Manufacturing Crisis

crisis

Image Source: beforeitsnews.com

or, Warmongers “R” Us.

The 1% has been progressing from crisis management to crisis exploitation to manufacturing artificial crisis as a means to an end. Manufacturing crisis is the take-no-prisoners, attack without mercy version of manufacturing consent

Crises range from 100% natural to 100% man-made with many combinations of the two.

Disaster capitalism (Naomi Klein) is only one example of how crises can be exploited by individuals and groups that are prepared or equipped to take advantage of the special circumstances that exist during and after a crisis.

The aims of crisis exploitation may range from lowering the market price of assets prior to acquisition to non-economic goals such as military or political advantage.

A classic example of crisis exploitation is war profiteering which is widely considered immoral and sometimes criminal. The worst cases may be those in which a third party actually instigates or provokes a war, or throws fuel on an existing conflict, for the purpose of exploiting the situation for financial and/or political gain.

Even such relatively benign cases of artificial crisis as the “Fiscal Cliff” may ultimately lead to real-world economic and physical casualties.

Meanwhile there seems to be a world-wide trend toward  populations and cultures becoming more internally divided along left-right (or egalitarian-authoritarian, secular-religious, etc.) lines. Conditions are increasingly ideal for creating and exploiting many kinds of crises.

Divide and rule … that seems to be how the snowball of globalization is going to roll until the people of Earth are fully converted to neofeudalism (private governance) and our brief experiments in self-government, democracy, the commons, and the public trust are fading from human memory.

As our social, economic, and ecological systems deteriorate I won’t be surprised if national civil wars continue to proliferate, eventually fusing into a bloody global culture war. Under such conditions some kind of Pax Plutocratica may be the best we can look forward to.

Poor Richard

see also

Understanding crisis exploitation

New Word Order keywords: Crisis Profiteer, Crisis-monger, Crisis Vulture

 

The Open Internet and Its Enemies

English: A stereotypical caricature of a villa...

Internet Freedom? Yes, of course…(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Can we in fact proceed or accept the outcome of any MS [multistakeholder governance] process without a very close re-examination and structuring of those processes; that is, to develop a means for providing appropriate safeguards against contamination, subversion, distortion or interest capture by or on behalf of one or another of the significant players whose interests in Internet development may be quite the opposite of the open, inclusive, transparent Internet that is the evident goal for most of those particularly from Civil Society who espouse MSism so passionately?”

The Open Internet Society and Its Enemies: Can Multistakeholderism Survive “Information Dominance”? | Gurstein’s Community Informatics.

 

The Internet Society, one of the active players in the debate on Internet governance, says this:

Each year, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) provides all stakeholders a unique opportunity to discuss openly critical emerging Internet-related issues.

This year’s overarching IGF theme is: “Building Bridges” – Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development”

As part of its engagement at the IGF, the Internet Society strongly supports the fundamentals of the open and sustainable Internet:

-Open Global standards for unleashed innovation;
-Open to Everyone: a freedom-enhancer for every Internet user;
-Open for Business and Economic progress;
-Open and Multistakeholder governance for transparent inclusion.

That sounds so very nice, vague, and naive (or maybe disingenuous). The bottom line: regardless of internet governance institutions, structures, or players we need to identify bad actors and deal with them appropriately.

Wikipedia says of multistakeholder governance:

“Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people.”

So how do we identify good faith (bona fides) and bad faith (mala fides)?

One thing that comes to mind is “profiling” the way the FBI profiles serial killers on TV, that is, looking for behavior patterns that correlate with other bad actors in the past.

However we do it, we need definitions and tests of good faith and bad faith with some kind of empirical metrics.

BTW I think the US government fails all conceivable tests of good faith and should be put in the penalty box indefinitely.

PR

Shutdown at the OK Corral

“The most accurate description of the Federal shutdown is an attempted corporate veto of American democracy. We must act accordingly. ” (occupynetwork.com)

I’d call it an attempted coup d’état.

Responding to David Brin‘s Government Shutdown or Showdown?:

“…one has to wonder about the author’s core assumption, that all of the right wing’s oligarchs want the United States to thrive.”

