws are primarily grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower.

By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support. Thus in the 1990s and 2000s, as Democrats and Republicans forced banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices. When the bubble burst, only those connected with the ruling class at the bottom and at the top were bailed out. Similarly, by taxing the use of carbon fuels and subsidizing “alternative energy,” our ruling class created arguably the world’s biggest opportunity for making money out of things that few if any would buy absent its intervention. The ethanol industry and its ensuing diversions of wealth exist exclusively because of subsidies. The prospect of legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions and allot certain amounts to certain companies set off a feeding frenzy among large companies to show support for a “green agenda,” because such allotments would be worth tens of billions of dollars. That is why companies hired some 2,500 lobbyists in 2009 to deepen their involvement in “climate change.” At the very least, such involvement profits them by making them into privileged collectors of carbon taxes. Any “green jobs” thus created are by definition creatures of subsidies — that is, of privilege. What effect creating such privileges may have on “global warming” is debatable. But it surely increases the number of people dependent on the ruling class, and teaches Americans that satisfying that class is a surer way of making a living than producing goods and services that people want to buy.

Beyond patronage, picking economic winners and losers redirects the American people’s energies to tasks that the political class deems more worthy than what Americans choose for themselves. John Kenneth Galbraith’s characterization of America as “private wealth amidst public squalor” (The Affluent Society, 1958) has ever encapsulated our best and brightest’s complaint: left to themselves, Americans use land inefficiently in suburbs and exurbs, making it necessary to use energy to transport them to jobs and shopping. Americans drive big cars, eat lots of meat as well as other unhealthy things, and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it. Americans think it justice to spend the money they earn to satisfy their private desires even though the ruling class knows that justice lies in improving the community and the planet. The ruling class knows that Americans must learn to live more densely and close to work, that they must drive smaller cars and change their lives to use less energy, that their dietary habits must improve, that they must accept limits in how much medical care they get, that they must divert more of their money to support people, cultural enterprises, and plans for the planet that the ruling class deems worthier. So, ever-greater taxes and intrusive regulations are the main wrenches by which the American people can be improved (and, yes, by which the ruling class feeds and grows).

The 2010 medical law is a template for the ruling class’s economic modus operandi: the government taxes citizens to pay for medical care and requires citizens to purchase health insurance. The money thus taken and directed is money that the citizens themselves might have used to pay for medical care. In exchange for the money, the government promises to provide care through its “system.” But then all the boards, commissions, guidelines, procedures, and “best practices” that constitute “the system” become the arbiters of what any citizen ends up getting. The citizen might end up dissatisfied with what “the system” offers. But when he gave up his money, he gave up the power to choose, and became dependent on all the boards and commissions that his money also pays for and that raise the cost of care. Similarly, in 2008 the House Ways and Means Committee began considering a plan to force citizens who own Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to transfer those funds into government-run “guaranteed retirement accounts.” If the government may force citizens to buy health insurance, by what logic can it not force them to trade private ownership and control of retirement money for a guarantee as sound as the government itself? Is it not clear that the government knows more about managing retirement income than individuals?

Who Depends on Whom?

In Congressional Government (1885) Woodrow Wilson left no doubt: the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from meeting the country’s needs by enumerating rights that the government may not infringe. (“Congress shall make no law…” says the First Amendment, typically.) Our electoral system, based on single member districts, empowers individual voters at the expense of “responsible parties.” Hence the ruling class’s perpetual agenda has been to diminish the role of the citizenry’s elected representatives, enhancing that of party leaders as well as of groups willing to partner in the government’s plans, and to craft a “living” Constitution in which restrictions on government give way to “positive rights” — meaning charters of government power.

Consider representation. Following Wilson, American Progressives have always wanted to turn the U.S. Congress from the role defined by James Madison’s Federalist #10, “refine and enlarge the public’s view,” to something like the British Parliament, which ratifies government actions. Although Britain’s electoral system — like ours, single members elected in historic districts by plurality vote — had made members of Parliament responsive to their constituents in ancient times, by Wilson’s time the growing importance of parties made MPs beholden to party leaders. Hence whoever controls the majority party controls both Parliament and the government.

In America, the process by which party has become (almost) as important began with the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr which, by setting the single standard “one man, one vote” for congressional districts, ended up legalizing the practice of “gerrymandering,” concentrating the opposition party’s voters into as few districts as possible while placing one’s own voters into as many as possible likely to yield victories. Republican and Democratic state legislatures have gerrymandered for a half century. That is why today’s Congress consists more and more of persons who represent their respective party establishments — not nearly as much as in Britain, but heading in that direction. Once districts are gerrymandered “safe” for one party or another, the voters therein count less because party leaders can count more on elected legislators to toe the party line.

To the extent party leaders do not have to worry about voters, they can choose privileged interlocutors, representing those in society whom they find most amenable. In America ever more since the 1930s — elsewhere in the world this practice is ubiquitous and long-standing — government has designated certain individuals, companies, and organizations within each of society’s sectors as (junior) partners in elaborating laws and administrative rules for those sectors. The government empowers the persons it has chosen over those not chosen, deems them the sector’s true representatives, and rewards them. They become part of the ruling class.

Read the full article here.

US and China engage in cyber war games

By  | April 16, 2012 | The Guardian

Exclusive: US and Chinese officials take part in war games in bid to prevent military escalation from cyber attacks

Personnel work at the Air Force Space Command Network Operations in Colorado Springs

The Air Force Space Command Network Operations and Security Centre in Colorado. Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters

The US and China have been discreetly engaging in “war games” amid rising anger in Washington over the scale and audacity of Beijing-co-ordinated cyber attacks on western governments and big business, the Guardian has learned.

State department and Pentagon officials, along with their Chinese counterparts, were involved in two war games last year that were designed to help prevent a sudden military escalation between the sides if either felt they were being targeted. Another session is planned for May.

Though the exercises have given the US a chance to vent its frustration at what appears to be state-sponsored espionage and theft on an industrial scale, China has been belligerent.

“China has come to the conclusion that the power relationship has changed, and it has changed in a way that favours them,” said Jim Lewis, a senior fellow and director at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) thinktank in Washington.

“The PLA [People’s Liberation Army] is very hostile. They see the US as a target. They feel they have justification for their actions. They think the US is in decline.”

The war games have been organised through the CSIS and a Beijing think tank, the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. This has allowed government officials, and those from the US intelligence agencies, to have contact in a less formal environment.

Known as “Track 1.5” diplomacy, it is the closest governments can get in conflict management without full-blown talks.

“We co-ordinate the war games with the state department and department of defence,” said Lewis, who brokered the meetings, which took place in Beijing last June, and in Washington in December.

“The officials start out as observers and become participants … it is very much the same on the Chinese side. Because it is organised between two think tanks they can speak more freely.”

During the first exercise, both sides had to describe what they would do if they were attacked by a sophisticated computer virus, such as Stuxnet, which disabled centrifuges in Iran’s nuclear programme. In the second, they had to describe their reaction if the attack was known to have been launched from the other side.

“The two war games have been quite amazing,” said Lewis. “The first one went well, the second one not so well.

“The Chinese are very astute. They send knowledgeable people. We want to find ways to change their behaviour … [but] they can justify what they are doing. Their attitude is, they have experienced imperialism and they had a century of humiliation.”

Lewis said the Chinese have a “sense that they have been treated unfairly”.

“The Chinese have a deep distrust of the US. They are concerned about US military capabilities. They tend to think we have a grand strategy to preserve US hegemony and they see a direct challenge.

“The [Chinese officials] who favour co-operation are not as strong as the people who favour conflict.”

The need for the meetings has been underlined in recent months as the US and the UK have tried to increase pressure on China, which they regard as chiefly responsible for the theft of billions of dollars of plans and intellectual property from defence manufacturers, government departments, and private companies at the heart of America’s national infrastructure.

Analysts say this amounts to “preparation of the battlefield”, and both the UK and the US have warned Beijing to expect retaliation if it continues.

In recent months, the US has made clear it is turning its military focus away from Europe towards the Pacific to protect American interests in the region.

“Of the countries actively involved in cyber espionage, China is the only one likely to be a military competitor to the US,” Lewis said.

“US and Chinese forces are in close proximity and there are hostile incidents … The odds of miscalculation are high, so we are trying to get a clear understanding of each side’s position.”

Lewis believes the US is preparing to become more aggressive towards China, saying President Barack Obama has already tasked internal working groups in the White House to consider tougher sanctions.

Without naming China, a senior executive in the FBI told the Guardian the threats posed from cyber attacks were alarming.

“We know that the capabilities of foreign states are substantial and we know the type of information that they are targeting,” said Shawn Henry, executive assistant director of the FBI’s cyber unit.

Read the full article  here.

Expert Warns: 100% Certainty of Total Catastrophic Failure of the Entire Power Infrastructure Within 3 Years [Video]

By Mac Slavo | April 20, 2012 | SHTF Plan

As smart grid metering systems expand across the developed world, many are starting to ask whether the threats posed by the new devices, which officials promise will save energy and reduce end user utility costs, outweigh their benefits. In addition to documented health concerns resulting from radiation emissions and no cost savings being apparent, opponents of the technology argue that smart meters are violative of basic privacy rights and give the government yet another digital node of unfettered access to monitor and control personal electricity consumption.

Now, an alarming new documentary suggests that security problems with the inter-connected and seemingly convenient smart grid may be so serious that they could lead to a catastrophic failure of our nation’s entire power infrastructure.

In an interview for the upcoming documentary titled Take Back Your Power, Cyber defense expert David Chalk warns that our nation is in crisis. Not only are our smart power grids susceptible to hacking, but they may very well already be infected with Trojan viruses and back doors that will ultimately lead to disastrous consequences:

(Video interview follows excerpts)

The front door is open, and there is no lock to be had.

There is not a power meter or device on the grid that is protected from hacking, if not already infected with some sort of Trojan horse than can cause it to be shut down, damaged or completely annihilated.

We can’t take a massive outage all at once.

When we say ‘it goes down,’ we’re talking about generators burning out. We’re talking about coal plants being damaged. We’re talking about destruction of equipment. This isn’t just a matter of electrons going around and shutting off the moving data.

Physical equipment can be damaged… watch some of the videos of cyber attacks on generators and other devices. You’ll see they’re actually damaged. Multi million dollar machines are hacked into.

We look at corporations. We look at the very companies like Symantec that are there to protect us having been hacked, and their code is in the public domain.

Bring forward a technology and I will show you that it’s penetrable. I’ll do it on national TV, I’ll do it anywhere… I can guarantee you 100% that there is nothing out there today – nothing – that can’t be penetrated.

We need safety and security, and today that does not exist in the smart grid.

Via Business Wire

“Unless we wake up and realize what we’re doing, there is 100% certainty of total catastrophic failure of the entire power infrastructure within 3 years,” said Chalk.

“This could actually be worse than a nuclear war, because it would happen everywhere. How governments and utilities are blindly merging the power grid with the Internet, and effectively without any protection, is insanity at its finest.”

Preview Take Back Your Power:

As Mr. Chalk points out, even the top security firms in the country have been hacked, and the head of US Cyber Security confirms that military systems are under constant attack and have been broken by hackers who have gained access to sensitive military and space agency systems (including active Jet Propulsion Labs spacecraft). Our entire drone fleet, yet another node in the ever expanding control grid, was recently compromised by a virus that was able to log access commands and passwords for high security military systems. The vulnerabilities of these systems became starkly clear when Iran’s military broke global positioning encryption and took control of a U.S. military drone over their airspace.

This is no longer about a single computer going down or file directories being accessed. Cyber conflict is moving into an entirely new realm, where rogue hackers or state-sponsored cyber operations are capable of targeting physical grid infrastructure like power, water,  and oil refineries, commerce and transportation systems. According to one expert, such an attack has the potential bring down life as we know it in America in a matter of just 900 seconds.

Some would argue that we need more governance over the grid system, or stricter penalties for those who compromise it, or further yet, more monitoring and tracking so attacks can be prevented.

The other option, however, is that we take individual Americans off the traditional grid altogether by empowering them through tax credits and de-regulation, so that every one of us can have their own personal smart grid in their home, independent of intervention from government or traditional energy industry players.

Only this limited government, personal responsibility solution is capable of providing a truly impenetrable level of power grid safety and security for each and every person in the United States.

However, like all things government, the narrative seems to be to first create the problem, then move to fix it by more centralization, control and dependence. It’s a trend we see not just in our energy sector, but every aspect of our lives.

Hat tip Satori

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: 13,973 people have read this article (new feature)
Date: April 20th, 2012

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

Peak Civilization: MIT Research Team Predicts Global Economic Collapse and Precipitous Population Decline

By Mac Slavo | April 5, 2012 | SHTF Plan

Researchers at one of the world’s leading think tanks have developed a computing model that predicts serious implications for our way of life as a result of our incessant need to consume resources like oil, food, and fresh water. According to a team of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the breaking point will come no later than 2030, and when it does, we can expect a paradigm shift unlike any we have seen before in human history – one that will not only collapse the economies of the world, but will cause food and energy production to decrease so significantly that it will lead to the deaths of  hundreds of millions of people in the process.

The recent study, completed on behalf of The Club of Rome, an organization which issued it’s own findings on ‘peak everything’ back in the 1970′s in a controversial environmental report dubbed The Limits to Growth (video), takes into account the relations between various global developments and produces computer simulations for alternative scenarios.

Via Smithsonian Magazine:

Recent research supports the conclusions of a controversial environmental study released 40 years ago: The world is on track for disaster. So says Australian physicist Graham Turner, who revisited perhaps the most groundbreaking academic work of the 1970s, The Limits to Growth.

Written by MIT researchers for an international think tank, the Club of Rome, the study used computers to model several possible future scenarios. The business-as-usual scenario estimated that if human beings continued to consume more than nature was capable of providing, global economic collapse and precipitous population decline could occur by 2030.

Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario. He found the predictions nearly matched the facts. “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,” he says. “We are not on a sustainable trajectory.”

There is no doubt that the study carries with it its own agenda, as the Club of Rome includes members of the upper echelons of government and business from around the world. Many have suspected that the organization exists as a mechanism to move forward with environmental, and thus social, governance of the world’s resources and population through U.N. initiatives like Agenda 21 and the carbon credit system of taxation, both of which do nothing but shift the wealth of the world into the hands of the elite few at the top of the literal food chain.

But, despite the ulterior motives of those involved in The Club of Rome, they’re not the only ones who have warned of catastrophe stemming from high population levels and unsustainable consumption. In the History Channel’s Prophets Of Doom, Collapsenet’s Michael Ruppert warned of a similar scenario and one which suggests that, while oil may still be available in the future, the costs will be so prohibitive that it will be impossible for human civilization to maintain its current levels of consumption. According to Ruppert, the last great bubble to pop will be the human population bubble.

Other resource issues that have come to light in recent years include the availability of fresh water, as well as the productive capacity of our current agricultural system. Since all of our natural resources are interdependent, a break down in one, like for example the globe’s oil production system, would make it impossible for farmers to grow food, or for trucks to transport it. The same holds true for fresh water, which is essential not only to human life, but for oil exploration, refining operations, food production and a host of other industries essential to human civilization.

By all accounts, we have developed a system of consumption that truly is unsustainable in the long-term. While the Club of Rome and similar organizations purport to act in the best interests of humanity, nearly fifty years of solutions have yielded nothing but more problems and have brought us ever closer to the ultimate breaking point, one which promises to wipe out potentially billions of people in its wake.

An additional consideration which the MIT research study may have touched on but does not look to as a direct potential cause for global calamity is the breakdown of society as a result of unsustainable political, financial, and monetary machinations – something which benevolent members of organizations like The Club of Rome may have been complicit in creating.

