back to article Blame WWI, not Bin Laden, for NSA's post-9/11 intel suck

You might think the dragnet surveillance tactics employed by the National Security Agency (NSA) detailed by inside man Edward Snowden were born in the aftermath of Osama Bin Laden's attacks on 11 September, 2001, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people as well as the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Hud Dunlap
    Unhappy

    Actually it goes back much further than that. Alien and sedation act.

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=alien+and+sedition+act+1798&form=APMCS1

    The thing I don't understand about Snowden's is why is any body surprised?

    Maybe I have leaned some details I didn't know but the over all concept is nothing new.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Actually it goes back much further than that. Alien and sedation act.

      "but the over all concept is nothing new."

      Yes, but we plebs thought that we lived in a free-er and more enlightened age. Go back five years, and anybody who claimed the state was engaging in continuous, widespread, and ever more pervasive mass surveillance of the general population, complete with mass data retention and block recording of voice calls would have been deemed a tin-foil hatter, a conspiracist, or a loon.

      Unfortunately we now know the tin-foil hatters were right on this one. An interesting thought is that the tin foil hatters are now warning of the increased militarisation of the police (in both the US and the UK). The apologists will say that there's nothing to worry about - SWAT teams throwing stun grenades into babies cots (US) is just unfortunate collateral damage, and the execution with soft nosed bullets of Brazilian electricians (UK), well, that was nothing more than a health and safety misunderstanding. For the first time ever in mainland Britain, the mayor of London is arguing that there's a need to buy water cannon for crowd control.

      Personally I wonder why the politicians are tooling up the nearest things they've got to private armies. Are things really so bad that they think they need protection from a lynch mob? As somebody well in tune with the underlying economics (which, contrary to the politicians are NOT good), I think they may have point.

      1. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: shot Brazilian

        @Ledswinger

        I have always suspected there is an overwhelming venality within the Metropolitan Police, leading in that instance to a poor piece of surveillance and the resulting fatal error.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: shot Brazilian

          "I have always suspected there is an overwhelming venality within the Metropolitan Police"

          In that case I'd differ. I honestly believe that the Met believed they were doing the right thing. The red mist descended, and some poor innocent bloke gets murdered. The Met didn't intend that, unfortunately they (in my humble opinion) were recklessly culpable.

          However, the question is whether Sir Michael Wright, acting as coroner was correct to instruct the jury that "unlawful killing" could not be returned as a verdict. I am aware that the jury heard the evidence and I did not. But if Wright knew what the verdict could not be, logically he knew what is was. In that case why bother with a jury? A cynic might conclude that the government lent upon the coroner to do that. And of course the Blair autocracy was no stranger to forcing the mechanisms of justice, as the laughable Huttonwash over the death of Dr David Kelly showed. Funnily enough it was the Blair government that enacted the whistleblower protection rules under PIDA 1998. But as with all smug, lying, f*ckwit politicians, he didn't expect it could be applied to him. The continuing delays in the publication of the Chilcot enquiry suggest that the despicable political classes are sticking together on these things, but that's hardly a surprise given that the verminous Cameron idolises the even more verminous Blair.

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

            Re: shot Brazilian

            "n that case I'd differ. I honestly believe that the Met believed they were doing the right thing. The red mist descended, and some poor innocent bloke gets murdered. The Met didn't intend that, unfortunately they (in my humble opinion) were recklessly culpable."

            The trouble is that the police always believe that.

      2. Mitoo Bobsworth

        Re: Actually it goes back much further than that. Alien and sedation act.

        "we plebs thought that we lived in a free-er and more enlightened age"

        Sadly, that thought has always been a well packaged & marketed illusion. Any governing strata in any society/civilisation will practice surveillance through the beliefs & devices of the day - that the USA was caught out doing it on such an overreaching & global scale shouldn't be surprising, but can be taken as a sign of it's increasingly crumbling & disconnected infrastructure.

        The only thing I could imagine affecting change is massive civil disobedience. If government of the people, by the people, for the people still holds meaning, then people, ultimately, will have to act, because a dysfunctional, compromised & practically moribund government sure as hell won't.

      3. veti Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Actually it goes back much further than that. Alien and sedation act.

        Seriously? This is the first time anyone has suggested buying the police a water cannon in mainland Britain? 'Cuz I distinctly remember hearing it discussed in the late 70s/early 80s.

        It may be the first time a mayor of London has suggested it, but bear in mind the "mayor of London" in its present form is a very recent (circa 1998?) creation, it's only ever been held by two people.

        And that Brazilian electrician? That was nine years ago. The number of people who've been shot dead by police in Britain this century can, literally, be counted on the fingers of one hand. Last time it happened, it triggered rioting across the country.

        For the record, I'm one of the tinfoil hatters on this. There is a major problem with the militarisation of the police. Not nearly as bad as in America, but far too many of the UK plod are looking to the US for inspiration. That's cultural domination for you. But the examples you picked are just weak. Better to talk about the War on Photographers, or the "kettling" of demonstrators.

    2. Tom 35

      why is any body surprised?

      Because the big bosses were saying (even under oath at times) they absolutely didn't do that. Would never do that... OK, would stop doing that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: why is any body surprised?

        It also doesn't help that, at the time the security people were busy trying to get it written into law that it was legal to build the very databases that they already had.

    3. Steve Knox
      Headmaster

      Re: Actually it goes back much further than that. Alien and sedation act.

      You mean "Alien and Sedition Act", of course. The "Alien and Sedation Act" was, I believe, an attempt to regulate close encounters of the fourth kind.

      1. Lapun Mankimasta

        Re: Actually it goes back much further than that. Alien and sedation act.

        Actually the Alien and Sedation Act was exercised during the filing of the doco E.T. The US Congress argued that the little alien could not be operated on if there was no law covering sedation and medical misconduct.

        Then of course Alien turned up with his sedatives, and sedated most of the Nostromo crew before lunching on them ...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    intel-driven tactical strikes

    Chip makers back then used potatoes and lard. Presumably the tactical strikes involved throwing them.

    1. RedneckMother

      Re: intel-driven tactical strikes

      Yes, indeed. I believe the precise method was to place the potatoes and lard in a large kettle, ignite the mass (mess), and fling it over walls.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not only the US mate

    While the historical premises of this article are correct it seems to be a bit too US focused.

    The US of A do not, by far have the monopoly of Citizen Mass Surveillance.

    All nation states in the 20th century have been - and still are - playing this game.

    Ever seen the files the east-german stasi kept on every single citizen? Do you think that anyone with a basque/corsican/irish sounding patronym was not under surveillance in 1980's spain/france/uk? Or do you think that joining an extreme left (or right) political movement during your university days in Italy would not flag you as a potential "person of interest", same with becoming a union activist......

    Every single country has extensive surveillance programmes... that's what the word intelligence means in the first place. Technology may have changed the techniques used, but not the principles.

    The only real difference? We're aware of it and wish some level of checks and balances....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not only the US mate

      During Oliver Cromwell's reign - the Post Office in England and Wales was given a monopoly on the service for sending letters. This was to facilitate all mail going through a central State office where it could be surreptitiously opened, read, transcribed, and invisibly resealed. Archives of some transcriptions still exist.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not only the US mate

        The US was doing such with all foreign inbound and outbound mail since before there was a Constitution.

      2. ian 22

        Re: Not only the US mate

        Good Queen Bess (Elizabeth 1) had walsingham reading people's letters and torturing them a bit when more data were required.

        Meh. Nothing to see here. Move along.

        1. Mage Silver badge

          Re: Not only the US mate

          Some say She invented the Police State concept.

          Much later Churchill was perhaps first to see value of international data hoovering. He set up an procedure to have copies of ALL international Telegraph traffic, perhaps even before WWI. See also Room 40 codebreaking (from 1914).

          "When Churchill was made First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911 he was already deeply concerned about German militarism, in particular Kaiser Wilhelm's determination to build a powerful navy. Germany had never been much of a seafaring nation and the Kaiser's plans seemed to represent something more sinister than battleship envy."

          "Room 40 played an important role in several naval engagements during the war, notably in detecting major German sorties into the North Sea that led to the battles of Dogger Bank and Jutland as the British fleet was sent out to intercept them. However its most important contribution was probably in decrypting the Zimmermann Telegram, a telegram from the German Foreign Office sent via Washington to its ambassador Heinrich von Eckardt in Mexico.

          This interception had been made possible a few hours after Britain entered the war by the cable ship Alert (though often incorrectly attributed to the Telconia), which stood off the German coast and cut the five telegraph cables connecting Germany with Spain, Tenerife and New York"

          1. All names Taken
            Paris Hilton

            Re: Not only the US mate

            Social, political events also seem important in these reflections.

            Was Churchill motivated by German aspirations for an overseas empire seeming the threaten British interests?

            An alliance between Austro-Hungarian land based empire with German overseas empire would make a formidable competitor no?

            Likewise, maintainging a strange system in Nork might be bad for people in Nork but reasonable for China and US?

        2. P. Lee

          Re: Not only the US mate

          Actually there is something new here. Identifying an intelligence target and reading their mail is one thing. Opening everyone's email or recording all telephone conversations is quite another.

          What is going wrong is the volume of slurping events. It's out of all proportion to the stated threats and thus appears to be hiding something else.

        3. Cpt Blue Bear

          Re: Not only the US mate

          "Good Queen Bess (Elizabeth 1) had walsingham reading people's letters and torturing them a bit when more data were required."

          She inherited the machinery from her Grandfather.

        4. veti Silver badge

          Re: Not only the US mate

          To be fair to Elizabeth I, people really were plotting against her.

          And Churchill? Seriously, we're going to fault Churchill for running a spy network? If ever there was a time when large-scale spying was more than fully justified, it was the first half of the 20th century.

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Not only the US mate

      "Or do you think that joining an extreme left (or right) political movement during your university days in Italy would not flag you as a potential "person of interest", "

      One for surveillance

      One for recruitment.

  4. Dave 32

    Any discussion of the Espionage Act of 1917 should also include the Sedition Act of 1918 (which was really just a modification of the Espionage Act of 1917). That made certain types of speech illegal. Somewhat surprisingly, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, although some subsequent decisions make it unlikely that it would be used again.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Osama Bin Laden's 9/11 attacks on the twin towers"

    Surely you mean; The CIA's attacks (via Vandenberg) with remotely controlled aircraft on the twin towers on the eleventh of September (11/09/01, in old money), or as i call it "The day America declared war on America"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      Re: "Osama Bin Laden's 9/11 attacks on the twin towers"

      OK, I haven't heard that one before.

    2. Denarius
      Joke

      Re: "Osama Bin Laden's 9/11 attacks on the twin towers"

      seriously, are you suggesting they are technically competent at something other than torture and bullying ?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Mohamed Atta's 9/11 attacks on the twin towers"

      When the US started "blaming" Osama for the attacks, Osama was happy to take the credit, but in all probability he wasn't even told about the plans.

      1. Snapper
        Big Brother

        Re: "Mohamed Atta's 9/11 attacks on the twin towers"

        Actually OBL denied involvement. It was the laughably inept forgery of a video that showed a right-handed* somewhat look-a-like that was 'found' in a house in Jalalabad that said he did it.

        http://tinyurl.com/p4vljxe

        *OBL was left-handed.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Mohamed Atta's 9/11 attacks on the twin towers"

          I see some downvotes for snappers posts, let me add some further fuel to the fire in support of his statements.

          First, OBL never personally laid claim to the attack on 9/11. For that matter, he has never referred to "his organisation" as "Al Queda". AQ doesn't actually exist as a group, it is a codename collectively applied to "foreign terrorist groups" and was created by the CIA in the 1970's. The claim that AQ was responsible for 911 came from OBLs unproven son-in-law who was paid a very large (undisclosed sum) by the US for making that statement.

          Secondly, let's talk about Mohammed Atta. We know he was the "leader" of the terrorists on 9/11 because somehow, magically, we found his PAPER PASSPORT in the rubble of a building brought down by fire allegedly hot enough to melt steel. A passport that was, moments earlier, IN THE PLANE. Yeah. Right. Of course thats true.

          Did you know that Mohammed Atta is almost certainly still alive too? His father says he has him in hiding to protect him from "assassins" and he has appeard on various middle eastern radio, tv and newspaper articles attempting to refute the claim he was the mastermind behind 9/11. Whats that? You've NEVER heard that before? Do some research then...

          Wakey,wakey people. You're being lied to. About everything.

          We were right about the surveillance, so I would advise that you just take a look at what we're saying about other things. I don't mean alien abductions and UFOs, bigfoot or angelic voices, but I do think it wise to at least question what the powers-that-be trot out in defence of their agenda.

          Yours,

          The Tinfoil Hat Wearer

  6. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Up

    Still...

    ... isn't it good to know that this sort of thing doesn't cause any "harm" or cause chilling of Civil Liberties?

    (Well, I have it on good authority that it doesn't, you know...)

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We learned from the best

    Von Braun and others weren't the only persons from Nazi Germany the US allowed to freely immigrate to the US. And others from the "Eastern Bloc". The reactionary the government, the more likely it will spy on its own.

    1. Yes Me Silver badge

      Re: We learned from the best

      Huh? The Germans were way behind the 5 Eyes countries in cryptanalysis during WW2. A lot of scientists were whizzed across the Atlantic though: look up Operation Paperclip in your favourite search engine, or see this URL:

      http://www.archives.gov/iwg/declassified-records/rg-330-defense-secretary/foreign-scientist-case-files.pdf

  8. Denarius
    Big Brother

    consistent

    book "The Second Oldest Profession" claims idiot police poms in early WW1 set up surveillance state in UK which was model for others. I suggest that Good Queen Bess spymaster Wallsingham might take precedence. In a cynical moment, one wonders how many middling to senior Stasi have migrated to act as advisors to the democracies ?

    1. Mark 85

      Re: consistent

      Maybe it was the other way around... those who taught the Stasi came from the democracies?

  9. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
  10. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Stop

    "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

    ".....with the intent of curbing dissent mainly from socialists and pacifists....." It's part of the mythical victimhood of the academic Left in America that they insist they have been unfairly targeted 'forever'. The actual reality was the US had a fear of and targeted what they saw as 'Bolsheviks', concentrating on those that they saw as deliberately trying to spread 'revolution' amongst the workers. Lenin's April Thesis, with it's idea of stripping all land and goods from the rich and giving them 'to the people' (which actually meant giving them to Lenin and the few people he wanted to have goods), was anathema to the American Dream - the States didn't have nobles. But ordinary socialists had little to fear as long as they did not mix with the vocal hard Left or try unionising the workers. This distaste for Bolshevism gained added fervour when the Reds in Russia signed a separate peace with Imperial Germany in March 1918, at a time when Imperial Russia was an ally of the US in the Great War. In Britain, France, Italy and the States, Bolshevism became a bye word for traitor. Post-War anarchist bombings in the States (and the horrific mess of the Russian Revolution and other Communist excesses in Europe) led to the 'Red Scare' of 1919 and pretty much made Communism and Bolshevism the bête noir of American politics for the rest of the century. But petite socialists had nothing to fear. Indeed, many would consider Woodrow Wilson, Deomcrat POTUS form 1913 to 1921 and therefore in control of the early American eavesdropping capability, as more than a touch socialist and, by his own admission, a 'progressive'.

    1. Tom 38

      Re: "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

      You can tell when Matt is really frothy, he forgets about paragraphs.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Tom 38 Re: "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

        "You can tell when Matt is really frothy, he forgets about paragraphs." You can tell when Tom (and the rest of the sheeple) can't argue the facts presented when they start bleating about paragraphs and name-calling.

        1. Tom 38

          Re: Tom 38 "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

          I couldn't read any of the "facts" because you were so excited to get all these facts out there that you failed to make it at all readable.

          You can tell when Tom (and the rest of the sheeple) can't argue the facts presented when they start bleating about paragraphs and name-calling.

          Ah, I see, I'm the one doing the name calling? I do apologize, presumably the sheeple behind me will also apologize.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Tom 38 "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

            Sounds more like Tom needs to learn to read properly if he's complaining about lack of paragraphs!

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Tom 38 "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

            And still no arguments or counters! Once again, Tom upholds the sheeple's perfect failure record. I'll make it easy for you, Tommy, just supply some evidence to backup your fellow sheeple's assertion that the Fed was the cause of all Germany's ills post-WW1. Either that or go waste bandwidth elsewhere.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: "Socialists"? Try Bolshevists.

      My only quibble is with worrying over differentiating Bolshevists for other flavors of commie. It's all from the same rotten tree. Only the Progs worry about it. I think it has too much in common with the Emo Phillips skit about religion:

      http://splitframeofreference.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-greatest-religious-joke-of-all-time.html

      Link leaves out a good chunk of the monologue, but gets the key bits.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This Is News?

    The origin of mass surveillance goes back much further than WW1. The good old USofA did not start it either. Of course, no doubt they probably believe they did, as they believe they invented everything, as they also believe nothing worthwhile exists outside their borders.

    But characteristically they make the most noise about it. As with the old saying, "It's not what you do, but how you do it." The US approach to intelligence gathering, spying if you will, was and is still the bull in a china shop method. During the cold war particularly, the americans were the laughing stock of every other intelligence gathering outfit, on both sides of the curtain.

    Nothing's changed. They still fail to comprehend that just throwing dollars/manpower at a problem, doing it bigger than everyone else and making more noise while they're doing it, does not guarantee success.

    I'm not saying mass surveillance it's right, it isn't. But it's been going on for more years than the USA has existed. We have managed to live all of our lives being subjected to it, as have previous generations. Our freedom is whatever those in power allow us. It isn't 'fair' but it is how things work. So far no one has come up with a workable alternative. Now, thanks to the americans and their lack of finesse and understanding, we have the current situation where the cat's out of the bag and they just make themselves look increasingly foolish going through the pantomime of trying to get it back in.

    Consequently intelligence gathering will now be even more comprehensive and intrusive to counter peoples attempts to avoid it.

  12. P. Lee
    Big Brother

    it feels like they have been with us forever - endless war

    Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

    1. Mage Silver badge

      Re: it feels like they have been with us forever - endless war

      Eventually though the CapCom alliance will be facing off against the rest. Putin is temporary.

  13. Javapapa

    Cycles

    The politicians enable the spies, the spies monitor the politicians (explaining why Hoover remained in power for 48, count 'em, 48 years).

    Took a clean living Mormon from Idaho to make reforms in 1975. Don't be surprised that no one else is stepping forward.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There's a big difference though

    Those WW I tactics were targeted at individuals, or small groups. Few would say the government has no power to do this if the individuals or groups are truly suspected of aiding terrorists for an attack on the US (it is a bit murkier when you talk about simply providing funding, or aiding ISIS in Syria where US lives are not at stake)

    What we have now is the ability to indiscriminately target EVERYONE for surveillance. That's a huge difference, and what makes this very different from WW I or Nixon era wiretapping.

    1. DropBear

      Re: There's a big difference though

      Precisely. Are we really running that laughably false "absolutely everybody was always spying on absolutely everybody all the time since the dawn of time" routine again...? Srsly?

    2. Zack Mollusc

      Re: There's a big difference though

      Methinks it was more on the lines of 'the government spies upon as many people as possible at any given moment', it is now possible to spy on almost everyone, hence almost everyone is spied upon.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: There's a big difference though

        That depends on exactly what you mean by "spied upon."

        Let's assume for a moment that the US government is hoovering up all data that passes through any all of the big internet hubs in the US and western-friendly countries plus a few in unfriendly countries where they've managed to plant malware (including possible physical devices). Let's also assume they are hoovering up all radio data across the globe 24/7/365.25. Let's assume they can scan all mail sent via the post office and read it without opening it. And that they scan all voice calls that aren't digital.

        Doesn't "spying on" imply that somewhere there is a human that sees the data? How can any small number of people read that much data? Because as soon as you put an algorithm on it which kicks out a group of people as "low probability of ____" you're not looking at their data even if it was collected. And you have to put a hell of a lot of filters on the data before you can get down to the point where even with 10,000 agents you are looking at some significant portion of information about the general public.

        So what we get down to isn't the massive spying. The real question is: are the filters only being used to control truly bad actors? We all agree we need to control bad actors right? Bad actors of the sort who kill a couple of thousand at a pop without batting an eye lash. Because if we can't agree on that point, we are in an ideological war that will only end with total victory over the enemy.

        1. Lapun Mankimasta

          Re: There's a big difference though

          "And you have to put a hell of a lot of filters on the data before you can get down to the point where even with 10,000 agents you are looking at some significant portion of information about the general public."

          Seriously, you need an algorithm that filters on What I Mean rather than on What I Say.

          Who has such an algorithm? No one I know.

  15. Infernoz Bronze badge
    Flame

    All Governments are dangerous and can easly end up as criminal gangs

    The basic social contract for governments is the sparingly use of the power /borrowed/ from the people to provide more benefits to the majority of the civilisation than costs, and excessive law, regulation, welfare and spying are pretty damned high on the costs side, so most governments are no longer fit to govern and they know it!

    Quite simply, career politics must be forbidden, whole governments rebuilt smaller, and taxes and spending drastically shrunk; and if they don't yield, then they must be forcibly removed.

    The reason these criminal governments have lasted so long is because they are funded with fake money, known as fiat (debt) currency and have allowed banksters to set-up profitable /private/ central banks to cheat the tax payers, the bond buyers, and savers via profitable interest on state debt and fraudulent currency inflation, and on occasion excessive deflation to force sale of assets at excessively low prices.

    It is no concidence that WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2 happened after the Federal Reserve conspiracy was devised and created; this criminal enterprise made them all possible!

    1. Mephistro
      Thumb Up

      Re: All Governments are dangerous and can easly end up as criminal gangs

      "It is no concidence that WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2 happened after the Federal Reserve conspiracy was devised and created"

      Too true. The Federal Reserve and similar schemes helped funding most of the 'big' wars in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries. One can only wonder what Modern History would have looked like without these devices. WWI would probably have been shorter and far less massive, as none of the involved sides would have been able to borrow the funds to train, feed, arm and deploy so many millions of soldiers for so long, and WWII wouldn't have happened at all, because the Germans wouldn't have had to pay the allies all their costs plus interests plus penalties -which in turn wouldn't have caused the hyperinflation and misery in Germany and the subsequent rise of the Nazi party.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Maphhead Re: All Governments are dangerous and can easly end up as criminal gangs

        ".....WWII wouldn't have happened at all, because the Germans wouldn't have had to pay the allies all their costs plus interests plus penalties -which in turn wouldn't have caused the hyperinflation and misery in Germany....." Not so. The French had been through three wars with Prussian Germany, they decided that they had to make the terms of Germnay's surrender so massive and long-term so as to supposedly make another war with Germany impossible. The Fed had nothing to do with either the French decision or the economic pain of the French terms. At that point, whilst the Armistace was in place, the Allied blockade of Germany was also still in place and the German people were starving. Raising the blockade and feeding their people became much more important than economics for the Germna politicians.

        ".....and the subsequent rise of the Nazi party." All the parts for the rise of the Nazi party were in place already. Indeed, the biggest trigger for popular support of the far right was the dreadful behaviour of the Communists throughout Eatern Europe, especially in Germany, and the Soviet oppression of the Baltic Germans. In Italy, Mussollini was a socialist and abandoned the Left to form the Fascists as he considered the Left barbaric, immature and their policies unworkable. The NDAP that became the German Nazi Pary were the National SOCIALISTS - the Left grew the rise of Facism with their own stupidity. Again, nothing to do with the Fed.

        1. Mephistro

          Re: Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

          Hey, it's Matt, our resident omni-expert!

          All right, here we go:

          "Not so. The French had been through three wars with Prussian Germany..."

          The French weren't the only ones fighting Germany, don't you know? The war was fought, and the armistice was signed by some other 'minor players'</sarc>, like the UK and the USA.

          If these countries hadn't spent trillions they didn't have thanks to the Federal Reserve and similar schemes, their role in the war would have been more limited and less expensive, and they would have forced France to accept more generous conditions. The way things went, with all the debt incurred, they didn't have much choice but to milk Germany till exhaustion or face a long bankruptcy. A bankruptcy that came anyway in 1929, thanks also, amongst other causes, to the Federal Reserve.

          " All the parts for the rise of the Nazi party were in place already"

          Of those parts, the most important one was the poverty caused by the war. If such state of poverty had been improved the same moment the War ended, the Nazis would have lost their growth medium, which was -as is usually for most political extremisms- injustice and poverty. Compare the situation in Germany between the wars with that in the UK, where the Communist Party and Oswald Mosley's Fascists never gained serious traction, thanks to better standards of living for most of the population.

          "Indeed, the biggest trigger for popular support of the far right was the dreadful behaviour of the Communists throughout Eatern Europe"

          Ha ha. Wrong. The Communists, the Nazis, and the Anarchists were all a direct result of poverty and injustice. It's extremely difficult to convince someone to go on strike, get to the streets and risk their lives burning government buildings or fighting against the Police and/or the Army when that someone is reasonably well fed, dressed and housed and has a reasonable set of rights. In Russia, the injustice was caused by its own ruling classes and its feudal political system. As a result, the extremisms that got a hold there were 'internationalists' and 'far leftists'.

          Meanwhile, in post-war Germany, the causes of the poverty and injustice were caused by 'the rest of the World' and affected all classes (though not to the same extent, mind you), and created the ideal growth medium for ultra-nationalist and 'far right' extremisms, like Fascism and Nazism.

          "the Left grew the rise of Facism with their own stupidity."

          Before that, the Right had done the same with Communism. Again, extremisms only prosper in extreme conditions. That's something they teach in History 101, Matt.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Mephhead Re: Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

            "....The French weren't the only ones fighting Germany, don't you know?...." Your ignorance is so total it's like you manage to suck up the bare minimum of facts and then, somehow, totally ignore the rest because it does not fit with your socio-political outlook. The French were the senior ally in the Great War, they had by far the largest number of forces involved in the first few years. Britain's initial Expeditionary Force was tiny by comparison, and even later in the War only matched the sheer number of French troops fighting, but the French took roughly 3 dead soldiers for each 2 Tommies killed, and roughly 2 wounded for every Tommy wounded. The American contribution was very welcome, but again was about half compared to that of the French (http://www.scottmanning.com/content/world-war-i-troop-statistics/)

            "...,The war was fought, and the armistice was signed by some other 'minor players'</sarc>, like the UK and the USA...." Indeed, the Armistace was agreed on the basis of Woodrow Wilson's plans (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/woodrow_wilson1.htm), and was signed on the 11th November 1918. This, though widely thought of as 'the end of the War', was effectively a ceasefire, a truce, and nothing more. The War officially continued for another seven months until the signing of the Peace Treaty at Versailles on 28th June 1919 (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm). In the intervening period, the French upped their demands far beyond Wilson's original plan, but by that point Germany was in virtual civil war (due to Communist and Anarcho-Socialist agitation) and her people starving from the Allied blockade. The Germans had to agree to the French demands or face the Allies commencing their attacks again. The Yanks were so upset by what they considered the French taking advantage that they did not want to ratify the Treaty, not formally ending their War until the Knox–Porter Resolution of July 1921.

            ".....If these countries hadn't spent trillions they didn't have thanks to the Federal Reserve and similar schemes, their role in the war would have been more limited and less expensive, and they would have forced France to accept more generous conditions....." None of which had anything to do with the French desire to cripple post-War Germany. The Brits and Yanks could have been bankrupt and it would still have done nothing to stop the French. You are confusing your hatred for another of what you consider 'The Man's tools of monetary oppression' with historical fact.

            ".....they didn't have much choice but to milk Germany till exhaustion or face a long bankruptcy....." Rubbish. Britain made a tiny amount from reparations compared to the income derived from the post-War colonies, especially India. For example, Australia received ₤5,571,720 war reparations, but the direct cost of the war to Australia had been ₤376,993,052. Britain's prime concern was that the new League of Nations did not dismantle the Empire (as Wilson intended it to). The French likewise had more income from their colonies. The reparations and later occupation of the Ruhr, along with setting up Poland and the Baltic States, were all about crippling Germany. The cost of the Ruhr Occupation by the French was barely covered by the money recovered, so much so that the French had to thin out the occupation forces to concentrate their military budget on the Maginot Line, and was why the French caused so little fuss when Hitler finally refused to pay any more reparations in 1933.

            ".....the most important one was the poverty caused by the war...." Again, rubbish. Germany was not invaded, her wealth was not looted by a conquering force, her factories were not bombed into ruin. France WAS invaded and many of her Northern towns ransacked and reduced to rubble. The post-War struggles against 'revolution' in Germany and the subsequent instability was the destroyer of wealth and of the living standards of the people. And also nothing to do with the Federal Reserve.

            ".....The Communists, the Nazis, and the Anarchists were all a direct result of poverty and injustice...." You know so little, but post so much rubbish. Do you really want to claim 'Communism' was born in Germany only AFTER the Great War? Rosa Luxembourg herself was a politician in the Marxist SPD before the War. She formed the Spartacus League, forerunner of the official German Communist Party, in 1915, and it was at the core of the attempted 'Revolution' in Germany with planning starting long before the Armistace. Luxembourg and her partner Liebknecht declared Germany a 'Free Socialist Republic' in an attempt to kick-start the 'revolution' on 9th November 1918, before the Armistace had even been signed. Please stop embarrassing yourself and go read some history.

            ".....Meanwhile, in post-war Germany, the causes of the poverty and injustice were caused by 'the rest of the World'...." Nope, they were caused by Germany going to war, and were nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. Germany was not occupied after the Great War, her politicians were still in control and set economic and security policy. That is why the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender in 1945, because they believed they had been too lenient in allowing Germany to largely retain control of herself in 1918.

            "....That's something they teach in History 101...." It is very obvious you have never studied any history of Europe, please do not embarrass yourself by pretending you have done anything more than read Leftie pamphlets.

            1. Mephistro
              Mushroom

              Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

              Hi, Matt, sorry for not answering your post before, I've been busy. I see you have changed your strategy and now are engaging in a variation of the famous Chewbacca Defence. Well done, Matt, keep on digging!

              And now, to the fray:

              "The French were the senior ally in the Great War, they had by far the largest number of forces involved in the first few years"

              That's true, but doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand. The French were borrowing money from the UK and the USA, and later on the British were also borrowing money from the USA. Hell, at the beginning of the war, even the Germans were borrowing from American banks. The number of soldiers the French put on the battlefield and the amount of casualties they suffered is NOT THE POINT. The point is the amount of debt all involved parties incurred while financing the war. So your point is just another convoluted straw man argument.

              None of which had anything to do with the French desire to cripple post-War Germany. The Brits and Yanks could have been bankrupt and it would still have done nothing to stop the French

              The Brits and Yanks could have threatened France with getting TFO of continental Europe if sensible and reasonable conditions hadn't been negotiated, were it not for the fact that they were in debt up to they ears also, thanks to all the dough they borrowed through the Federal Reserve. Which was the point in my comment -and in Infernoz comment before mine.

              Rubbish. Britain made a tiny amount from reparations compared to the income derived from the post-War colonies, especially India

              India had been in a continuous state of turmoil for several decades, and keeping order there was becoming more expensive every year. As a matter of fact, the Brits trying to milk more wealth from India -by taxing salt, for Chrissake!- caused Gandhi's revolution, that for once was -quite miraculously- peaceful. Who knows? If the Brits had tried to extract more money from their colony from 1918 onwards, everything could have ended in a terrible bloodbath, and a terribly expensive one for Britain, to boot.

              Again, rubbish. Germany was not invaded, her wealth was not looted by a conquering force, her factories were not bombed into ruin

              Rubbish yourself, Matt. Germany had been four years under an almost complete blockade, with almost half of its workforce either enlisted, killed or producing weapons and ammo. Undernourishment and famine were common occurrences in the last half of the war. The difference between this and the situation after the armistice was that, during the war, the ruling classes were seen as the culprit, hence giving the proper growth medium for communism. After the Armistice, and due to its awful conditions -economic an otherwise-, the guilt was shifted to "everybody else" and "foreigners", at least in the eyes of the general population, giving the perfect growth medium for Nazism.

              "Do you really want to claim 'Communism' was born in Germany only AFTER the Great War?"

              Another huge straw man argument. Socialism and Communism were both born in the Nineteenth Century. Perhaps you should buy yourself a dictionary and learn what 'growth medium' means. Just saying.

              Nope, they were caused by Germany going to war...

              Yes, and before that by the Prussian-French wars, and before that by Napoleon, and before that... up to the Big bang itself. But the fact is that, for the German public opinion, the culprits were the allied powers and the goddamn awful conditions they imposed. Again, a little bit of generosity could have probably prevented WWII.

              The post-War struggles against 'revolution' in Germany and the subsequent instability was the destroyer of wealth and of the living standards of the people

              Da fuq?. Do you really believe that? Where did you take that funny idea from? Mein Kampf? So, for you, either the German Hyper-Inflation never happened or it was caused by the communists? Obvious Bullshit!

              "It is very obvious you have never studied any history of Europe"

              LOL. I was subscribed to 'Historia16' -a quite reputed History magazine in my country- for 6 years in the eighties and nineties, read occasionally "Historia y Vida" (another History magazine), I have read eight 'serious' History books covering the first half of the Twentieth Century, e.g. "Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War" by Max Hastings, one regarding the Rotenkapelle and another one covering the Russian Revolution and several others covering the Spanish Civil War - which is closely related to WWI and WWII.

              Fuck!, I've even read 'Das Kapital' (in a Spanish translation, as my German is basically non-extant) and an English translation of Mein Kampf (well, the first eighty pages or so, as I couldn't swallow more of that crap). On a lighter note, I've also read Fall of Giants, by Ken Follet, which is fiction, but really well documented fiction. Studied them? No, I just read them. Did you 'study' European History? OMG, we have a professional historian here!

              ...by pretending you have done anything more than read Leftie pamphlets.

              Frankly, I don't remember the last time I've read a leftie pamphlet. Not in this millennium, of that I'm quite sure. Anyway, I can recognize pamphlets -leftist or otherwise- from some distance.

              PD.: How's your blood pressure, Matt? Be careful, you could burst a blood vessel!

              PPD.: Chewbacca strikes back! ;-)

              1. John 62

                Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                Going back to the topic of the Federal Reserve being the cause of all ills: it was war with the French that meant King William III introduced the first UK government bonds, predating the Federal Reserve by quite some time.

                And Jan Smuts of South Africa had wanted less punitive reparations on Germany. Though some historians have said that the treaty of Versaille's treatment of Germany wasn't as bad as many make out.

                1. Mephistro

                  @ John 62 (was Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks))

                  "King William III introduced the first UK government bonds, predating the Federal Reserve by quite some time"

                  Both are different mechanisms, even when both can be used to finance wars. Government bonds have to be purchased by private investors, but the Fed can create money from thin air, though the citizens will be ultimately the ones that foot the bill, through inflation.

              2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                "....and now are engaging in a variation of the famous Chewbacca Defence...." I don't remember the Chewbacca Defence being providing verifiable facts you cannot debunk? Oh, I see - your strategy is not to try and argue facts, it's to make specious comments about 'Chewbacca Defence' strategies! Gosh, it's not like you haven't tried and failed that before, why don't you actually try some facts for a change?

                "....That's true, but doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand...." You said the French had no say in the setting of the terms of the treaty of Versailles, I showed you not only that they did but also why the were so intent on crippling Germany, and it had nothing to do with borrowing money from the Fed (as you claimed).

                "....The point is the amount of debt all involved parties incurred while financing the war...." The point is the debt had nothing to do with France's demands, they were all to do with the history between the two countries. You failed to show in any way at all that the Fed was involved in the setting of the terms of the Peace Treaty or that the French demands were driven by the debt from borrowing from the Fed. In short, you failed again.

                ".....The Brits and Yanks could have threatened France with getting TFO of continental Europe if sensible and reasonable conditions hadn't been negotiated...." LOL, what a load of cobblers! Until the Treaty was signed, Britain and the US were still at war with Germany, they simply could not walk away from the negotiating table! As it was, Woodrow Wilson was caught between the Peace Treaty, his bad health and political trouble at home, actually dealing properly with none of them; and Lloyd George was split between maintaining a strong enough Germany to act as a bulwark against Bolshevist Russia whilst having to appease the vengeful demands for punishing Germany from the British electorate. You are just fantasising about history in a desperate attempt to justify your socio-political views and the patently stupid comment you made blaming it all on the Fed. Again, you failed.

                ".....Rubbish yourself, Matt...." If you want to contend that Germany had her factories bombed out of existence or towns and cities occupied, please do supply some actual verifiable evidence or admit you are simply claiming 'rubbish' without any evidence to support your claim. Again, you have supplied no facts to link the Fed to the rise of Nazism or Communism in Germany, so again you have failed.

                ".....for the German public opinion, the culprits were the allied powers and the goddamn awful conditions they imposed...." But you claimed it was all the Fed's fault, which you have in no way whatsoever proven. So you're still failing.

                ".....either the German Hyper-Inflation never happened...." Oh, it happened, but you have FAILED to show it was anything to do with the Federal Reserve as you claimed. Fail again!

                "....I was subscribed to 'Historia16' -a quite reputed History magazine in my country- for 6 years in the eighties and nineties, read occasionally "Historia y Vida" (another History magazine), I have read eight 'serious' History books covering the first half of the Twentieth Century, e.g. "Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War" by Max Hastings, one regarding the Rotenkapelle and another one covering the Russian Revolution and several others covering the Spanish Civil War - which is closely related to WWI and WWII....." Shame you didn't learn anything. BTW, please do show where any of these volumes say the Fed was to blame?

                "....I've even read 'Das Kapital'...." Typical Leftie failure - Das Kapital is not an history book, it is merely economic and social theorems. MAJOR FAIL!

                "....and an English translation of Mein Kampf (well, the first eighty pages or so, as I couldn't swallow more of that crap)...." So you could wade though three volumes of Marx but not Hitler's much shorter but equally silly work? That would seem to say a lot about how you are a lot more open to (incredibly boring) Marxist theories and have little desire to consider anything else. What a closed little mind you have! More fail.

                ".....I don't remember the last time I've read a leftie pamphle...." Das Kapital is one big Leftie pamphlet.

                ".....I've also read Fall of Giants, by Ken Follet, which is fiction...." And not an history book. And, IIRC, still does not blame everything on the Feds, so still you failing. Try again!

                "....How's your blood pressure, Matt?..." Very good, thanks. I had it checked last week as I'm running in a senior marathon event for charity. Don't worry, your rabid bleating is more of an amusement than anything else. BTW, when are you going to post something that actually supports your claim the Federal Reserve was to blame for the rise of the Nazis and WW2? You stated "....WWII wouldn't have happened at all, because the Germans wouldn't have had to pay the allies all their costs plus interests plus penalties -which in turn wouldn't have caused the hyperinflation and misery in Germany and the subsequent rise of the Nazi party." Which neatly ignores the territorial issues leading to WW2, where Germany had to give Alsace-Lorraine back to the French, give up land to Denmark, Holland and Poland, and to see the German Balt refugees fleeing into Germany from either Bolshevik control in Russia or in the new Baltic States. And then there was the national shame the Germans felt at having to admit 'guilt for starting the War'. You obviously didn't read into Mein Kampf far enough to see the bit where Hitler talked about invading the Slavic lands to the East for Lebensraum, not waging war on the US Federal Reserve. If you had argued that the Fed was partly to blame for the Great Depression then that would have been acceptable, but to blame either World War on the Fed is just nonsense.

                1. Mephistro

                  Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                  "I don't remember the Chewbacca Defence being providing verifiable facts you cannot debunk?"

                  Hello, Matt!

                  The facts you provided were either orthogonal to the issue at hand -e.g. the number of French casualties vs. the economic costs of the war- or downright false -e.g. the commies causing the German Hyper-Inflation. My former comment debunks all those 'verifiable facts' of yours, and whoever bothers reading both your comments and mine and check the 'facts' -someone with lots of patience- will probably agree with this statement.

                  As usual, your strategy seems to be ignoring the points in my comment, trying to transform them into straw man arguments, using elementary fallacies and peppering everything with ad hominems (you love that expression, don't you, Matt?).

                  I could go on debunking the quite obvious BS you spewed also in your last comment, but, you know what? that's not necessary. Both your comments and mine are in the record in these forums for everyone to see -and judge. In this last comment of yours, as usual, you're just rewording your former BS, dodging, misrepresenting, lying and ignoring the objections.

                  The part about why I read Das Kapital but wasn't able to finish Mein Kampf has a funny answer. I did it as a part of a sort of dare in an informal discussion group -basically a group of friends that met once or twice a week, originally to play computer games, tabletop games and roleplaying games while listening to loud music and smoking some pot. It took us almost a year to finish the thing and I even took some notes :-). I also coded some simulations to try to prove or disprove some of the points in Marx's book, but my dear Commodore 128 just lacked the horsepower to reach too significant conclusions in a reasonable time. Only two of us finished it, but everybody in the group participated in the discussions, which were really interesting.

                  And yes, Matt, I'm aware thad DK and MK are not history books. But as they were relevant to parts of the discussion, I listed them in my comment, but clearly separated from History books and magazines. The fact that you interpreted that as proof that I believed those two books to be History books says a lot about you.

                  Oh, and good luck with that Marathon race. I bet you'll be here in a few days telling us how you won the race, even when you were caught on film taking a cab halfway through the race and were disqualified by the organizers. It's more or less the same thing you use to do in Elreg forums. ;-)

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                    ".....The facts you provided were either orthogonal to the issue at hand...." The facts I posted, including the soldier numbers and casualty figures, all helped support my proof that France was a senior partner in the War. The fact I posted about prior wars between France and Prussia was also more support for the fact that France inflicted more severe terms than Wilson originally envisioned because of that history, and not because they had a big debt to pay back to the Fed. So far, you have posted NOTHING to support your claim that the Fed made the Great War worse or caused WW2 - you're still failing. You have 'debunked' nothing, all you have shown is that you have no knowledge of history and base your ludicrous assumptions on Marxist theory.

                    "....I could go on debunking the quite obvious BS you spewed also in your last comment, but, you know what? that's not necessary....." You could try, but any reader with half a clue will have realised long ago, you are talking out your rectum and now have no idea how to get yourself out of the hole you dug with your patently stupid comment. So now you'll try avoiding or evading the challenge to actually back up what you claimed with any facts - you fail again!

                    ".....lying...." Another clear statement, so please do supply some proof that I lied.

                    ".....I'm aware thad DK and MK are not history books. But as they were relevant to parts of the discussion...." No, they were not relevant at all. And you also failed to show how ANY of the publications you mentioned backed up your statement blaming the Fed. So, again, stop wriggling and avoiding the issue and post the evidence to back up your facts or admit you were wrong.

                    ".....I bet you'll be here in a few days telling us how you won the race, even when you were caught on film taking a cab halfway through the race and were disqualified by the organizers. It's more or less the same thing you use to do in Elreg forums." Now, I could click the abuse button and let gaz work out if he should let such a slanderous statement stand, but then it is just funnier to leave it and let the World see what a sulky whiner you are. I bet the closest you ever came to a marathon was a marathon pot smoking session when you were trying to absorb Das Kapital. I would say the evidence for such routine and extensive drug abuse is all through your posts.

                    So, post some evidence to support your statement or admit you were wrong. Also post proof that I lied or admit you are wrong there too.

                    1. Mephistro

                      Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                      Yawn...

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        FAIL

                        Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                        "Yawn..." So you can't post any proof to back up your stupid claim, or your claim that I was lying. This is my surprised face, honest. You fail again!

                        1. Mephistro

                          Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                          Yawn...

                          Yawn...

                          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                            FAIL

                            Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                            You're still just failing. And gaz will probably soon start warning you about repeatedly posting the same rubbish/evasions. Enjoy, because watching yo up ain't yourself into a corner has been very amusing.

                            1. Mephistro

                              Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                              Yawn...

                              Yawn...

                              Yawn...

                    2. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

                      Re: Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                      Matt Bryant, you have earned yourself a place on the pre-moderation naughty step - again - for misusing the report button in relation to the above post at 18.52.

                      This time I won't be limiting it to a week.

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        WTF?

                        Re: gaz Re: Mephhead Maphhead All Governments are ...(@ MasterBollocks)

                        "....for misusing the report button in relation to the above post at 18.52....." 'Misusing'? As I recall I clicked on ONE comment! You're either being extremely premature or looking for an excuse. And yet no warning for Mephistro for his repetitions and slanderous statements....? Hmmm, nothing like playing against twelve men.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: The basic social contract for governments is the sparingly use

      No, it's not. The basic social contract for government is that it protects its people from even greater aggressive threats than the government induces.

      I'm not talking ethics/philosophy. On that basis I concur with the Founders. But you have to realize what the Brits started in 1215 and which we on this side of the pond set out more forthrightly in 1776 is a very, very rare occurrence in history. China, far older than either of our countries has NEVER been ruled on this concept. It may be that India is now approaching the concept. But even while under British colonial rule I don't think it is quite accurate to characterize it that way. Russia has never been ruled that way. Rome kind of sort of ruled that way for about 200 years of its 1000 year history but the rest was the epitome of the contract I am noting as the basic social contract. And such a thought would have been purest blasphemy in medieval times.

      No, tyranny is the basic social contract throughout history. And the peasants just hope to have enough grain left for their families after the Cossacks have left.

    3. Identity
      Boffin

      Re: All Governments are dangerous and can easly end up as criminal gangs

      There's more than a whiff of bias here. In the 19th century, banks in the US were private enterprises endowed with the power to create their own currencies. Some of these were even known as 'wildcat banks,' because only wildcats could reach them, making it difficult-to-impossible to redeem the notes. Needless to say, many of these failed, causing MUCH economic hardship. President Jackson lost significant sums on paper money, and thus became a 'hard money man.' US Government banking began with the Civil War, as Lincoln passed the National Banking Act (1863) to fund it. This not only gave us a National Bank, but created for the first time a national currency.

      But here's the thing: ALL currency is fiat money. It is a consensual fiction. If you really want to solve these problems, you'll have to replace it. You might have bad names for people who want to do this, though...

      SHAMELESS PLUG: You might want to read my book, The Root of All Evil, available for free! at http://books.noisetrade.com/cacohen/the-root-of-all-evil

  16. Martin Maloney
    Big Brother

    A different take on Snowden

    What good is it to construct a total surveillance police state to scare the citizenry into compliance, if the citizenry doesn't know about it?

    Snowden is neither a hero nor a traitor. He's a "Big Brother Is Watching YOU" billboard.

    He's a psyop.

  17. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    The question is is a state *so* fragile that it can only be "protected" by 24/7/365 snooping?

    Either politicians don't know and it's their civil service staff who are terrified of such a threat or the politicians are

  18. Faux Science Slayer

    Woody Wilson Single Handedly Created the Spanish Flu Pandemic

    The "Spanish Flu" began in Kansas, but Wilson ZEALOTS ordered that any mention of this disease, or any quarantine of effected soldiers was AIDING the enemy. Wilson shipped thousands of very ill soldiers coast to coast, and shipped them to Europe. Britain, France and Germany had similar bans on news, and the PANDEMIC went unmentioned in the world press until thousands died in non combatant Spain, hence "Spanish Flu". Wilson BANNED all US newspapers and library books written in German, jailed hundreds of independent newspaper owners, editors and reporters and gave CONTROL OF MOST US DAILY NEWS TO J P MORGAN [1]. Morgan owned the White Star line, and KNEW his Lusitania was loaded with war material, a legimate target, when Director of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill ORDERED the doomed ship to half speed, with no escort in the known submarine waters of the Irish Sea [2].

    We have been systematical LIED TO ABOUT EVERYTHING [3].

    For more on 911 see Veterans Today, and site search 911.

    [1] "The Great Influenza" by James M Barry

    [2] "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G Edward Griffin

    [3] "Overthrowing the Kit and Kaboodle" at FauxScienceSlayer

  19. Identity
    Big Brother

    And yet...

    In 1929, Secretary of State Henry Lewis Stimson shut down the State Department's cryptanalytic office saying, "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail." (Though he later reversed this attitude.)

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Identity Re: And yet...

      Yeah, but Stimson was a naive idiot who let his naïveté impinge on the security of his country.

  20. HardCoded

    A complete profile of everyone?

    The US government is trying to pass laws that make the gathering of peaceful protesters enemies of the state. Not with a bang but a whimper?

    You can learn an incredible amount about a person from a forensic examination of their online profile. Even voice prints and retina scans are commonly included in these collections.

    Soon your DNA could be included, giving a complete and total picture of every individual. I provided mine to the NSW Police to help in the investigation of a friend's murder. The case is unsolved, so it will remain on file until it is solved. Then I have to write directly to the NSW Police and then it will take a year to have it destroyed. They say my DNA cannot be used as evidence for anything else other than the elimination of myself as a suspect in that murder case; i.e and I quote "if I leave DNA at the scene of a bank heist it will not be cross matched to the one currently on file." So they tell me.

    My DNA can be used only in direct relation to the case of the murder of my friend. So they say. But what if the law changes and the government are using my DNA for whatever they like? Perhaps I'll start on that letter now, because wondering how many and what sort of people know how many times a day I check out smut, what sort of financial institution I'm with, what websites I use or what sort of tech blogs I read doesn't seem quite as important now...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like