
The Techno-Militarization Of America - newscrunch
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/18/the-techno-militarization-of-america/
======
vezzy-fnord
It's time we stop stigmatizing people as "conspiracy loons", "conspiracy
theorists", "paranoid tin foil hat wearers" and whatnot.

The fact of the matter is that you don't need to believe in idiotic pop
culture theories like Illuminati, Jewish Bolshevism and reptilian men. Those
are all straw men and have no credibility.

On the other hand, conspiracies have been an essential part of politics and
history for a very long time. The only way you could possibly deny this is if
you're ignorant of politics, history and how military intelligence works.

One most not underestimate the capability of malice. Hanlon's razor does not
apply to politics, as FDR famously said. The authorities have conspired to and
actually committed countless acts of lunacy and horror, like a plot to nuke
the moon (Project A119), a large scale false flag terror plot (Operation
Gladio) and the second Gulf of Tonkin attack, which was a false flag that
kickstarted the Vietnam War. The last one was actually executed and the NSA
declassified the docs years ago.

NSA surveillance is hardly new. You can even see it (jokingly) referenced in
_Sneakers_ , which dates back to 1992. Before Snowden, we had ECHELON, Total
Information Awareness, Presidential Surveillance Program, Room 641A and
closely related: the FBI's DCSNet.

So, here's a quick idea. Instead of insulting conspiracy theorists who voice
perfectly reasonable doubts, let's actually praise them and try to voice their
concerns, rather than going with official stories and pretending everything is
like clockwork.

It's absolutely disturbing how well people have accepted that the government
works for their benefit. What bullshit.

The outrage over the NSA disclosures was well warranted, but the _surprise_
goes to show you just how much people, even those who should know better, are
asleep and little more than cattle (sorry for the arrogance, but I feel it's
deserved here).

Conspiracy theorists are not loons. The only loons are the ones who think
everything is just fine and are legitimately _surprised_ the NSA is spying on
them. Did you forget the Clipper chips already?

Fucking please.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Actually, my problem with conspiracy theorists is that a whole lot of them
_do_ believe in Jewish Bolshevism/Zionist Occupied Government nonsense. And
I'm Jewish: the result is that every time some nutter shoots up a community
center, the _real_ reason is because he never got the mental-health care he
needed, but the _proximate_ reason is that "not loons" conspiracy theorists
told him we were holding Evil League of Evil meetings there.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> the proximate reason is that "not loons" conspiracy theorists told him we
> were holding Evil League of Evil meetings there.

The post you replied to made it pretty clear that those are to be considered
loons. Conflating legitimate concerns and crazyness is exactly what needs to
stop.

~~~
vacri
You couldn't ask for a more textbook version of No True Scotsman.

"Don't stigmatise conspiracy theorists, because the ones who attack places on
the theory that there's a conspiracy going on... they aren't really conspiracy
theorists!"

~~~
PavlovsCat
Huh. I didn't say they're not conspiracy theorists, did I? That's putting
words in my mouth I never said, in other words a strawman.

Labeling anyone and everyone as "conspiracy theorist" because they are talking
about a conspiracy doesn't make them all the same, that makes as much sense as
treating all humans like serial killers because Charles Manson was a human,
too. Is realizing how silly that is a No True Scotsman, too? Please. To use
big words, too, this is orders of magnitude below the standard of HN.

When drug dealers, who conspired to deal drugs, are busted, does that make the
police "conspiracy theorists"? Why not, since they technically are? Because
more often than not, that label is used to lump legitimate concerns together
with kooky ones.

------
awakeasleep
Dear journalists and bloggers. Please stop mentioning Weev. Never associate
him with anything you want to succeed. He is a completely awful human being,
and yes his arrest was inappropriate, but you shouldn't make him a champion of
your cause unless you'd make an antisemitic highschool-anarchist your
spokesperson.

------
heroh
The world was fooled into going to war on the false pretext of terrorism &
WMDs yet right after the events the perpetrators were seen as innocent -- hell
Bush was even reelected [Relevant video]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ)

It should be noted that the NYT had scoop on the president spying on Civilians
but they were told to hold off on the release on the grounds of "National
Security" \-- it was suppressed for 15 months. Then after Bush was back in
office, the story broke and they won a prestigious prize for the 'revealing
story'.

Greenwald's video here
[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ho...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hoCPdLh_FiQ#t=1403)]

You have to realize that our freedoms and everything were destroyed after
9/11\. BUT have you analyzed 9/11 and looked at facts other than the official
narrative? A super structure collapsed -- as in, perfectly imploded on itself
after there were fires near the top of the building. There were also buildings
that sustained no damages that collapsed.

If you still don't believe the NSA is monitoring you & that everyone who
questions the narrative wears a tinfoil hat, then shame on you...

For those who are curious there are tons of resources out there but this one
in particular is extremely exhaustive - making astonishing connections that
typically spans 3 - 7 videos:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk)

I'm suggesting it so that you get a better understanding of present day
America. When you realize that terrorism was manufactured as a scare tactic,
that things like the TSA are just security theater your whole world view
changes... sure it may be hard and you may not like it, but it's the truth.

You'll then realize that they've been using terrorism and national security as
a means to keep you in fear, to erode your rights, to monitor your thoughts
and communications, to control who you are and what you do...

------
api
This is exactly what paranoid conspiracy loons were saying way back in the 90s
was going to happen: panopticon, total surveillance, militarization of police,
massive concentration of wealth and power, detention of authors and critics,
etc.

~~~
jared314
> panopticon, total surveillance, militarization of police, massive
> concentration of wealth and power, detention of authors and critics, etc.

The items you have listed are what paranoid "conspiracy loons" have been
predicting, in the US, for the past two hundred+ years. The difference now is
how it no longer requires a "large" government to do it.

~~~
whatevsbro
> The difference now is how it no longer requires a large government to do it.

That may be, but the US government certainly is large.

~~~
jared314
> That may be, but the US government certainly is large.

I believe you have equated size with capability/control, which is a fallacy.
Size allows for capability, but neither, of the two, can be causally linked.
The US government can do with 10 people, what previously required 100 or 1,000
people in the recent past. Total control of the population is no longer
required to obtain total surveillance. So, the difference now is how it no
longer requires a "large" government to do it.

~~~
angersock
[http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm](http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm)

Something like 1 in 10 people is employed by the government (state, federal,
or local) directly, countless more indirectly.

The .gov actually is _large_ , in the strictest sense of the word.

~~~
jared314
I believe you are speaking past my point. The total size, in number of people
employed, does not directly relate to capability. The US government can do
with 10 people, what previously required 100 or 1,000 people in the recent
past. Total control of the population is no longer required to obtain total
surveillance. So, the difference now is how it no longer requires a "large"
government to do it.

~~~
angersock
That is true, but again, the government is large _on top of that_.

------
moocowduckquack
It occurred to me recently that there are several forms of police state. What
most people mean when they say police state is when there is political intent
to create a police state, a good example of this being the Stasi. However this
political intention is not required to end up in a very similar situation. The
thing is, the only thing that is required for a police state to form is that
enough resources be available to the police and a framework that allows them
to use those resources with impunity. It does not really matter how or why
those resources were originally allocated.

------
javajosh
Part of me feels for security forces. The world is this largely dark swirl of
billions of people doing "stuff", and although statistically insignificant,
some of that stuff is designed to do evil, e.g. blow up a building to make
some sort of statement. So doesn't it make sense to shine a light into the
darkness?

I'm not sure if people notice this, but the police are fundamentally reactive
- in general a cop isn't there when you get mugged. The risk of getting caught
is the value police give you in that moment. This puts the police in a bad
position to do what it is Joe Q Public seems to want them to do: _prevent
crime_ like school shootings, bombings, and hijacking of airplanes - even when
the perpetrator is suicidal and acting alone, or suicidal and highly
secretive.

The irony is in their quest to prevent crime, rather than just react to it,
cops are deploying tools that examine everyone: because _everyone is a
legitimate suspect for crimes that haven 't been committed yet._ They don't
know you or me - they only know that somewhere out there is someone plotting
some bad stuff, and they want to figure out who it is.

In a way, it's a natural progression of Bush's preemptive war doctrine: don't
wait for them to hit you, because the imagined pain of that is too awful: hit
them first. In a very serious way it is much like the attempt at Pre-Crime in
the movie _Minority Report_.

The great irony is that, in many cases, these tools are alienating the same
population that they are trying to protect, and I would argue, destroying what
is the absolute best "tool" for crime prevention: people with their eyes open.

Let me put it this way: it used to be that if I thought someone was building a
bomb next door, I would call the cops. I would call them because I would
expect them to investigate fairly, respectfully, and that if there was nothing
wrong then my neighbor would suffer nothing from the brief investigation. But
honestly, I wouldn't call the cops now, because I know how they, and in fact
I, would be treated. God knows what sort of wringer they would put us through,
innocent or not, trying to help or not.

One of the prices we will pay for these policies and tortured reading of the
constitution and law is over-all reduced cooperation from the public.

And that's too bad because there are no electronic tools that can stop the
Adam Lanzas of the world. At best, we as citizens and family can at least do
our best to identify risks, and take steps to reduce the risk - such as making
sure they don't have ready access to guns.

And, I would argue, that there are no electronic tools that can stop the Al
Quedas of the world either. The urge to murder people you've never met for
abstract reasons doesn't pop up at random - it takes time, community, and I
imagine there is escalation. So yes, deeply infiltrate violent (or even
potentially violent) groups with human assets. This puts eyes on the ground,
and a human sensibility where it is needed.

So yes, well done government, throwing away the best asset you had (the
goodwill and trust of the people) and replacing it with crappy toys that don't
catch terrorists, but which do give the government unprecedented, asymmetrical
power over ordinary people at scale.

Good heavens, when I say it like that it's enough to make one doubt the good
intentions of the government!

~~~
ilaksh
I don't see any reason to believe that the primary reason for greater
surveillance is to enhance security. The terrorists plots are mainly
fabricated to increase the control structures of the state in order to
maintain or increase its powers.

------
mortyseinfeld
The only reason to have these types of equipment is because of an "us against
them" attitude of the cops. And the "them" isn't just "criminals".

But that's what you get when you vote in folks that demand that government be
the center of attention of everybody's lives.

~~~
badsock
What's your reasoning for places like Switzerland and Norway, where the
government is much more involved in day-to-day life, but less militarized in
that involvement? Same goes for most of the European countries, and Canada/New
Zealand et al. as well.

Certainly you could point out other countries with both a lot of government
involvement and a militarized police force, but I think there's a strong
argument that the two are orthogonal - that the degree of plutocracy is a
better correlation.