There is a strong case to be made that the issuance of trillions of dollars in debt over the course of the last several decades, much like oil, will become impossible to sustain. Since the entire system of consumption is essentially based on this debt, if confidence in this system is lost, it may very well have the same initial effect as a peak oil breaking point. Debt, even when fabricated out of thin air, is essentially a promise tied to some sort of resource. It is based on the idea that something will eventually be created by someone in order to make good on the debt. By all accounts,we the people are the collateral for all of this debt floating around in the system. But, it has gotten to the point that the debt – somewhere in the range of $200 trillion in the United States alone –  far outweighs our ability to harness enough time and energy to repay the principal with interest.

Thus, this ‘peak debt’ created to save us from the unsustainable resource practices we face should be just as big of a concern as peak oil or water. Because when we finally reach the limit of our debt, and it becomes clear that the collateral backing that debt is unable to produce enough yield to pay it back, we’ll have a whole new meaning for the term ‘collateral damage.’

With seven billion people on the planet, the system as it is currently managed can’t possibility continue to support the daily needs of the world’s population indefinitely. The solutions that have been presented over the course of the last half century fall far short of providing any meaningful results, despite the treasure spent and liberty stripped.

Slowly but surely we are approaching Peak Civilization, and when that bubble pops we’ll see the ‘crash’ manifest in the form of famine, disease and global conflict.

Via SHTFplan

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: April 5th, 2012

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

Fight Against ‘Wireless Smart Meter Assault’ Spreads Over Health Concerns

By Liz Klimas  | March 22, 2012 | The Blaze
Groups Continue Crusade Against Smart Meters Over Alleged Health Risks

Smart meter protest in California. (Photo:

Citizens campaigns against the use of smart meters by electric companies is growing. Some of the most recent anti-smart meter news comes from Georgia where legislation is moving forward that would give customers the option to opt out programs with these devices, which have been said to cause health problems. While other areas are looking into opting out of the programs as well, some citizens are taking action to “protect themselves” in the mean time.

But first, here’s a recap on smart meters and the controversy surrounding their installation. About a year ago, we reported that some people who had smart meters installed in place of analog devices to measure electrical use were experiencing symptoms like headaches, insomnia, tinnitus and DNA breakdown. What’s the alleged association between these devices and negative health impacts? Electromagnetic fields associated with the wireless transmitters. Transmitters such as these, which are similar to those used in cellphones and other wireless electronic devices, have been reported as effecting those who are “electrically hypersensitive” before.

(Related: Feeling Queazy? Wi-Fi sickness allegedly affects 5 percent of the population)

When the Blaze wrote about smart meters in March 2011, a group in California appeared to be leading the charge against the devices that not only seemed to cause health complications but were also invading privacy when it came to monitoring electrical use habits. was founded in 2010 as an advocacy group but now also provides ”consultation and advice to dozens of local groups sprouting up who are fighting the wireless ‘smart’ meter assault.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

Technocracy Study Course

Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?

By Patrick Wood, Editor


Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global cur­rency are per­haps thinking too small.

On the world horizon looms a new global cur­rency that could replace all paper cur­ren­cies and the eco­nomic system upon which they are based.

The new cur­rency, simply called Carbon Cur­rency, is designed to sup­port a rev­o­lu­tionary new eco­nomic system based on energy (pro­duc­tion, and con­sump­tion), instead of price. Our cur­rent price-based eco­nomic system and its related cur­ren­cies that have sup­ported cap­i­talism, socialism, fas­cism and com­mu­nism, is being herded to the slaugh­ter­house in order to make way for a new carbon-based world.

It is plainly evi­dent that the world is laboring under a dying system of price-based eco­nomics as evi­denced by the rapid decline of paper cur­ren­cies. The era of fiat (irre­deemable paper cur­rency) was intro­duced in 1971 when Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon decou­pled the U.S. dollar from gold. Because the dollar-turned-fiat was the world’s pri­mary reserve asset, all other cur­ren­cies even­tu­ally fol­lowed suit, leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is increas­ingly unde­sired, unstable, unusable.

The deathly eco­nomic state of today’s world is a direct reflec­tion of the sum of its sick and dying cur­ren­cies, but this could soon change.

Forces are already at work to posi­tion a new Carbon Cur­rency as the ulti­mate solu­tion to global calls for poverty reduc­tion, pop­u­la­tion con­trol, envi­ron­mental con­trol, global warming, energy allo­ca­tion and blanket dis­tri­b­u­tion of eco­nomic wealth.

Unfor­tu­nately for indi­vidual people living in this new system, it will also require author­i­tarian and cen­tral­ized con­trol over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.

What is Carbon Cur­rency and how does it work? In a nut­shell, Carbon Cur­rency will be based on the reg­ular allo­ca­tion of avail­able energy to the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the Cur­rency will expire (like monthly min­utes on your cell phone plan) so that the same people can receive a new allo­ca­tion based on new energy pro­duc­tion quotas for the next period.

Because the energy supply chain is already dom­i­nated by the global elite, set­ting energy pro­duc­tion quotas will limit the amount of Carbon Cur­rency in cir­cu­la­tion at any one time. It will also nat­u­rally limit man­u­fac­turing, food pro­duc­tion and people movement.

Local cur­ren­cies could remain in play for a time, but they would even­tu­ally wither and be fully replaced by the Carbon Cur­rency, much the same way that the Euro dis­placed indi­vidual Euro­pean cur­ren­cies over a period of time.

Sounds very modern in con­cept, doesn’t it? In fact, these ideas date back to the 1930’s when hun­dreds of thou­sands of U.S. cit­i­zens were embracing a new polit­ical ide­ology called Tech­noc­racy and the promise it held for a better life. Even now-classic lit­er­a­ture was heavily influ­enced by Tech­noc­racy: George Orwell’s 1984, H.G. Well’s The Shape of Things to Come and Huxley’s “sci­en­tific dic­ta­tor­ship” in Brave New World.

This paper inves­ti­gates the rebirth of Tech­noc­racy and its poten­tial to recast the New World Order into some­thing truly “new” and also totally unex­pected by the vast majority of modern critics.

Read the full article here.

Smart Grid: The Implementation of Technocracy?

By Patrick Wood


According to the United Nations Gov­erning Council of the UN Envi­ron­mental Pro­gramme (UNEP),  “our dom­i­nant eco­nomic model may thus be termed a ‘brown economy.” UNEP’s clearly stated goal is to over­turn the “brown economy” and replace it with a “green economy”:

“A green economy implies the decou­pling of resource use and envi­ron­mental impacts from eco­nomic growth… These invest­ments, both public and pri­vate, pro­vide the mech­a­nism for the recon­fig­u­ra­tion of busi­nesses, infra­struc­ture and insti­tu­tions, and for the adop­tion of sus­tain­able con­sump­tion and pro­duc­tion processes.” [p. 2]

Sus­tain­able con­sump­tion? Recon­fig­uring busi­nesses, infra­struc­ture and insti­tu­tions? What do these words mean? They do not mean merely reshuf­fling the existing order, but rather replacing it with a com­pletely new eco­nomic system, one that has never before been seen or used in the his­tory of the world.

This paper will demon­strate that the cur­rent crisis of cap­i­talism is being used to imple­ment a rad­ical new eco­nomic system that will com­pletely sup­plant it. This is not some new idea cre­ated in the bowels of the United Nations: It is a revi­tal­ized imple­men­ta­tion of Tech­noc­racy that was thor­oughly repu­di­ated by the Amer­ican public in 1933, in the middle of the Great Depression.

The Tech­nocrats have resur­faced, and they do not intend to fail a second time. Whether they suc­ceed this time will depend upon the intended ser­vants of Tech­noc­racy, the cit­i­zens of the world.

Indeed, the dark horse of the New World Order is not Com­mu­nism, Socialism or Fas­cism. It is Technocracy.


Founded by Howard Scott and M. King Hub­bert in 1932 during the Great Depres­sion, Tech­noc­racy pro­posed a rad­ical new solu­tion for the world’s eco­nomic ills. In 1932, Harry A. Porter wrote in Roo­sevelt and Tech­noc­racy,

“Just as the Ref­or­ma­tion estab­lished Reli­gious Freedom, just as the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence brought about our Polit­ical Freedom, Tech­noc­racy promises Eco­nomic Freedom.” [Fore­ward, iii]

Porter’s plan included aban­doning the gold stan­dard, sus­pending the stock exchanges and nation­al­izing rail­roads and public util­i­ties. Freedom notwith­standing, Porter then called for President-elect Franklin D. Roo­sevelt to be sworn in as Dic­tator rather than Pres­i­dent so that he could over­turn the existing eco­nomic system in favor of Technocracy:

“Drastic as these changes from the present order of things may be, they will serve their pur­pose if only to pave the way for the Eco­nomic Rev­o­lu­tion – and Tech­noc­racy.” (p. 63)

If Tech­noc­racy had truly been extin­guished before the onset of WWII, we would not be con­cerned about it today. How­ever, when Zbig­niew Brzezinski wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era in 1968, it was essen­tially a Neo-Technocratic trea­tise calling for a fourth and final stage of world his­tory, or the Tech­netronic Era.

When David Rock­e­feller picked Brzezinski to co-found the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973, it was with the spe­cific goal to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order.” Without some knowl­edge of his­toric Tech­noc­racy, exactly what the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion ulti­mately had in mind with such a goal could not pos­sibly have been understood.

Today, it is nec­es­sary to rethink these issues in order to deter­mine a) if this rad­ical move­ment is still oper­ating, b) what are their goals and c) how do they plan to achieve their goals.

In Carbon Cur­rency: A New Begin­ning for Tech­noc­racy?, the sub­ject of his­toric Tech­noc­racy was intro­duced in the con­text of cre­ating a new eco­nomic system based on energy accounting rather than price accounting. An energy-based accounting system uses “energy cer­tifi­cates,” or Carbon Cur­rency, instead of dol­lars or other fiat cur­ren­cies. Peri­odic and equal allo­ca­tions of avail­able energy are made to cit­i­zens, but they must be used within the defined time period before they reach an expi­ra­tion date. Fur­ther­more, the ability to own pri­vate prop­erty and accu­mu­late wealth would be deemed unnecessary.

The pressing and unan­swered ques­tion is how would such a Tech­no­cratic system actu­ally be implemented?

This paper will now address the strategy, tac­tical require­ments and progress of estab­lishing an energy-based Tech­nate in North America. [“Tech­nate” is the term used to describe the geo­graphic region oper­ated according to Tech­noc­racy. Thus, a North Amer­ican Tech­nate would include Canada, Mexico and the U.S. and they would all be under common control. ]


The Tech­noc­racy Study Coursewritten by Howard Scott and M. King Hub­bert in 1932, estab­lished a detailed frame­work for Tech­noc­racy in terms of energy pro­duc­tion, dis­tri­b­u­tion and usage.

According to Scott and Hub­bert, the dis­tri­b­u­tion of energy resources must be mon­i­tored and mea­sured in order for the system to work — and this is the key: mon­i­toring and mea­suring.

They wrote that the system must do the fol­lowing things:

  • “Reg­ister on a con­tin­uous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net con­ver­sion of energy.
  • “By means of the reg­is­tra­tion of energy con­verted and con­sumed, make pos­sible a bal­anced load.
  • “Pro­vide a con­tin­uous inven­tory of all pro­duc­tion and consumption
  • “Pro­vide a spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and ser­vices, where pro­duced and where used
  • “Pro­vide spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the con­sump­tion of each indi­vidual, plus a record and descrip­tion of the indi­vidual.” [Scott, Howard et al, Tech­noc­racy Study Source, p. 232]

In 1932, such tech­nology did not exist. Time was on the Technocrat’s side, how­ever, because this tech­nology doesexist today, and it is being rapidly imple­mented to do exactly what Scott and Hub­bert spec­i­fied: Namely, to exhaus­tively mon­itor, mea­sure and con­trol every ampere of energy deliv­ered to con­sumers and busi­nesses on a system-wide basis.

It’s called: Smart Grid.

Read the full article here.

Technocracy’s Endgame: Global Smart Grid

“There is a new world wide web emerging right before our eyes. It is a global energy net­work and, like the internet, it will change our cul­ture, society and how we do busi­ness. More impor­tantly, it will alter how we use, trans­form and exchange energy.” – home page


The dark horse of the New World Order is not Com­mu­nism, Socialism or Fas­cism: It is Technocracy.

The devel­op­ment and imple­men­ta­tion of Smart Grid tech­nology in the U.S. – reinventing the elec­trical grid with Wifi-enabled dig­ital power meters – is pro­ceeding at break­neck speed. Although Smart Grid is the result of years of gov­ern­ment plan­ning, the recent kickoff was made pos­sible through mas­sive “green” grants that were qui­etly included in Pres­i­dent Obama’s eco­nomic stim­ulus package starting in 2009.

These lucra­tive grants have drawn in a host of cor­po­rate players, from utility com­pa­nies to dig­ital meter man­u­fac­turers to con­trol soft­ware ven­dors. Global com­pa­nies like IBM, GE and Siemens are putting their full effort behind the “build-out” that will con­sol­i­date all of America into a single, inte­grated, communication-enabled elec­tric delivery and mon­i­toring system, col­lec­tively called Smart Grid.

Pro­po­nents of Smart Grid claim that it will empower the con­sumer to better manage his or her power con­sump­tion and hence, costs. The utility com­pa­nies will there­fore be more effi­cient in bal­ancing power loads and require­ments across diverse markets.

How­ever, like car­nival barkers, these Smart Grid hock­sters never reveal where or how Smart­Grid came into being, nor what the ulti­mate endgame aims to achieve; per­haps most of them have no idea either, but simply repeat the mantra as if they know what they are talking about.

In Smart­Grid: The Imple­men­ta­tion of Tech­noc­racy?, I revealed the back­ground of both Tech­noc­racy and Smart Grid, and most impor­tantly, the links between them. Smart Grid is born out of Tech­noc­racy and not the other way around.

Tech­noc­racy is a total­i­tarian system of gov­ern­ment where sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians mon­itor and con­trol all facets of per­sonal and civic life – eco­nomic, social and polit­ical. Herein lies the real danger: Who are these unelected con­trollers and why should anyone believe that they would be benev­o­lent dic­ta­tors instead of tyrants? Amer­i­cans are a freedom-loving people who would cer­tainly reject Technocracy’s stealth takeover, if only they were aware of it. Indeed, Amer­i­cans did point­edly reject Tech­noc­racy in the 1930′s!

Thirty years ago, a researcher’s mantra was “Follow the money, follow the power.” This must now be restated: “Follow the energy, follow the power.”

Read the full article here.

Dangers of Digital Utility Meters

Protect Yourself From Digital Utility Meters

Smart Meters

Patrick Wood: Technocracy

Of Dust & Kings

Empowering Faith. Transforming Culture.

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Blasted Fools

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

A TowDog

Conservative ramblings from a two-job workin' Navy Reservist Seabee (now Ret)

Oyia Brown

A WordPress site to share a smile; then an anthology showing how things really are.

Village of the Banned

A Voting American Site

The Grey Enigma

Help is not coming. Neither is permisson. -

The Daily Cheese.

news politics conspiracy world affairs

Who Said What

A Design for Life

Scribblings of a twenty-something politically and socially-minded nomad


Sovereign Serf Sayles

The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!


Dan Miller's blog


By Redbaiter- in the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low.

Secular Morality

Taking Pride in Humanity


ARTICLES IN THE NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, IDEAS


It's Secession Or Slavery. Choose One. There Is No Third Choice.

Video Rebel's Blog

Just another site

%d bloggers like this: