Mental Toss Flykune

Or "Why I might be moving to Montana soon"

Some earlier articles and posts that need to be  reposted.  The tie up in progress and SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP, HADOPI, the Digital Economy Act, La Ley Sinde and other taxation and controls for the global grid will deflect the reality of the One World Technocracy or the Beast or Leviathan for the biblical oriented.

 http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/the-global-grid-and-you/ - 7/6/2010

http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/the-internet-and-the-larts/ - 10/17/2010



One should not spend too much time contemplating the tax, censorship or restrictions but more the surveillance, panoptic spectrum and the inability to opt out and continue to live or thrive without submission to the blue omnibus of bluebrain and the merging of all DoD, Interpol, DHS, FEMA and Federal/State conforming Data Cloud computing. Whether enterprise resource planning for them or industry Peer-to-peer , your function on the Grid computing network is the naked reality of FSD. Public clouds and private ones are as clear as the chemtrails in the sky.

From the rantings of a murderous lunatic

INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE

REFORMED

111. (fr) The foregoing principles help to show how

hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial

system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively

narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been

a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial

Revolution for technology to strengthen the system

at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy.

Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology

would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the

development of our society. Consequently, such a change

either would be a transitory one — soon swamped by the

tide of history — or, if large enough to be permanent

would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the

first and second principles. Moreover, since society would

be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance

(third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large

enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom

would not be initiated because it would be realized that

they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at

reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes

large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated,

they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became

apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom

could be brought about only by persons prepared to

accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of

the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not

reformers.

 

112. (fr) People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing

the supposed benefits of technology will suggest

naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile

freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that

people who make such suggestions seldom propose any

practical means by which the new form of society could

be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle

that even if the new form of society could be once

established, it either would collapse or would give results

very different from those expected.

 

113. (fr) So even on very general grounds it seems

highly improbable that any way of changing society could

be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology.

In the next few sections we will give more specific

reasons for concluding that freedom and technological

progress are incompatible.

 

114. (fr) As explained in paragraphs 65-67, 70-73, modern

man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations,

and his fate depends on the actions of persons

remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence.

This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of

arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any

13

technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate

human behavior closely in order to function. At

work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise

production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies

HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any

substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats

would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness

due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised

their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on

our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING

the regulation of our lives by large organizations is

necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological

society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part

of the average person. It may be, however, that formal

regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological

tools that make us want to do what the system

requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques,

“mental health” programs, etc.)

 

115. (fr) The system HAS TO force people to behave in

ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern

of human behavior. For example, the system needs

scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can’t function

without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel

in these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human

being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk

absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend

his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive

peoples the things that children are trained to do

tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses.

Among the American Indians, for example, boys

were trained in active outdoor pursuits — just the sort of

thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed

into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.

 

119. (fr) The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy

human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has

to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing

to do with the political or social ideology that may

pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault

of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology

but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system

does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it

does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of

the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are

paramount, not those of the human being. For example,

the system provides people with food because the system

couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s

psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do

so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became

depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good,

solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on

people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system.

To much waste accumulating? The government, the media,

the educational system, environmentalists, everyone

inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling.

Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts

kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it

is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their

time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled

workers are put out of a job by technical advances and

have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is

humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It

is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to

technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs

were put before technical necessity there would be economic

problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The

concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely

by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord

with the needs of the system and does so without

showing signs of stress.

 

127. (fr) A technological advance that appears not to

threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously

later on. For example, consider motorized transport.

A walking man formerly could go where he pleased,

go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations,

and was independent of technological supportsystems.

When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared

to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom

away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile

if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose

to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther

than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized

transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict

greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles

became numerous, it became necessary to regulate

15

their use extensively. In a car, especially im densely populated

areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s

own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic

and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various

obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing

registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety,

monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the

use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since

the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement

of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority

of people no longer live within walking distance of their

place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities,

so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile

for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation,

in which case they have even less control over

their own movement than when driving a car. Even the

walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he

continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed

mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor

traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along

the highway. (Note this important point that we have just

illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a

new item of technology is introduced as an option that an

individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily

REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology

changes society in such a way that people eventually

find themselves FORCED to use it.)

Industrial Society and Its Future Theodore Kaczynski

 

 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3FX2dLorzA]

THANKS MOM!

Did Al Gore say it? Or was it the Unabomber?

http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQAwLb-DEE]