By Alan Mercer, 10 November 2015
Part 2 (series contents)
Continued from Part 1
Scenario in Brave New World Novel: Preparing the Way for Scientific Dictatorship: Violence and Crisis: Period of War, Anthrax Attacks, Suppression of Dissent, Economic Crisis, Attacks on Old Culture
Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, refers to the “Nine Years’ War,” which precedes the establishment of the scientific dictatorship called Brave New World. An official (Chapter 3, page 48) presents the history, and describes events such as this war, which “began in A.F. 141 (Chapter 3, page 42)”.
Part of this terrible war was the use of anthrax as a weapon of mass destruction:
‘”The noise of fourteen thousand aeroplanes advancing in open order. . . . the explosion of the anthrax bombs is hardly louder than the popping of a paper bag (Chapter 3, page 42).”
“Liberalism, of course, was dead of anthrax . . . (Chapter 3, page 43).”
Effect of War: War Softens People Up for Control, Trading Freedom for Quiet Life, Truth for Happiness
In a later chapter, Mustapha Mond sums up the effect of the Nine Years’ War on the struggle between ideals and tyranny:
. . . People still went on talking about truth and beauty as though they were the sovereign goods. Right up to the time of the Nine Years’ War. That made them change their tune all right. What’s the point of truth or beauty or knowledge when anthrax bombs are popping all around you? That was when science first began to be controlled–after the Nine Years’ War. People were ready to have even their appetites controlled then. Anything for a quiet life. We’ve gone on controlling ever since. It hasn’t been very good for truth, of course. But it’s been very good for happiness. One can’t have something for nothing. Happiness has got to be paid for. . . . (Chapter 16, page 208).
The infecting of water supplies is mentioned, as well as the “great Economic Collapse” (Chapter 3, Page 43).
The combination of crises was thought of as a
choice between World Control and destruction. Between stability and . . . (Chapter 3, page 43).
Suppression of Dissent, Terrorism and Mass Murder by Brave New World Revolutionaries Against “Simple Lifers” and Supporters of Old Culture
Dissent was expressed by “Simple Lifers,” and the novel relates this to the imposition of consumerism, also called the “conscription of consumption (Chapter 3, page 44).”
Eight hundred Simple Lifers were mowed down by machine guns at Golders Green (Chapter 3, page 44).
One of the consumerist slogans of the Brave New World was:
Ending is better than mending. (Chapter 3, page 44).
The slogans of the dissidents included:
Anything not to consume. Back to nature (Chapter 3, page 44).
A major terrorist incident was the
famous British Museum Massacre. Two thousand culture fans gassed with dichlorethyl sulphide (also known as mustard gas: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/dichlorethyl sulfide). (Chapter 3, page 45)
There was a campaign against the past:
accompanied by a campaign against the Past; by the closing of museums, the blowing up of historical monuments (luckily most of them had already been destroyed during the Nine Years’ War); by the suppression of all books published before A. F. 150. (Chapter 3, page 45).
Comparison of the Real World in 2015 and Earlier (20th and 21st Century)
Replacement of Old Values with No Values, “End Times,” Destabilization and Nihilism
Here are some definition of the word “nihilism” from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism:
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake . . .
Certain nihilistic attitudes or ideas seemed to have also been generated by the world wars and the Vietnam War in particular. Or at least the wars provided an environment and excuse for these attitudes to be promulgated.
I think it makes perfect sense for poets like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Sassoon to criticize the horrors of modern war and the mindless patriotism involved. However, it is necessary also to learn to make distinctions between good and evil, to have a rational discussion about what is morally correct when it comes to war, who is making the decisions about the wars, and what kind of society we want to have, or else it just becomes generation after generation of senseless doubt and uncertainty and questions that never have any answers. With partial, one-sided “education” of one slant or another, the moral ground and cultural stability that could belong to everyone is thus stolen from us, and the gaps of powerlessness and other empty spaces are filled in with the propaganda from the next bunch of tyrants and gangsters who decide what is good for us.
One example that is clear to me is the song by The Doors, “The End”, which was included twice in the film, Apocalypse Now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_(The_Doors_song)). ”
Going back to the idea of “apocalypse”, “The End,” in my view, seems to imply the idea of the biblical “end-times,” a supposed period of turmoil prior to its resolution by a perfect world government (discussed in Part 1). Please note also that the “end times” has been an important theme in entertainment, of interest to Christians and New Agers, and that includes some guests and topics on late night talk radio (http://artbell.com/tag/end-times/). I don’t believe this is a random message.
In my view, the themes or tone of this song (and the film also) present a kind of despairing and nihilistic point of view and atmosphere. The over-turning of morality is a prominent part of the full version of the song, because the lyrics contain an offensive and Freudian Oedipal sequence of violence, incest and profanity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_(The_Doors_song) and http://www.metrolyrics.com/the-end-lyrics-the-doors.html).
This song has an apocalyptic (as in Apocalypse Now) end-of-the-world feeling, a sense of the end of reason (which would happen with the imposition of more and more mind-altering chemicals), the trashing of decency, a sense of despair, and a shifting of the ground under our feet so that we can’t stand up in strength. Notice some of the language:
This is the end . . .
. . . desperate land . . .
. . . all the children are insane . . .
What were the real purposes of the Vietnam War if it wasn’t to “win”? What are the functions and goals of those who plan wars? Somebody has a bigger project on the go than most people are aware of.
What is the function and effect of the entertainment industry?
To continue with this example, many of us have probably seen the movie Apocalypse Now multiple times. It has an effect on the viewer’s emotions and attitude I believe, possibly one might call it a military function of cultural destruction–as paralleled in the novel’s plots to to physically destroy old culture and ideas.
This topic of the military use of American pop culture is discussed in the following article: http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/97summer/peters.htm : “Constant Conflict” by Ralph Peters, From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14.
Information destroys traditional jobs and traditional cultures; it seduces, betrays, yet remains invulnerable. . . .
The genius, the secret weapon, of American culture is the essence that the elites despise: ours is the first genuine people’s culture. It stresses comfort and convenience–ease–and it generates pleasure for the masses. . . .
Our cultural empire has the addicted–men and women everywhere– clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment. . . .
Who were The Doors, and who was Jim Morrison, their lead singer?
As pointed out by Dave McGowan, author of Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon, Jim Morrison was the son of Rear Admiral George S. Morrison, who was present during the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the story (believed to be false) used to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident). See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4eUhv9hReU (published by Gnostic Media http://www.gnosticmedia.com on 30 April 2014). See: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com and https://www.facebook.com/WeirdScenesInsideTheCanyon
[The USS Bon Homme Richard] was retired and dry docked in San Francisco. She was decommissioned in July of 1971 and later, like most ships from this time period, sold for scrap metal. As an interesting piece of trivia, lead singer of the Doors Jim Morrison’s father, RADM (then Captain) George S. Morrison served as Commanding Officer of this ship from November 23, 1963 to November 25, 1964. He spoke at the ship’s decommissioning ceremony on July 2, 1971, just hours before his son’s death in Paris.
George Stephen Morrison (January 7, 1919 – November 17, 2008) was a United States Navy rear admiral (upper half) and naval aviator. Morrison was commander of the U.S. naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident of August 1964, which sparked an escalation of American involvement in the Vietnam War. He was the father of Jim Morrison (1943–1971), the lead singer of the rock band The Doors. . . .
In 1963, [Captain] Morrison took command of the Essex-class aircraft carrier Bon Homme Richard (CVA-31), flagship of a 3rd Fleet Carrier Division in the Pacific, and based at Naval Air Station Alameda, California. Morrison was in command of the Carrier Division during the controversial Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August 1964, which resulted in a dramatic escalation of the Vietnam War.
In 1966, he was promoted to Rear Admiral at age 46. . . .
Dissent and Control of Dissent
In the 20th and 21st centuries, there have been people expressing genuine environmental concerns about pollution and technological dangers, and many others expressing their belief in traditional culture and ideas. I have no doubt that these two groups overlap more than people want to believe despite the fake dichotomy between “left” and “right”.
Whatever dissent there has been has been very effectively controlled and limited. That includes dividing people into “left” and “right” in the first place by pumping them full of slogans, feeding them media that supplies the ready-made opinions for their particular segment of the “group mind” (instead of allowing people to have their own thoughts). Through the control of media and the political system, the opinions of the “opposition” and dissenters has been gradually restricted to certain acceptable opinions.
An example of this is how William F. Buckley excommunicated groups he didn’t like from the “conservative” movement using the National Review magazine. Evidence for the CIA control and funding of the “conservative” movement (not specifically about Buckley and the National Review) is included the Cultural Cold War by Frances Stonor Saunders (more information below).
We’re talking about historical events, but this in no way implies that this kind of manipulation is not being used right now against various alternative movements that include people who are trying to do their best to share information and make positive changes. They are often divided into left and right so that people throw prejudiced, made-up epithets and slogans against each other. They will find it very difficult to ever open their minds and get together about what they can agree on.
To continue with the Buckley example:
In 1962, William F. Buckley, Jr. editor of the main conservative magazine the National Review, denounced Welch and the John Birch Society as “far removed from common sense” and urged the GOP [Republican Party] to purge itself of Welch’s influence.
From the John Birch Society website, http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/myths-vs-facts:
A few short years later, Mr. Buckley attacked Robert Welch in a lengthy article in his magazine. Over the past several decades, Buckley carried out a campaign of attacking or disparaging Welch and the Society. On numerous occasions, he boasted to friends that he intended to destroy The John Birch Society. He didn’t succeed. Read more in John McManus’ book, William F. Buckley: Pied Piper for the Establishment.
It would be interesting to dig into the history of the John Birch Society to investigate the influence of militaristic, pro-government elements. I’m thinking of the allegations made by Royce White Calf about Birchers being present as government recruits at Wounded Knee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident). See http://www.gnosticmedia.com/FikesWhiteCalf_Lakota_Naropa_WoundedKnee_GenCusterCarlosCastaneda (Published by Gnostic Media on 19 December 2014, requires donation at present).
In other words, it’s not just about the “conservative” movement being infiltrated. It makes sense that even the John Birch Society and other groups have been used by the government from the beginning. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good people and good causes within the context of the group. To me, it’s a mix of good and bad, as that’s the nature of the system. Even anti-communism in those days–with its allegations against the government and foundations about social engineering (very valid despite all the slogans about McCarthy)–could be used to serve the government’s goals. Maybe the JBS campaign against what it considered Communist-inspired movements such as the American Indian movement played into the government’s hands (http://www.jbs.org/from-the-ceo/ceo-april-2010-the-effectiveness-of-the-john-birch-society). (Related documents for further study: Agents of Repression (see paragraph relating to Pine Ridge) and http://cisupa.proquest.com/ksc_assets/catalog/2141_FBIAmIndMovWoKnee.pdf.
Another example concerns Ayn Rand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.
Buckley and his editors used his magazine to define the boundaries of conservatism—and to exclude people or ideas or groups they considered unworthy of the conservative title. . . . .
Buckley felt that “[Ayn] Rand’s style, as well as her message, clashed with the conservative ethos” and he decided that Rand’s hostility to religion made her philosophy unacceptable to his understanding of conservatism. After 1957, he attempted to read her out of the conservative movement by publishing Whittaker Chambers’s highly negative review of Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. In 1964, he wrote of “her desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral,” as well as “the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding, dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable, whether it comes from the mouth of Ehrenburg, Savonarola—or Ayn Rand.”
Personally I’d be very interested in reading more of Whittaker Chambers’ opinions. However, whether or not we agree with his critique of Rand, the point is that Buckley acted as an ideological gatekeeper or enforcer for the establishment.
From the point of view of Rothbard’s libertarian movement, this article “Neoconservatism: a CIA Front?” from the Rothbard-Rockwell Report in 1997 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3700.htm explains the background details of Buckley’s CIA involvement and covers some of the same ground that The Cultural Cold War covers about the CIA’s building of an interventionist pro-war “conservative” movement, for example, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (related article: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/mar/07/artsfeatures.georgeorwell). This was consistent with Buckley’s efforts to exclude anti-war conservative isolationists from the conservative movement. Anti-war isolationism and national independence were not consistent with the CIA’s goals of continual U.S. military interventionism (also called imperialism) using, as an excuse, the whipped up fear of the Soviet Union (distrust and dislike was justified, not fear). This is another way of describing an effort to create a world government through a dialectic conflict (more below on some of the wars that took place). And a lot of this messaging was based around a core group of big government-supporting, pro-NATO, pro-united Europe, social democratic anti-Stalinist, neo-“conservatives”.
Nonetheless, the Soviet threat served as a useful chimera to keep the masses in line. What were the targets singled out for demonization in the Cold War propaganda campaign? One of the chief aims of the government was to discredit dangerously parochial attitudes about the desirability of peace. It was also thought necessary to inoculate the public, particularly in Europe, against the virus of “neutralism.” . . .
As Buckley’s admiring social-democratic biographer John Judis notes, “Except for Chodorov, who was a Buckley family friend, none of the right-wing isolationists were included on National Review’s masthead. While this point of view had been welcome in the Freeman, it would not be welcome, even as a dissenting view, in National Review.”
According to the following article at Business Insider, Buckley was a member of Skull and Bones: http://www.businessinsider.com/skull-and-bones-alumni-2011-2?op=1
Current Situation for Alternative Dissenting Movements
This issue of how certain traditional or natural opinions are excluded relates also to the need to promote militarism and continual intervention and warfare around the world using one bogeyman or another. This is totally consistent with the continual promotion of a period of war and instability that is required to get people to submit to the Brave New World dictatorship in the novel.
The Internet has provided an outlet for good and decent people to get out some of the truth, but with the Internet (which comes from the establishment and military: see the documentary film The Net: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=13273), opposing “alternative” or non-mainstream opinions are diluted with fantasies, distractions and possibly tendentious, time-wasting controversies (time-wasting for readers and listeners because there is too much prejudice, emotion and logical fallacies involved and not enough space given for evidence and correct logic). One of the key methods for creating ineffective dissent in society generally is the amount of time-wasting distractions. That’s part of the reason for all the “information” out there–including fictional books, games, audio and video.
Legitimate concerns about toxic chemicals and dangerous technology were submerged in the larger, well-funded Green movement that serves the elite agenda of world government and population control policies (one of them being the promotion of carbon taxes to save us from “man-made” climate change). See Agenda 21 (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=9010). The basic world government policies of population reduction, global re-education, conservation and new types of communities were recommended by Aldous Huxley (in the name of “freedom”) in his non-fiction follow-up Brave New World Revisited (http://canadianliberty.com/?p=17795). This is part of the reason that I know Huxley was a control freak and insincere about his “warnings” about tyranny. The other issue that’s obvious is that he promoted mind-altering drugs, which is also part of the tyranny agenda described in his novel (overview on Brave New World here: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=17829).
Consumer Culture, Technology, Standardization and Planned Obsolescence
It seems that at least some aspects of the Brave New World have already been imposed historically since the novel was published. Consumerism has already been something we have lived with through most of the 20th century. My understanding, based on reading his book Propaganda is that, earlier, Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud), had been instrumental in helping to create, artificially, an American consumer culture based on the manipulation of the “group mind” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays). It doesn’t seem to have been imposed on us through force and violence unless we count the destruction of historic cities through war (e.g., World War II).
One of the articles under the “Consumerism” category at Wikipedia is: “Planned Obsolescence” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Consumerism), a concept that has been with us for a long time now. The novel’s slogan “Ending is Better than Mending” reminds me of this. The Wikipedia article includes the history of this idea as an actual policy followed by manufacturers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence:
Origins of planned obsolescence go back at least as far as 1932 with Bernard London’s pamphlet Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence. The essence of London’s plan would have the government impose a legal obsolescence on consumer articles, to stimulate and perpetuate consumption.
However, the phrase was first popularized in 1954 by Brooks Stevens, an American industrial designer. . . .
In 1960, cultural critic Vance Packard published The Waste Makers, promoted as an exposé of “the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals“. . . .
From a common-sense perspective, I think many of us have seen this manufacturing policy as ridiculous and offensive. We know that products could last much longer, and yet we’re all blamed for the waste (which is pumped up as a huge crisis). It is a type of manipulation and planning, and attempts, as above, were made to justify it in the “name of the economy.”
However, the Wikipedia article points out that this aspect of consumerism is in disfavor under the current environmentalist doctrines that oppose waste and promote the belief in man-made “global warming” or “climate change”:
France is not the only government in which this kind of practice is being used. The European Union is also beginning to address this problem. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), an advisory body of the EU, has approved a dictum which totally bans planned obsolescence.
Critics of consumerism often point out that consumerist societies are more prone to damage the environment, contribute to global warming and use up resources at a higher rate than other societies. Dr. Jorge Majfud says that “Trying to reduce environmental pollution without reducing consumerism is like combatting drug trafficking without reducing the drug addiction.”
So consumerism is on the way out it seems. The tendency of the direction of the real-life Brave New World, which may be unfortunate for our economic well-being, tends to go against industrial activity altogether, not just consumerism–because of the promotion of carbon taxes to address so-called climate change (blamed on us).
Standardization of consumer products and technology
The world is being standardized. A lot of the standardization is obviously for control and tracking (relating to Agenda 21 resource use as well as anti-terrorism laws). For the type of science fiction society described in Brave New World, the level of conformity requires the clothing, tools and other products to be similar and standard.
I can concede that standardization is a very practical and helpful idea. If it was voluntary and stayed voluntary, and there were competing standards, and the world was headed towards freedom (including independence when people wanted it) that would be fine. But that’s not what is happening.
If you think of a science fiction society such as the one portrayed in Star Trek, think about the weapons they are using, for example, and the clothing. Is anyone capable of making their own “phaser”? How do they charge it up without having a standard charger? What central authority authorizes the chargers to work? Can they be turned on and off independently? Would they be locked? Of course they would be. Would there be any independence allowed for weapons production? Come on! What about food production? The society portrayed is also mostly in an artificial environment of a “star ship”. This isn’t much different from Huxley’s Brave New World. We’re talking about a world where people can’t eat without centrally controlled and planned technology, in which people don’t come into existence without permission and technology in the case of Brave New World, in which where people are 100% dependent (if they live on a space ship with the standard uniforms) on the technology and power and central authorization. Everything would be locked and unlocked based on permissions, based on the sound of your voice or your iris scan. Where is the freedom in that? People are made to think of the science fiction worlds portrayed in the movies as superior and as a natural “progression.” It’s all a lie. It’s the portrayal of a prison. If you can’t make it yourself or grow it yourself (some exception in The Next Generation series with vineyards, I agree), you’re not free. Sorry, but who are all the slaves building the “star ships” or manufacturing the “food”?
No wonder some people might prefer NATURE, and that’s how I see things. I see things as a matter of being able to fall back on nature when we need to and not getting too far from what is natural. People still think about science as a tool for the study of nature, but in our society, more and more, it generally serves the planned manipulations and human engineering projects of those in power. Most of the politically correct doctrines attack nature and natural ideas about rights and morality and natural human thought processes, and try to replace these with clap-trap packaged with emotional manipulation and half-truths (leaving out the nasty, objectionable truths that don’t suit the lies. leaving out the contradictions and unpleasant realities).
The standardization of everything relating to consumer goods, including food, is proceeding via the WTO, and international regulations such as ISO, codex alimentarius, and the promotion of gmo foods, for example. Also, this includes the imposition of scannable bar codes, tracking chips, and monitoring devices that may tend to become requirements for automobiles if they’re not already.
The controversy over the Codex Alimentarius relates to a perception that it is a mandatory standard for the safety of food, including vitamin and mineral supplements. Supporters of the Codex Alimentarius say that it is a voluntary reference standard for food and that there is no obligation on countries to adopt Codex standards as a member of either Codex or any other international trade organization. From the point of view of its opponents, however, one of the main causes of concern is that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection. Proponents argue that the use of Codex Alimentarius during international disputes does not exclude the use of other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection.
It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs. The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation. . . .
Currently, ISO is said to be a voluntary set of standards. Why wouldn’t that change? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization:
ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, is an independent, non- governmental organization, the members of which are the standards organization of the 164 member countries. It is the world’s largest developer of voluntary international standards and facilitates world trade by providing common standards between nations. Nearly twenty thousand standards have been set covering everything from manufactured products and technology to food safety, agriculture and healthcare
The basic idea of telematics auto insurance is that a driver’s behavior is monitored directly while the person drives and this information is transmitted to an insurance company [and insurance is mandatory. See the film Code 46 to see how far insurance can go in controlling people: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345061/]. The insurance company then assesses the risk of that driver having an accident and charges insurance premiums accordingly
An IVMS (In Vehicle Monitoring System) combines the installation of an electronic device in a vehicle, or fleet of vehicles, with purpose-designed computer software at least at one operational base to enable the owner or a third party to track the vehicle’s location, collecting data in the process from the field and deliver it to the base of operation. . . .
Vehicle Safety Technology (VST) in the automotive industry refers to special technology (Advanced driver assistance systems) developed to ensure the safety and security of automobiles and passengers. The term encompasses a broad umbrella of projects and devices within the automotive world. Notable examples include car-to-computer communication devices which utilize GPS tracking features, geo-fencing capabilities, remote speed sensing, theft deterrence, damage mitigation, and vehicle-to-vehicle communication. . . .
DADS (Driver Alertness Detection System) is a cloud based service that monitors a driver’s state of alertness in real time to reduce the risk of road accidents caused by drowsiness and fatigue. Using the data collected by the certified camera, the service helps drivers determine if they are alert enough to drive. . . .
In order to minimize the risk of dangerous failures, safety related electronic systems have to be developed following the applicable product liability requirements. Disregard for, or inadequate application of these standards can lead to not only personal injuries, but also severe legal and economic consequences such as product cancellations or recalls. . . .
Automatic vehicle location (AVL or ~locating; telelocating in EU) is a means for automatically determining and transmitting the geographic location of a vehicle. This data, from one or more vehicles, may then be collected by a vehicle tracking system for a picture of vehicle travel. . . .
A vehicle tracking system combines the use of automatic vehicle location in individual vehicles with software that collects these fleet data for a comprehensive picture of vehicle locations.
Vehicle location data is the large scale collection of vehicle locations, usually including times and often photographs. Common methods of data collection include automatic number plate recognition of vehicle registration plates from images collected by cameras mounted on vehicles or fixtures along roads, as well as radio-frequency identification (RFID) from dedicated short-range communications transponders (such as those used for electronic toll collection and parking lots). Databases of this information may be maintained by government or private entities. Private companies use vehicle location data for vehicle repossession and consumer profiling. Government databases have been subjected to legal orders for location data. Access may be restricted to use in criminal cases, but may also be available for civil cases, such as divorce.
Driver Monitoring System, also known as Driver Attention Monitor, is a vehicle safety system first introduced by Toyota in 2006 for its and Lexus latest models. It was first offered in Japan on the GS 450h. The system’s functions co-operate with the Pre-Collision System (PCS). The system uses infrared sensors to monitor driver attentiveness.
What’s to stop that data from being collected and used by the insurance company?
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is the wireless use of electromagnetic fields to transfer data, for the purposes of automatically identifying and tracking tags attached to objects . . .
Implantable RFID chips designed for animal tagging are now being used in humans. An early experiment with RFID implants was conducted by British professor of cybernetics Kevin Warwick, who implanted a chip in his arm in 1998. In 2004 Conrad Chase offered implanted chips in his night clubs in Barcelona and Rotterdam to identify their VIP customers, who in turn use it to pay for drinks. . . .
The Universal Product Code (UPC) is a barcode symbology (i.e., a specific type of barcode) that is widely used in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and in other countries for tracking trade items in stores. .
Elimination of Old Culture, Old Books and Standardization of New Culture
Two science fiction stories that have a similar cultural destruction theme about the destruction of books or art are Fahrenheit 451 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) and Equilibrium (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/?ref_=nv_sr_1).
The real-world examples I have are mainly much less violent than these stories. Whether war has been the cause or not, towns and cities in Canada, in Ontario, for example, are all filled with the same corporations and franchises, same big stores and restaurants, the same familiar colors. It doesn’t mean that these towns don’t have some distinctive features and characteristics still, but it’s an obvious thing about modern culture that there has tended to be this standardization.
E-Books, Libraries and Book Weeding
As paper books are replaced by electronic books, which is the potential source of the major “memory hole” of the future where it is imaginable that copies of particular e-books (held in the same “clouds” or on the same types of devices) could be instantly wiped out at the push of a button accompanied by some well-crafted justifications, one observation about many public libraries in Ontario, for example, is that they constantly and regularly “weed” old books. For example,
Book Sales at Book Ends
The best value for buying books in the city.
You can buy donated items and materials withdrawn from the library’s collection.
A couple of the reasons the following blogger uses to justify the weeding of books at a university library don’t impress me: https://mrlibrarydude.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/why-we-weed-book-deselection-in-academic-libraries/
Why Do We Weed?
To remove books that are not being used
To remove books with outdated or obsolete information/philosophies (that have no historical use)
To identify books that are damaged or in poor condition
To identify gaps in the collection and make new purchases
To align the collection with the university’s goals, mission, and curriculum
Limited space for the collection
Another defender of weeding:
I wonder about all the assumptions in this sentence:
This site is a collection of library holdings that we find amusing and/or questionable for libraries trying to maintain a current and relevant collection.
It would be interesting to investigate this topic. Who has the right to decide what is “obsolete” and “outdated”? What does “current and relevant” have to do with real knowledge? Who is deciding “current” and “relevant”? Is that some kind of process of osmosis based on politically correct doctrines downloaded from UNESCO?
Who counts the politically correct phrases in each book before they are marked for withdrawal? Again, we have the use of propaganda. Do they have their “laugh meters” turned on? When a certain phrase triggers conditioning, like “Mommy wears a dress”, or “Mr. Smith loves his smokes”, I guess it turns into shock and disgust or laughter: “Oh, you can’t have a book like that in our library!” Is Pavlovian and Skinnerian conditioning considered some kind of valid thought process? Is that the method used to weed books?
My experience has been that library book sales are regular and frequent and are filled with customers who are eagerly snapping up books that are very valuable to them, filled with important information about issues of importance that explain the world we’re living in now, such as the books by Canadian author, Peter C. Newman just as an example. That’s what I’ve seen. Where do all the books come from that are so supposedly so superior that replace those ones? I don’t believe it. Do they fill the shelves up with Harry Potter and Twilight? How many of the books being sold are withdrawn and are not new donations?
We’re talking about different aspects of George Orwell’s “Memory Hole,” described in 1984. As the Internet information has been subsidized into existence by big government, universities, and the media, physical books have become less valuable to us. We depend more and more on computers and electronic books. At least it seems that way. It becomes harder for libraries to justify keeping books according to the rationales they are following.
Another issue is the volume of trivial books being published that are potentially less and less of real value. These take up more of our time as well as more and more bookstore space and library space.
There have been plenty of wars since the publication of Brave New World. Here are some of them, and these include an incredible numbers of deaths and incredible durations in some cases.
(Note: These death totals come from Wikipedia articles and I haven’t verified them otherwise. In general, they often seem sketchy to me and can shift about depending on what area and time range is included.)
World War II: 1939–1945 (6 years). Allies: “Total dead: Over 61,000,000” Axis: “Over 12,000,000” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
Korean War: 1950–1953 (Just over 3 years). Total dead on South Korean/American/British/Canadian/etc .side: 178,426. Total dead on North Korean & allies side: 1,642,600. South Korean civilians: 373,599 killed. North Korean civilians: 1,550,000 (est.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Vietnam War: 1955–1975 (Over 19 years). South Vietnamese, American and other allies: Total dead: 479,660–807,303. North Vietnamese and allies: Total dead: 455,476–1,170,476. Total civilian dead: 847,000–2,500,000 (“This figure includes all of the dead from the Laotian and Cambodian civil wars.”) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Mau Mau Uprising (Kenya): 1952–1960 (About 8 years). Rebel forces: Killed: 12,000 officially; perhaps 20,000+ unofficially. British: Killed: 200. Civilians Killed (not including those who disappeared): Native Kenyans: 1,819. South Asians an Europeans: 58. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising
Soviet–Afghan War: 1979–1989 (Just over 9 years). Soviet and Afghan Forces: Killed in combat: 9,500. Mujahideen and allies: 75,000–90,000 killed (“tentative estimate”). Afghan civilians: 850,000–1,500,000 killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
Salvadoran Civil War: 1979–1992 (About 12 years, 8 months). El Salvador Government and allies: 7,000 dead. Rebels: 20,000 dead. 70,000–80,000 (total dead); 8,000 disappeared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War
Iran–Iraq War: 1980–1988 (Almost 7 years, 11 months). Iranian forces: 123,220–160,000 KIA and 60,711 MIA (Iranian claim). 200,000–600,000 killed (other estimates). 800,000 killed (Iraqi claim). 1,000,000+ killed (other estimates). 11,000–16,000 civilian dead. Iraqi forces: 105,000–375,000 killed. 250,000–500,000 (other estimates). Civilians: 100,000+ civilians killed on both sides (“not including 50,000-100,000 civilians killed in the Al-Anfal Campaign”). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
Gulf War: August 1990 –February 1991 (Just over 6 months). US and allies: 292 killed. Iraq forces: 20,000–35,000 killed. Kuwaiti civilian losses: Over 1,000 killed, 600 missing people. Iraqi civilian losses: About 3,664 killed. Other civilian losses: 300 civilians killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
War on Terror: 7 October 2001–present (14+ years) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror (includes Afghanistan and Iraq Wars below).
War in Afghanistan: 2001–2014 (Just over 13 years). U.S. and allies: 31,520 killed. Taliban and allies: 25,500–40,500. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%9314)
The NATO-led phase is treated separately: War in Afghanistan (2015–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2015%E2%80%93present)
Iraq War: 20 March 2003–18 December 2011 (About 8 years, 9 months). U.S. side: Total dead: 25,286. Iraqi side: Total dead: 34,144-37,344. Estimated violent deaths: Lancet survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 601,027 (95% CI: 426,369–793,663). Iraq Family Health Survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000). Documented deaths from violence: Iraq Body Count (2003 – 14 December 2011): 103,160–113,728 civilian deaths recorded, and 12,438 new deaths added from the Iraq War Logs. Associated Press (March 2003 – April 2009): 110,600. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
The Effect of War and Terror
War is shown as an important mechanism of changing society towards “utopia”. War is the main globalist mechanism of making people accept policies they would otherwise not accept, on the road to total slavery–also called “progress”.
War is also an opportunity for demolishing the older culture, older buildings, older symbols.
Just keep pounding obedience into our heads with constant wars and death (sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice).
Norman Dodd of the Reece Committee mentions in an interview what was observed about the Carnegie Endowment minutes they were allowed access to: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=18383:
“We are now at the year 1908 [a review of their records], which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, …: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity.
“So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”
My impression is that Dodd’s comments indicate that the staff of the 1950s Reece Committee tended to have the same skepticism towards war and the U.S. government that Buckley was trying to eliminate from his new conservative movement.
So this strategy of using war to change society and create new types of societies was worked on and implemented even earlier than the publication of Brave New World.
Regarding the novel’s British Museum Massacre of 2000 deaths, the reported number of deaths officially on September 11, 2001 with the destruction of the planes and culturally symbolic World Trade Center buildings (http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/) was 2,996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks, http://web.archive.org/web/20100916051327/http://media.www.theonlinerocket.com/media/storage/paper601/news/2008/09/12/News/Lost-Lives.Remembered.During.911.Ceremony-3427598.shtml).
And then 9/11 was used to justify a constant state of warfare that has never ended since then (see the Wikipedia articles on the wars above), and also to justify the suppression of civil liberties, including degrading airline “security” measures and torture. The anti-terrorism measures were ready to go, and this brings us to the subject of anthrax.
To me, it’s interesting that the Brave New World pre-dictatorship narrative of anthrax bombs is some kind of parallel to the real-life anthrax attacks that occurred after September 11, 2001. At this stage, it seems that these attacks helped push the erosion of civil liberties via the passing of the United States Patriot Act. Along with other targets, key senators who had complaints about the bill were sent anthrax in the mail. The FBI determined that the anthrax originated from an American source who was pretending to be a Muslim writing terrorist messages. The way the FBI determined the particular individual after years of investigation was totally dubious, and that’s worth investigating separately.
I just want to touch on the basics to show the evidence that the anthrax was sent through the mail in order to intimidate politicians (and to shock the public and media) so that the anti-terrorism laws would be quickly passed, thus contributing to the construction of a real-life Brave New World:
Amerithrax or Anthrax Investigation
Soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, letters laced with anthrax began appearing in the U.S. mail. Five Americans were killed and 17 were sickened in what became the worst biological attacks in U.S. history. . . .
Two more anthrax letters, bearing the same Trenton postmark, were dated October 9, three weeks after the first mailing. The letters were addressed to two Democratic Senators, Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Patrick Leahy of Vermont. At the time, Daschle was the Senate Majority leader and Leahy was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Daschle letter was opened by an aide, Grant Leslie, on October 15, and the government mail service was shut down. The unopened Leahy letter was discovered in an impounded mailbag on November 16. . . .
The 2001 Anthrax Attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two Democratic U.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. . . .
The Act itself came about after the September 11th attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. After these attacks, Congress immediately started work on several proposed antiterrorist bills, before the Justice Department finally drafted a bill called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, introduced to Congress on September 19, 2001 [comment: there is no way they drafted it in a few days]. This was introduced to the House as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12. It was then introduced into the Senate as the USA Act (S. 1510) where a number of amendments were proposed by Senator Russ Feingold, all of which were passed. The final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act). It was vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold, who was the only Senator to vote against the bill. Senator Patrick Leahy also expressed some concerns.
The following timeline contains sources for each point:
October 2-4, 2001: Senators Daschle and Leahy Raise Concerns about Newly Introduced Patriot Act
The “anti-terrorism” Patriot Act is introduced in Congress on October 2, 2001 (see October 2, 2001), but it is not well received by all. [US CONGRESS, 10/2/2001] One day later, Senate Majority Leader and future anthrax target Tom Daschle (D-SD) says he doubts the Senate will take up this bill in the one week timetable the administration wants. As head of the Senate, Daschle has great power to block or slow passage of the bill. Attorney General John Ashcroft accuses Senate Democrats of dragging their feet. [WASHINGTON POST, 10/3/2001] On October 4, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and future anthrax target Patrick Leahy (D-VT) accuses the Bush administration of reneging on an agreement on the bill. Leahy is in a key position to block or slow the bill. Some warn that “lawmakers are overlooking constitutional flaws in their rush to meet the administration’s timetable.” Two days later, Ashcroft complains about “the rather slow pace…over his request for law enforcement powers… Hard feelings remain.” [WASHINGTON POST, 10/4/2001] The anthrax letters to Daschle and Leahy are sent out between October 6-9 as difficulties in passing the Patriot Act continue (see October 6-9, 2001). . . .
October 6-9, 2001: Second Wave of Anthrax Attacks Targets Senators Daschle and Leahy
. . . [image of message to Daschle] . . .
On October 9, two letters containing deadly anthrax spores are postmarked. One letter is sent to Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) and the other is sent to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The letters are sent from a mailbox in Trenton, New Jersey. They could be sent any time after 5 p.m. on October 6 (the last pick up on the day, a Saturday), and before 5 p.m. on October 9. (There is no pickup on October 7, a Sunday, and October 8 is Columbus Day.) The letter to Daschle is opened by one of his staffers on October 15 (see October 15, 2001). It contains the message: . . . .
The writing is the same slanted, block style used in the earlier wave of anthrax letters (see September 17-18, 2001), and the content of the message is very similar. The letter to Leahy is mis-routed and not discovered until mid-November (see October 15, 2001).
Opening of the Letter to Senator Leahy
A letter addressed to Senator Patrick Leahy found in the sequestered Congressional mail on November 16, 2001, has been opened by experts at the Army’s Ft. Detrick, Maryland, biomedical research laboratory. The envelope contained a quantity of a substance believed to be anthrax, based on testing conducted before the envelope was opened, and appears to be consistent with that found in the letter sent to Senator Daschle.
Science Briefing on the Anthrax Investigation
Opening Statement by Dr. Vahid Majidi
After nearly seven years of investigation we have developed a body of powerful evidence that allows us to conclude that we have identified the origin and the perpetrator of the 2001 bacillus anthracis mailings.
The attribution process and identification of a specific perpetrator relies on the confluence of intelligence, investigative, and forensic information. It is the forensic information that determined the source of the 2001 bacillus anthracis mailings to be derived from a unique pool of spore preparations known as RMR-1029 that was maintained at U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Maryland (USAMRIID). While there were countless investigative hours spent narrowing the field of suspects, we are here today to focus on the scientific aspects of this case.
First of all, let me dispel some frequently repeated erroneous information. For example:
There were no intentional additives combined with the bacillus anthracis spores to make them any more dispersible.
The purity of samples obtained from the four letters (Hart and Russell Senate office, and NBC and New York post offices in New York) were sufficiently different, which allowed us to conclude that at least two different bacillus anthracis batches were prepared from the original RMR-1029. This indicates that aliquots of the RMR-1029 were removed and cultured in at least two separate batches to produce the materials used in the mailings. . .
And so we know, according to the FBI, that the anthrax spores came from a U.S. Army laboratory, and they were believed by the FBI to have come, not from a group of extremist Muslims, but from an American scientist who worked at Fort Detrick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks) (who died before he could face trial).
Value for value: If you appreciate the information provided at this website, please show your support.