Bilderberg, Los señores de las sombras, Imperio Invisible, Conspiración Octopus, etc. . El programa completo de la OSS, así como el de la CIA siempre ha. Campimetro Computarizado Octopus Guia Conspiracion Octopus – Daniel Estulin. Descripción: Uploaded from Manual Perfil SIAF – Gastos Octopus v . Los teóricos de la conspiración han considerado que el ojo sobre Rusia . including The Invisible Empire, Conspiracy Octopus, Deconstructing en el Oriente Medio, la completa transformación de su mapa político, con el.
|Published (Last):||21 October 2012|
|PDF File Size:||11.34 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.75 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove. Secondly we must develop a way of thinking about this behavior that is strong enough carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity.
Finally coompleto use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling, and effective action.
Perimetria Octopus – PDF Free Download
The piece of writing via which that quote introduces is intellectually substantial, but not all that difficult to read, so completi might as cosnpiracion take a look at it yourself.
Most of the news media seems to be losing their minds over Wikileaks without actually reading these essays, even though he describes the function and aims of an organization like Wikileaks in pretty straightforward terms. The metaphor of a computing network is mostly implicit, but utterly crucial: He begins by positing that conspiracy and authoritarianism go hand in hand, ooctopus that since authoritarianism produces resistance to itself – to the extent that its authoritarianism becomes generally known – conspiracio can only continue to exist and function by preventing its intentions the authorship of its authority?
It inevitably becomes, he argues, a conspiracy: Authoritarian regimes give rise to forces which oppose them by pushing against the individual and collective will to freedom, truth and self realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce resistance. Hence these plans are concealed by successful authoritarian powers. This is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial. The problem this creates for the government conspiracy then becomes the organizational problem it must solve: After all, if the organization has goals that can be octpus, articulating them openly exposes them to resistance.
But at the same time, failing to articulate conspiraacion goals to itself deprives the organization of its ability to process and advance them. Somewhere in the middle, for the authoritarian conspiracy, is the right balance of authority and conspiracy. For Assange, by contrast, a conspiracy is something fairly banal, simply any network of associates who act in concert by hiding their concerted association from outsiders, an authority that proceeds by preventing its activities from being visible enough to provoke counter-reaction.
He illustrates this theoretical model by cojpleto analogy of a board with nails hammered into it and then tied together clmpleto twine: Call the octopuss connecting two nails a link. Unbroken twine means it is possible to travel from any nail to any other nail via twine and intermediary nails…. Information flows from conspirator to conspirator. Not every conspirator trusts or knows every other conspirator even though all are connected.
Some are on the fringe of the conspiracy, others are central and communicate with many conspirators and others still may know only two conspirators but be a bridge between important sections or groupings of the conspiracy… Conspirators are often discerning, for some trust and depend each other, while others say little.
Important information flows frequently through some links, trivial information through others. Imagine a thick heavy cord between some nails and fine light thread between others.
Call the importance, thickness or heaviness of a link its weight.
Between conspirators that never communicate the weight is zero. Such a network will not be organized by a flow chart, nor would it ever produce a single coherent map of itself without thereby hastening its own collapse. It is probably fairly acephalous, as a matter of course: A certain amount of centralization is necessary, in other words otherwise there is no conspiracybut too much centralization makes the system vulnerable.
To use The Wire as a ready-to-hand example, imagine if Avon Barksdale was communicating directly with Bodie. All you would ever have to do is turn one person – any person – and you would be one step away from the boss, whose direct connection to everyone else in the conspiracy would allow you to sweep them all up at once. Obviously, no effective conspiracy would ever function this way. To function effectively, the primary authority has to be disassociated from all other members of the conspiracy, layers of mediation which have to be as opaque as possible to everyone concerned which a paper trail unhelpfully clarifies.
Businesses run on their paperwork! This, Assange reasons, is a way to turn a feature into a bug. And his underlying insight is simple and, I think, compelling: The more conspiratorial it becomes, in a certain sense, the less effective it will be as a conspiracy. The more closed the network is to outside intrusion, the less able it is to engage with that which is outside itself true hacker theorizing.
His thinking is not quite as abstract as all that, of course; as he quite explicitly notes, he is also understanding the functioning of the US state by analogy with successful terrorist organizations. The links between the units were the vulnerable spots for the system as a whole, so those were most closely and carefully guarded and most hotly pursued by the French. And while the French won the battle of Algiers, they lost the warbecause they adopted the tactics Assange briefly mentions only to put aside: How can we reduce the ability of a conspiracy to act?
Traditional attacks on conspiratorial power groupings, such as assassination, have cut high weight links by killing, kidnapping, blackmailing or otherwise marginalizing or isolating some of the conspirators they were connected to. For one thing, by the time such a conspiracy has a form which can be targeted, its ability to function will be quite advanced. To deal with powerful conspiratorial actions we must think ahead and attack the process that leads to them since the actions themselves can not be dealt with.
By the time a cancer has metastasized, in other words, antioxidants are no longer effective, and even violent chemotherapy is difficult. Instead, he wants to address the aggregative process itself, by impeding the principle of its reproduction: As he puts it: Conspiracies are cognitive devices. They are able to outthink the same group of individuals acting alone Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate the conspiratorial environmentpass through the conspirators and then act on the result.
We can see conspiracies as a type of device that has inputs information about the environmenta computational network the conspirators and their links to each other and outputs actions intending to change or maintain the environment.
Because he thinks of the conspiracy as a computational network, he notes in an aside that one way to weaken its cognitive ability would be to degrade the quality of its information: Since a conspiracy is a type of cognitive device that acts on information acquired from its environment, distorting or restricting these inputs means acts based on them are likely to be misplaced.
Programmers call this effect garbage in, garbage out. Usually the effect runs the other way; it is conspiracy that is ictopus agent of deception odtopus information restriction. So many people genuinely drink the Kool-Aid, after all. It just means they are operating with bad information about the environment. Sometimes this works in their favor, but sometimes it does not: Whether this actually hurts the conspiracy is unclear; those Blue Dogs might have lost their seats, but most of them will retire from public service to cushy jobs supported by the sectors they supported while they were in public service.
And lots of successful politicians do nothing but fail. Which is why the point is not that particular leaks are specifically effective. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire: The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie.
Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
The leak, in other words, is only the catalyst for the desired counter-overreaction; Wikileaks wants to provoke the conspiracy into turning comspiracion its own brain in response to the threat.
As it tries to plug its own holes and find the leakershe reasons, its component elements will octtopus from and turn against each other, de-link from the central processing network, and come undone. Even if all the elements of the conspiracy still exist, in this sense, depriving themselves of a vigorous flow of information to connect them all together as a conspiracy prevents them from acting as a conspiracy.
If total conspiratorial power is zero, then clearly there is no information flow between the conspirators and hence no conspiracy. A substantial increase or decrease in total conspiratorial power almost always means what we expect it to mean; an increase or decrease in the ability of the conspiracy conspirscion think, act and adapt… An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think is powerless to preserve itself against the opponents it induces. In this octoups, most of the media commentary on the latest round of leaks has totally missed the point.
After all, why are diplomatic cables being leaked? These leaks are not specifically about the war s at all, and most seem to simply be a broad swath of the everyday normal secrets that a security state keeps from all but its most trusted hundreds of thousands of people who have the right clearance.
Which is the point: Assange is completely right that our government has conspiratorial functions.
Hollywood y los MKUltra, Illuminatis y más conspiraciones PARTE III
What else would you call the fact that a small percentage of our governing class governs and acts in our name according to information which is freely shared amongst them but which cannot be shared amongst their constituency? But Assange is not trying to produce a journalistic scandal which will then provoke red-faced government reforms or something, precisely because no one is all that scandalized by such things any more. Early responses seem to indicate that Wikileaks is well on its way to accomplishing some of its goals.
As Simon Jenkins put it in a great piece in its own right. And if the diplomats quoted by Le Monde are right that.
Assange, as his introductory remarks indicate quite clearly, is in the business of. Roosevelt realized a hundred years ago that. Assange is trying to shit all over this unholy alliance in ways that the later and more radical Roosevelt would likely have commended.
Roosevelt, as always, is worth quoting: Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is odtopus, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing. Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is s vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor, octpous it must be scraped up with the muck-rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed.
But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes save of his feats with the muck-rake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not an incitement to good, but one of the most comppleto forces for evil.
There are, in the body politic, economic, and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man, whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in connspiracion, in business, or in social life.
I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful…. Roosevelt was many things when he uttered those words, but he was not wrong. In muck they trust. According to his essay, Julian Assange is trying to do something else. Because we all basically know that the US state – like all states – is basically doing a lot of basically shady things basically all the time, simply revealing the specific ways they are doing these shady things will not be, in and of itself, a necessarily good thing.
In some cases, it may be cotopus bad thing, and in many cases, the provisional good it may do will be conspirafion in scope. The question for an ethical human clmpleto – and Assange always emphasizes his ethics octopsu has to be the question of what exposing secrets will actually accomplish, what good it will do, what better state of affairs it will bring about.