Centralized world power and Net censorship

Centralized world power and Freedom of Speech cannot coexist!

We live in a small world where the actual power structure is hidden and centralized. On the other hand, the Net is all about freedom of speech. Clearly, centralized power and the Net cannot coexist. It is obvious that centralized power is well entrenched so naturally it is the Net that has to back off. This backing off manifests itself in many ways such as malware, P2P clogging, complexity and cost of Internet access, sluggish roll-out, non standard components, obsolescence, information overload, lack of customization and so on.

But the most sinister factor is Google's dominance. The lack of competition allows Google to stick to its keyword centric syntactic strategy where it is able to censor websites much more easily. This SIGNAL vs NOISE kind of censorship is able to confuse even the most determined searchers. In any case, Google is more about Ads than about Search.

The only way to bypass such censorship seems to be to search on the basis of authors as opposed to keywords. This is the only way to keep the SIGNAL NOISE ratio from getting out of control. What is more worrying is not ideology, it is spin. This is the reason we should give up even on authors and follow only individual commenters. The logic is that authors are looking for numbers and only spins see propagation.

To follow individual commenters, we can click on their names, which is usually a link to their website or a page containing other comments made by them. We can also try and Google their name. Savvy commenters pick quirky (hopefully unique) screen names for this very purpose.

But never mind, here too, our rulers have found a way out: botnets. The common perception is that botnets are moronic spreaders of spam and some of the less moronic botnets even try and phish out our passwords. To a certain extent this is true because email is the purest form of addressability so our rulers need spam to dilute it. And also financial scams and economic hardship have forever been used to keep people under control. That such actions keep the insurance and security companies humming is welcome too.

In actual fact, botnets are highly sophisticated networks which are not only able to unceasingly dodge detection but also troll ALL forums and add to the NOISE everywhere. Even complex captchas are no deterrents to these sophisticated bots. It is amazing how many of the comments posted are actually from sophisticated trolls that never be exposed because these behave like human commenters and come from innocent IPs. Recent studies have confirmed that botnets use SEO techniques to capture search engine traffic on controversial keywords.

Moral of the story: Suspect anything and everything because PERCEPTION CONTROL is the biggest game in town.

Internet Censorship Alert

Internet Censorship Alert: Alex Jones exposes agenda to 'blacklist' dissenting sites (March 14, 2010) As I predicted, the Obama Administration is trying to shut down the Internet - at least the parts he doesn't like. Barack Obamas regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein has stated that he wants to ban conspiracy theories from the internet. Think about what this means - Every video, every website, every blog, every email, that exposes or just criticizes the government for any reason whatsoever could be labeled a "conspiracy" and taken down. Your home could be raided in the middle of the night, and you could be carted of to jail for criticizing the government. All they have to do is call it a "conspiracy theory". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqAWmBLFodE

Friday, October 24, 2008

Panics and Politics

Panics and Politics
John Steele Gordon
Oct 22, 2008

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/
october-10-08/panics-and-politics

How often have U.S. financial crises been followed by major political realignments?

Will the current financial crisis spur a major political realignment? If history is any guide, the answer is probably no. America has experienced recurrent financial meltdowns since its birth in the late 18th century. Indeed, there were severe credit crunches and Wall Street collapses in 1792, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1929, 1987, and now 2008. Most of these panics have not been followed by seismic political shifts. To be sure, President Martin Van Buren, who took office a month before the stock market crash of 1837, lost badly when he ran for reelection in the depression year of 1840. But Van Buren was an unpopular and ineffective president, and his defeat did not signal a realignment.

Two post-crisis elections, however, in 1896 and 1932, were focused overwhelmingly on economic issues stemming from a depression. In each case, the victorious party became the dominant force in American politics for a generation.

In the post-Civil War era, there were a number of close elections. The 1876 election wasn’t settled until shortly before inauguration day in 1877. In 1888, Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican Benjamin Harrison. Four years later, Cleveland defeated Harrison, becoming the only president to serve two non-contiguous terms.

The 1896 election ended the era of evenly balanced parties. It followed the Panic of 1893, which had triggered a deep and painful depression. The urban working class that had been expanding rapidly as the country industrialized was dependent on wages and was bearing the brunt of high unemployment. GDP had declined by 12 percent in the year after the market crash. Unemployment had increased from 3 percent in 1892 to 18.4 percent two years later. Fifteen thousand companies had failed, as had 491 banks.

Two post-crisis elections, in 1896 and 1932, were focused overwhelmingly on economic issues stemming from a depression. In each case, the victorious party became the dominant force in American politics for a generation.

With the 1896 election, the Republicans became the majority party; they would win every presidential election from 1896 to 1932, with the exceptions of 1912 and 1916. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt split the GOP and Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected with only 41.8 percent of the popular vote. In 1916, Wilson barely won reelection despite having the advantage of incumbency and a very dangerous foreign situation.

By the early 1930s, America was experiencing its most profound crisis since the Civil War. The economy had begun slowing in the spring of 1929, and the stock market had crashed that October. Then a series of disastrous policy mistakes turned an ordinary economic downturn into the unique calamity of the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates high when it should have lowered them dramatically. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised tariffs to their highest level in U.S. history and sparked a trade war that crippled global commerce. In the summer of 1932, as the depression worsened, Congress passed an enormous tax hike in hopes of balancing the budget.

Although President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, tried his best to quell the crisis and did more than any previous president to relieve economic suffering, he failed miserably in his 1932 reelection bid. Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt won a landslide and went on to become one of the most consequential presidents in U.S. history. FDR remade American politics, forging an alliance between Southern whites and Northern blue-collar workers that guaranteed Democratic dominance for nearly 40 years. Only when his equal as a politician, Ronald Reagan, rose to power did the Republicans return to being the dominant party.

Will the Panic of 2008 bring about a new shift? If the financial markets calm down and prudent reforms are enacted, probably not. American politics has always been the politics of the center. It’s a good bet that it will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

John Steele Gordon is the author of An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power (HarperCollins).

No comments: