On 09/01/2016 09:25 AM, Razer wrote: <SNIP>
> Something Paul Goodman, founder of Gestalt Therapy and Anarchist said to > some technologists in 1967 comes to mind > > "...speaking by invitation to the National Security Industrial > Association —a consortium of arms manufacturers at the October 1967 > “Research and Development in the 1970s.” symposium, Washington DC: > > “You are the military industrial [complex] of the United States, the > most dangerous body of men at present in the world, for you not only > implement our disastrous policies but are an overwhelming lobby for > them, and you expand and rigidify the wrong use of brains, resources, > and labor so that change becomes difficult.” Truth. > (He continued as the audience sat in stunned silence.) > > “The best service you people could perform is rather rapidly to > phase yourselves out, passing on your relevant knowledge to people > better qualified, or reorganizing yourselves with entirely different > sponsors and commitments, so that you learn to think and feel in a > different way. > > Since you are most of the R&D [research and development] that there > is, we cannot do without you as people, but we cannot do with you as you > are.” > > (laughter and booing along with scattered applause) > > “but we believe, however, that that way of life is unnecessary, > ugly, and un-American.” > > (Shouts from the audience: “Who are ‘we’?”) > > “We are I and those people outside —we cannot condone your present > operations; they should be wiped off the slate.” Fucking hippies ;) > All the R&D and so-called intelligence applied to software and computer > development is USELESS to anyone but the 'war machine' if it's all about > ME, and not "those people outside". Didn't turn out well :( > http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/92438085944 > > > > > > > >> >> The article cited in the original post is a commentary on this essay: >> >> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/toward-a-global-realignm >> ent/ >> >> =or= >> >> https://tinyurl.com/zbig180 >> >> Wherein Brzezinski says: >> >> "While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s >> economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly >> endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint >> tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail. >> Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some >> state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would >> spell the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably >> be global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to >> fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially >> threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and >> then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least >> predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. >> Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer >> run it could be China. >> >> "Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more >> traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown >> comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now. During the rest of >> this century, humanity will also have to be increasingly preoccupied >> with survival as such on account of a confluence of environmental >> challenges. Those challenges can only be addressed responsibly and >> effectively in a setting of increased international accommodation. And >> that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that >> recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework. >> >> ... and that's a paradigm shift, coming as it does from the man who >> created Al Qaida and laid the foundation for today's business as usual >> methods for regime change a.k.a. NeoColonial conquest. >> >> We now return to our regularly scheduled Cypherpunks, a world of pure >> imagination where smart people like us would rise to the top of the >> social hierarchy on merit alone and fix the world, if only those >> damned [scapegoat name here] would get the hell out of our way. >> >> :o) >> >> >> >> >> >