I doubt there is much nationalist sentiment in the upper rooms of the now globalized plutocracy. In fact, I imagine that a brutal punishment of the uppity US middle class in particular and the working classes of the world in general is pretty high on the agenda.

Despite the fact that a largely PR-driven model of subjugation-exploitation might be far more efficient and profitable, I imagine a deep emotional desire, perhaps fairly unconscious, on the part of the power-mad to wage a zero-sum, scorched-earth campaign against democracy. I think they perceive liberal democracy and self-governance as a far greater existential threat than climate change or the limits to growth in general. Besides, I think they see massive population reduction (survival of the richest) as a good solution to the latter. When the rich own nearly all the assets on earth they won’t need teeming masses to depress labor costs. By then they wont need much labor, period. Large populations will just be in the way, and they will represent the most clear and present danger to the elites.

Brin talks about the culture war as phase three of the US Civil War but it seems much bigger than that. Its a war on humanity. And Brin talks about a war on science but that’s only part of a larger war: a war on Reason. Not only self-government but Reason itself might vanish from the face of the earth for a very long time if psychopaths have their way.

GOP 2014: “FUCK SHIT UP FOR FREEDOM!”

Poor Richard

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it.” – Political economist Frederic Bastiat, The Law [1850]

Silk Road: How FBI closed in

Mr Ulbricht said to have been running Silk Road from Hickory Street in San Francisco

Mr Ulbricht said to have been running Silk Road from Hickory Street in San Francisco

BBC News – Silk Road: How FBI closed in on suspect Ross Ulbricht

“US authorities believe that 29-year-old Ross William Ulbricht, arrested on Wednesday, is Dread Pirate Roberts DPR – the administrator of the notorious Silk Road online marketplace. It was an underground website where people from all over the world were able to buy drugs.

In the months leading up to Mr Ulbricht’s arrest, investigators undertook a painstaking process of piecing together the suspect’s digital footprint, going back years into his history of communicating with others online.

The detail of how the FBI has built its case was outlined in a court complaint document published on Wednesday.

As would be expected, Dread Pirate Roberts was using a VPN – virtual private network – to generate a “false” IP address, designed to cover his tracks.

However, the provider of the VPN was subpoenaed by the FBI.

While efforts had been made by DPR to delete data, the VPN server’s records showed a user logged in from an internet cafe just 500 yards from an address on Hickory Street, known to be the home of a close friend of Mr Ulbricht’s, and a location that had also been used to log in to the Gmail account.”

more… via BBC News – Silk Road: How FBI closed in on suspect Ross Ulbricht.

“Internet Freedom” and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance

“Internet Freedom” and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance

by Michael Gurstein

And so we have the upcoming 8th session of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Bali with many of the main [“Internet Freedom”] protagonists having been more or less completely discredited…

So, what will be discussed at the IGF apart from the usual empty rhetoric about capacity building for LDC’s and legitimate campaigns against online skullduggery of the spam, kiddieporn, phishing variety?

Perhaps I could make a modest suggestion for the discussion. Perhaps we could discuss “Internet Freedom” but Internet Freedom in a post-Snowden world and without the hypocrisy and sanctimony of the previous discussions.

Perhaps we could discuss Internet Freedom as Freedom from undue and unaccountable surveillance; Internet Freedom as true Freedom of Expression where the forces of repression whether in Langley or in Moscow or Shanghai are made transparent and accountable; where Internet Freedom is anchored in the rule of law–not the, shall we say, rather “flexible” law of the world’s single superpower, but a rule of law to which all are expected to adhere and where mechanisms are in place to ensure that, to the degree possible, all are responsive and accountable; where Internet Freedom is not just for some but where it’s responsibilities and most importantly its protections are available for all of us — “foreigners” or no– and where all have some degree of input into how those laws are constructed and administered; where Internet Freedom does not mean that actions on and through the Internet will be subverted and directed simply to further enrich the already obscenely enriched, but rather to ensure that the benefits including financial benefits accruing from the Internet serve to reduce global inequalities.

I look for those who a year ago, were so eager to rally forces in support of Internet Freedom, to rally again to this somewhat battered standard; but now, one that is rather less naive and rather more reflective of the underlying reality of this technology enabled world in which we live. — Michael Gurstein [full article:  “Internet Freedom” and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance]

[Is freedom just another word for the law of the jungle, the war of all against all, and might makes right? Instead of naive or disingenuous “freedom” rhetoric, we need the transparent, even-handed, rule of law starting with a Universal Internet Bill of Rights or “Internet Magna Carta.” The primary danger is always that lawmaking and enforcement can be hijacked by special interests. –PR]

Related PRA 2.0 posts

Public Banking

[From Public Banking Institute – Banking in the Public Interest.]

Public Banks are …
  • Viable solutions to the present economic crises in US states.
  • Counter-cyclical, meaning they are capable of reducing the negative impact of recessions, because they can make money available for local governments and businesses precisely when private banks decrease lending.
  • Potentially available to any-sized government or community able to meet the requirements for setting up a bank.
  • Owned by the people of a state or community.
  • Economically sustainable, because they operate transparently according to applicable banking regulations
  • Able to offset pressures for tax increases with returned credit income to the community.
  • Ready sources of affordable credit for local governments, eliminating the need for large “rainy day” funds.
  • Required to promote the public interest, as defined in their charters.
  • Constitutional, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court

Public Banking — it already works in the United States and is catching on!  20 States are considering some form of state banking legislation.

What’s Happening in your State?

Find out by clicking on the map or here.

Are you interested in starting a county-owned bank? Visit our new county bank webpage here.

The Internet, Global Governance, and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is Not Your Friend, Get Over It)

[This essay presents the issues without the spin and hyperbole common to most partisan and ideologically biased commentary. –PR]

Mike Gurstein’s “Post Script” is a good summary of the essay:

The dilemma of how to respond to the Snowden revelations–the loss of innocence with respect to the Internet, the very real threat of a totalized Surveillance (and Command and Control) Society–is a very real and immediate one.

Unfortunately none of the approaches so far being suggested seem capable of dealing with the realities which are being faced.

Challenges to these actions on the basis of existing laws (or constitutional guarantees) seem to be countered by processes of legalization and revision of constitutional interpretation (and very much depend on the existence of an enforceable rule of law which in some national jurisdictions at least seems questionable).

Arguments that current grassroots initiatives might scale sufficiently to present a form of counter-power or alternative technology/techno-social structures seem highly optimistic at best (open for example to intervention and manipulation as they might become successful and an apparent threat).

Technical solutions concerning encryption and structuring/restructuring of existing infrastructures appear dependent on the active involvement of significant technical and corporate bodies/individuals who to this point have been either complacent or even complicit in the developments noted above.

The development of broad framework agreements towards governing the Internet and the broad technical and telecommunications infrastructure are seen by many as quite unrealistic, however, they might provide the only realistic hope.  Their significance would be not so much in the capacity to enforce these agreements (the incapacity of existing of oversight and control structures in the face of political force, technology drive, personal and corporate interests and collective insecurities are not such as to lead to a great of optimism in this direction).  Rather their significance would come through the process of their formulation as nations and their citizenries globally would need to be confronted with the quite stark choice of acceptance of a Surveillance (and Command and Control) State or of a rule of law enforced through transparency and democratic oversight.  –Mike Gurstein

 

Related PRA 2.0 posts:

Gurstein's Community Informatics

Much has been made of the role that the Internet is playing in restructuring the way in which governance is executed both at the national and the global levels. The role of the Internet in supporting the rise of wide-spread autocrat-challenging movements in the Arab world, the role of the Internet in enabling middle class protests against out of touch officials and political structures in democracies, the power of the Internet to sway elections and directly influence policies are all obvious and widely commented upon.

Equally significant is the role of the Internet in creating global initiatives and global consciousness in a variety of areas–in supporting global movements in civil society; in making borders largely irrelevant in the transmission of information–importantly including images and direct communications; in allowing for the extremely low cost and largely frictionless sharing of experiences, good practices and how to’s in the whole range of areas…

View original post 3,506 more words

%d bloggers like this: