The theory goes like this: On September 11, 2001, 19 arabs with box cutters and plastic knives conspired to board 4 airliners without ever showing up on the flight manifests. All 4 airlines were successfully hijacked by these conspiring arabs with mere plastic knives, and at most 1 inch metal blades, and flown by failed cessna pilots like experts into 3 of the targets, while the 4th airplane hit a field and left a crater but no debris.
The attack came as a total surprise to the Air Force and Norad, who never saw it coming, and remained blind to it all for a full hour after all planes hit their targets, with the final target being the greatest military command headquarters in the world. Norad suddenly could not see airplanes if their transponders were switched off, thus proving active radar is a hoax.
Somehow, despite being fully rated to take a full speed impact from the similarly sized and faster flying 707, both world trade center towers fell into their own footprints (rather than off to the side in one direction like you would expect if an airplane impact weakened one side of them) because Arabs are magic and Allah was with them. And out of sympathy, while mourning for the loss of it’s two big brothers, WTC 7 which never got hit by an airplane at all, cried itself to death and fell down too.
And we know this is a true story, because despite never having seat back phones or any satellite uplink available, calls were made from cell phones (which could not connect at speeds over 120 mph because they have to arrange which tower will take the call from a moving object next, and could not do that on time from the planes which were going 550 mph.) But we know it worked anyway because after Cee Cee Lyle’s “plastic knives and box cutters” cell phone call ended, her coach told her she did a great job and if she did not do a great job, the entire Arab plan would have failed. And if you don’t believe how GREAT CeeCee did, just listen to her boss tell her how great she did! Her boss would never lie!
So there you have it – the official story. The wackiest 911 conspiracy theory of all!
911 Flight 93 phone call busted. CeeCee Lyle read her arab incriminating yet fully scripted phone call from the ground, in a call center, and if you listen to the call, you can hear her coach say “that was great!” after she finishes speaking. You can also hear a coach or manager say “allright” in the background of the enhanced version, and AFTER THAT you can hear her coach say “sorry” for saying “that was great” too loud and possibly having it be audible in the message. CeeCee Lyles flight 93 911 phone call enhanced and original This kills the entire arab/911 meme, obviously the calls were faked.
This series by Carl Cameron,which Fox News released in 2001 was supposed to have 12 parts. Only 4 parts ever got broadcast, and all 4 are in this ONE MP3. Even these 4 parts should be enough to wake your sleeping zombie sheep, they prove Israel is raping the U.S. and was heavily involved in 911 And it all went out on FOX NEWS, IT IS ALL HERE, ARCHIVE AND POST!!!
This was broadcast on Fox News Carl Cameron’s expose THIS IS A MUST LISTEN, IT TOTALLY BLOWS ISRAEL OUT OF THE WATER and after seeing this I can’t believe Fox News ever got this published.
1. After 911, Israeli companies tipped off perpetrators of 911 to when the FBI, CIA an other American intelligence was onto them, so they could immediately change their identities and prevent the investigations from proceeding. Additionally, once the investigations started, the perpetrators were given the ability to wire tap all of the investigator’s phones and other communications via Israeli owned companies and spy infrastructure, to totally circumvent capture. If this does not by itself prove Israel did 911, I do not know what possibly could.
2. Israeli companies tip off Israeli drug dealers to when American investigation efforts have pinned them down, and like the perpetrators of 911, the Israelis then provide even drug dealers with wire taps on the investigators in pursuit of them, to help them completely evade capture.
This Fox News report is SO DAMNING I wonder if Carl Cameron is even alive. This series was shut down 8 out of 12 segments early, because it NAILED THE TRUTH. Much can be extrapolated from even these 4 segments, they prove Israel is America’s ENEMY NUMBER ONE, ARCHIVE AND POST!
Take a look at this picture of the very large aircraft hitting the bridge in Taiwan. From this photo below, you can clearly see that the aircraft had a very strong wing drag on the road surface, only to have the guard rail snap off a very large section of wing. This picture proves that the bridge took the full brunt of a hit that put the full strength of the aircraft’s wing into that guard rail.
It is the entire end of the wing snapped off, and after looking at this photo which clearly shows this fact:
I want you to again take a look at the road and the guard rail in the next photo. Initially I thought the top of the guard rail was ornamental aluminum or stainless steel. But from this photo, a nice clear one, you can see that THE ONLY PIECE BROKEN ON THAT BRIDGE WAS MADE OUT OF PLASTIC. There is no trace of any damage anywhere else on the bridge whatsoever, so I want to once again ask a serious pointed question toward the Dimona tribe:
Take your pick with what you believe I guess, but as I see it, there is NO DAMN WAY a normal Boeing did that damage to the WTC.
Airplanes really do come apart like aluminum foil when they hit anything solid at all, they fly because they are light and dainty and engineered to handle ONE THING: AIR, with which concrete and steel have no common traits. Even a bird can crash a jumbo jet for Gods sake!
The Spacex rocket that blew up yesterday was definitely not a technical glitch
It looks like a UFO took it out.
Yesterday (September 1 2016) a spacex rocket with a $150 million dollar Facebook satellite that was a creation of Zukerberg and Israel blew up during testing, and not during launch. Before it blew up, a UFO showed up, fired something at the rocket, and then quickly flew away. The image here shows the UFO quite clearly. If Spacex can’t explain what this UFO is, then I am going to say that either off world help arrived to keep Facebook grounded or white hats in American intelligence destroyed this rocket to keep something evil from being launched.
This UFO appears to be between the rocket and the camera filming the explosion, and the similar focus on the rocket and the object proves the object was close to the rocket and not close to the camera. It is not a bird, insect, or balloon or anything else of the sort. Its speed has been estimated by some people to have been about 500 MPH. It entered on the right hand side of the frame, fired something at the rocket when it was immediately in front of it, and exited the left hand side of the frame.
Obviously there are those trying to say this was a bird or insect or whatever, but this is one case where we got an image that quite clearly shows that cannot possibly be what this was.
This explosion started at the top of the rocket, right where the UFO was, and not near the bottom, where virtually all rocket explosions start. No malfunction caused this, if this started at the top of the rocket only a fuel tank breach in an upper stage that was not being tested could have caused this, and that means the rocket was most likely shot with something.
Important: Original reports were that this happened when they were test firing the main engines before launch, and not during refueling, as is being said now, which could (tenuously) be used as an explanation for this. But original reports said nothing about refueling, and that there was an engine test underway, which means an explosion at the top of the rocket due to a glitch is not in any way plausible.
There are a few people in the alt media that are claiming that there a war going on in space, and that something off world is trying to help us. If this object is from off world and it blew up a Facebook satellite, I’d have to say someone is trying to help because I can’t imagine what was actually on that rocket if it was a completely Jewish/Israeli project and cost $150 million. That would be a GOOD rocket blast as far as I see it, and as far as I see it, this was not a technical glitch, this was caused. The only question is, who did it?
I find it interesting that this particular object looks like a text book UFO. Obviously the video of this is going to get edited.
UPDATE: The original video that had this has already been blocked on Youtube, I can’t get to it anymore, with links saying the connection failed. At least this is a nice clear screen capture. And I’d bet that if this video does appear again, the UFO will suddenly have flapping wings or some other B.S.
In the original video however, what you see in this frame is what it was.
Some people are speculating that it was someone like Soros who blew this rocket up because they do not want space to be privatized. However, my take on this is that if this was a 100 percent Jewish project that was destroyed, no one in the world’s power structure (which is now almost entirely Jewish) did this from the top down. I could be wrong, maybe there are disagreements, but I think it is far more probable that this was done by white hats, or “outside help”, because nothing could be worse (or wanted by the elite) more than scamming Facebook going orbital compliments of Israel. We don’t know what that satellite really was.
It was NOT a bird!
There are five video frames that have the UFO in them despite the UFO going across the entire field of view. And all the video frames show the UFO quite clearly. This is only possible with an extremely high end video camera that had an expensive lens and super fast shutter. Why does this matter? Answer: Because it proves the UFO was very close to the rocket, and not a nearby bird. I’ll go into this in detail:
Cell phones and cheap video cameras have tiny CCD sensors behind small lenses. This makes it impossible to get a clear image of a small fast moving object because the CCD needs time to gather enough light to expose a frame, and any fast moving object that crosses the entire frame in only five frames will look like a blur, and not a defined object. Why does this matter? Well, because:
Super expensive video cameras have large sensors behind expensive multi element optics that focus within a specific range the camera is set to focus on. The large sensor and wide open optics allows a fast shutter speed, which will put a clear image of a fast moving object in each frame. That is what we have with the UFO video, which proves an expensive camera filmed it. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? Because that alone proves that whatever this UFO was, was close to the rocket, and not a nearby bird. If it was a nearby bird, it might not have shown up in the image at all because the lens on that type of camera has a depth of field, which blurs anything that has a distance significantly different than what the lens is focusing on. Since the focus on both the rocket and the UFO are virtually identical, it proves the UFO was much larger than any bird and close to the rocket. Any bird that was close enough to the camera to show up that big would have been so out of focus it might not even noticeably show up in the frame if it was moving that fast. The way this was captured alone proves this video frame capture is legit. Now onto other details that are far more obvious:
The biggest giveaway that this is not a bird in any of these frames is the fact that the object looks the same in all frames and has a straight path across all frames. Birds flap their wings, and if it was a bird, that alone would have changed the appearance of the object. If any bird went across that large a distance without flapping it’s wings, it would have fallen noticeably. Additionally, no bird could possibly fly that fast across a frame, relative to it’s size on the frame. A bird would have had to have gone more than 100 mph to go that fast through the frame. There are no birds that can do that in straight and level flight.
Additionally, scam spam videos are rapidly being produced with a bird in the frames. That is not what this was, no ifs or buts. If it was a bird, this would not have been needed for debunking purposes.
This capture has an image of either a totally new type of drone, or an alien UFO. You take your pick, but whatever this was, it destroyed the rocket and that is all there is to it.
How do I feel about this? PRETTY FREAKING GOOD, it means we have powerful friends that hate Facebook
A Universal Basic Income Is The Bipartisan Solution To Poverty We’ve Been Waiting For
What if the government simply paid everyone enough so that no one was poor? It’s an insane idea that’s gaining an unlikely alliance of supporters.
[Illustration: Andrew J. Nilsen for Fast Company]
BEN SCHILLER 03.16.15 6:00 AM
There’s a simple way to end poverty: the government just gives everyone enough money, so nobody is poor. No ifs, buts, conditions, or tests. Everyone gets the minimum they need to survive, even if they already have plenty.
World Changing Ideas: This is part of Co.Exist’s annual collection of some of the most interesting and thought-provoking trends that will alter the world in the year ahead. See the whole list here.
This, in essence, is “universal minimum income” or “guaranteed basic income”—where, instead of multiple income assistance programs, we have just one: a single payment to all citizens, regardless of background, gender, or race. It’s a policy idea that sounds crazy at first, but actually begins to make sense when you
The first is that work isn’t what it used to be. Many people now struggle through a 50-hour week and still don’t have enough to live on. There are many reasons for this—including the heartlessness of employers and the weakness of unions—but it’s a fact. Work no longer pays. The wages of most American workers have stagnated or declined since the 1970s. About 25% of workers (including 40% of those in restaurants and food service) now need public assistance to top up what they earn.
“The important thing is to create a floor on which people can start building some security.”
The second: it’s likely to get worse. Robots already do many menial tasks. In the future, they’ll do more sophisticated jobs as well. A study last year from Carl Frey and Michael Osborne at Oxford University found that 47% of jobs are at risk of computerization over the next two decades. That includes positions in transport and logistics, office and administration, sales and construction, and even law, financial services and medicine. Of course, it’s possible that people who lose their jobs will find others. But it’s also feasible we’re approaching an era when there will simply be less to do.
The third is that traditional welfare is both not what it used to be and not very efficient. The value of welfare for families with children is now well below what it was in the 1990s, for example. The move towards means-testing, workfare—which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996—and other forms of conditionality have killed the universal benefit. And not just in the U.S. It’s now rare anywhere in the world that people get a check without having to do something in return. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, that makes the income assistance system more complicated and expensive to manage. Up to up to 10% of the income assistance budget now goes to administrating its distribution.
For these reasons and others, the idea of a basic income for everyone is becoming increasingly popular. There has been a flurry of reports and papers about it recently, and, unusually, the idea has advocates across the political spectrum.
The libertarian right likes basic income because it hates bureaucracy and thinks people should be responsible for themselves. Rather than giving out food stamps and health care (which are in-kind services), it thinks people should get cash, because cash is fungible and you do what you like with it.
“Even a modest amount had incredible effects on people’s savings, economic status, health—so people felt in control of their lives.”
The left likes basic income because it thinks society is unequal and basic income is redistributive. It evens up the playing field for people who haven’t had good opportunities in life by establishing a floor under the poorest. The “precariat” goes from being perpetually insecure to knowing it has something to live on. That, in turn, should raise well-being and produce more productive citizens.
The technology elite, like Netscape’s Marc Andreessen, also likes the idea. “As a VC, I like the fact that a lot of the political establishment is ignoring or dismissing this idea,” Albert Wenger, of Union Square Ventures, told a TED audience recently, “because what we see in startups is that the most powerful innovative ideas are ones truly dismissed by the incumbents.” A minimum income would allow us to “embrace automation rather than be afraid of it” and let more of us participate in the era of “digital abundance,” he says.
The exact details of basic income still need to be worked out, but it might work something like this: Instead of welfare payments, subsidies for health care, and tax credits for the working poor, we would take that money and use it to cover a single payment that would give someone the chance to live reasonably. Switzerland recently held an (unsuccessful) is planning to hold a referendum on a basic income this year, though no date is set. The proposed amount is $2,800 per month.
“As a VC, I like the fact that a lot of the political establishment is ignoring or dismissing this idea.”
But would it actually work? The evidence from actual experiments is limited, though it’s more positive than not. A pilot in the 1970s in Manitoba, Canada, showed that a “Mincome” not only ended poverty but also reduced hospital visits and raised high-school completion rates. There seemed to be a community-affirming effect, which showed itself in people making use of free public services more responsibly.
Meanwhile, there were eight “negative income tax” trials in the U.S. in the ’70s, where people received payments and the government clawed back most of it in taxes based on your other income. The results for those trials was more mixed. They reduced poverty, but people also worked slightly less than normal. To some, this is the major drawback of basic income: it could make people lazier than they would otherwise be. That would certainly be a problem, though it’s questionable whether, in the future, there will be as much employment anyway. The age of robots and artificial intelligence seems likely to hollow out many jobs, perhaps changing how we view notions of laziness and productivity altogether.
Experiments outside the U.S. have been more encouraging. One in Namibia cut poverty from 76% to 37%, increased non-subsidized incomes, raised education and health standards, and cut crime levels. Another involving 6,000 people in India paid people $7 month—about a third of subsistence levels. It, too, proved successful.
“The important thing is to create a floor on which people can start building some security. If the economic situation allows, you can gradually increase the income to where it meets subsistence,” says Guy Standing, a professor of development studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, in London, who was involved with the pilot. “Even that modest amount had incredible effects on people’s savings, economic status, health, in children going to school, in the acquisition of items like school shoes, so people felt in control of their lives. The amount of work people were doing increased as well.”
Given the gridlock in Congress, it’s unlikely we’ll see basic income here for a while. Though the idea has supporters in both left and right-leaning think-tanks, it’s doubtful actual politicians could agree to redesign much of the federal government if they can’t agree on much else. But the idea could take off in poorer countries that have more of a blank slate and suffer from less polarization. Perhaps we’ll re-import the concept one day once the developing world has perfected it?
U.S. president Obama urges Americans to be cheerful and optimistic now that his disastrous presidency comes to its ignominious end.
U.S. economy crashes as generations of perpetual children forsake work, marriage, and family for pursuit of imaginary telephone goblins.
Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton contest motivates US voters to choose their doom by fiery annihilation or slow decay, as with a cancerous tumor
Heroic computer vandals of Wicker Leeks awarded Red Banner of Merit, Second Class, for various services to united Korean peoples.
US president Obama implores America to entrust nuclear launch codes to woman described as negligent and slipshod with mere electronic mails.
Farmers in South Pyongan Province lauded for producing world’s most militant potatoes as Potato Revolution continues.
US president Barack Obama to campaign for Hillary Clinton as candidate best able to continue legacy of corruption, incompetence, and strife.
Greased and oily English reporter Piers Morgan derided as fawning anus-sniffer to cretins.
Former United States Chief Warlord Bill Clinton involved in new corruption of some sort, to surprise of no one except U.S. newspapers.
US celebrity astrologer Neil Degrasse Tyson is called first-class idiot of highest distinction, for false prophecies and gassy bloviations.
Slothful laziness and habit of gorging mouths with rich foods to blame for western obesity epidemic, according to latest scientific findings
English labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn denounced as human sore, oozing with pus, and rightist lackwit, for deviations from true socialism
English war criminal David Cameron escapes death, is sentenced to work for 100 years as “cow flop disposal technician” on collective farm.
Bankers and fund managers of London ordered to report to collective farms by English revolution government, for reform through manual labour
Reward for capture and arrest of English traitor dog David Cameron is set at ten million Won.
Half of United States Congress vows to sit on floor, doing nothing. Entire world wishes other half would join them.
US celebrates “National Onion Ring Day,” yet another empty holiday meant to distract slaves from daily horror of their meaningless lives.
US boasts of tolerance for homo-sexuals exposed as empty prattle, as US ally Saudi Arabia routinely executes such people without reproach.
Donald Trump speech on the thousand infamies, treasons, and villainies of alcoholic hag Hillary Clinton is not expected to break new ground.
US cities are called “Food Deserts” in which only unnatural foods are sold. DPRK markets sell only natural, additive and pesticide free food
English prime minister David Cameron said to be man of equal parts ridiculousness and pomposity, eclipsed only by ignorance and dishonor.
U.S. city of Los Angeles evacuated, due to fires caused by negligent forestry practices of corrupt and incompetent gangster Barack Obama.
As European exit vote approaches, doomed prime minister David Cameron makes plans to flee for Belgium on raft of discarded cheese boxes.
United States celebrates “National Selfie Day,” confirming perception of America as land of shallow narcissists and psychopathic braggarts.
Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un offers millionaire Donald Trump four tons of buckwheat and use of a private bicycle to assist in campaign expense
Marshal Kim Jong-Un sends gift of scissors and ceramic bowl to Canadian president Justin Trudeau, to assist with long-needed haircut.
Backlash predicted against United States Muslims after last terror attack now expected to materialize after next terror attack, experts say.
Population of suspected terrorists in United States now exceeds population of Indonesia and Chad.
New mass shooting has United States press eager to continue shooter’s work by encouraging living Americans to blame one another.
June 3, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO)
Like a mythical sea monster, the true nature of a Wall Street-London centered global corporatocracy is often talked about but rarely seen. However, on rare occasions, a tentacle breaks the surface and affords the public an opportunity to examine and assess its true, gargantuan dimensions.
Just such a moment occurred when leaked diplomatic letters from the Colombian Embassy in Washington D.C. revealed just how far the United States government is willing to go on behalf of the corporate-financier interests that clearly shape the entirety of its foreign policy.
The Intercept would report in its article, “Leaks Show Senate Aide Threatened Colombia Over Cheap Cancer Drug,” that:
Leaked diplomatic letters sent from Colombia’s Embassy in Washington describe how a staffer with the Senate Finance Committee, which is led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, warned of repercussions if Colombia moves forward on approving the cheaper, generic form of a cancer drug.
The drug is called imatinib [Gleevec]. Its manufacturer, Novartis, markets the drug in Colombia as Glivec. The World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines last year suggested it as treatment not only for chronic myeloid leukemia, but also gastrointestinal tumors. Currently, the cost of an annual supply is over $15,000, or about two times the average Colombian’s income.
The repercussions included threats to derail the $450 million “Peace Colombia” initiative aimed at ending decades of fighting in the South American nation that has claimed nearly a quarter of a million lives.
Leveraging peace and stability in Colombia to force Bogotá to capitulate to pharmaceutical giants like Novartis seems extreme, but upon closer examination of other episodes in recent history – including the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the subversion of Libya and Syria, and admitted US ambitions to encircle and contain China, such coercion is a common feature of the Wall Street-London centric “international order” Washington eagerly promotes.Image: NIH-funded researcher Dr. Brian Druker.
What is perhaps most appalling about this most recent episode is that Novartis’ “patent” is for a drug developed using public funding over several decades through the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Indeed, in 1990, NIH-funded researcher Dr. Brian Druker began developing model systems integral to bringing “Glivec” to market. He would eventually partner directly with Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) before clinical trials began.
The NIH’s own report, “Fighting Cancer: Ushering in a New Era of Molecular Medicine (.pdf),” would proudly admit:
The NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), along with many other public and private organizations, played a vital role in developing Gleevec®.
The nature of pharmaceutical giants building fortunes upon publicly funded research, with Gleevec serving as a primary example, was in even the subject of an entire paper published by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the title, “Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules (.pdf).”
Who Runs Washington?
If corporate-financier interests would jeopardize the peace and stability of an entire nation to maintain a monopoly over a single pharmaceutical – developed not even by them, but by publicly funded research – what would these same sort of corporate-financier interests do if the stakes were infinitely higher – say as high as pushing through a region-wide trade deal that would give such interests monopolies not over a single chemical compound, but over entire industries?
It is clear that elected representatives in Washington, London, and across the rest of the European Union do not represent the interests of those who elected them.
Instead, they are clearly subject to and instruments of corporate-financier special interests – not just from across the pharmaceutical industry, but from a variety of industries ranging from finance and banking to big-oil, big-ag, and big-defense.
Understanding this simple truth – demonstrated unequivocally amid Washington’s latest row with its “ally” Colombia – is the first step in formulating a means to rebalance this inequity.
Dealing With Unwarranted Influence
The leaks revealing Washington’s handling of Colombia, however, provide a valuable potential means of confronting and confounding this immense, unwarranted influence in the immediate future.
The leaks take pressure off the Colombian government itself and put the narrative into the hands of third parties who can more credibly pass on the information to the public. Other nations facing behind-the-scenes coercion might likewise use the “leaked communique” method to take pressure off of themselves, and shift it onto the immense corporate-financier interests bearing down on them.
For the pharmaceutical industry specifically – which has attempted to guard its monopolies under the pretext of providing humanity with invaluable, irreplaceable products and services essential for humanity’s well-being – since pharmaceuticals and other medical therapies are indeed essential matters of life and death, they should be nationalized and the “intellectual property” held by these corporations – paid for by public funding – should be rendered as opensource. This arrangement would be not entirely unlike how the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) approaches space exploration.
For corporate-financier special interests in general, it is essential for both individual nations and local communities around the world to create alternatives to these monopolies and begin the process of systematically and permanently boycotting and replacing them. Not only will this redistribute wealth pragmatically rather than politically, it will create a more equitable balance of power geopolitically.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
. . .
The 2008 crash wiped 13% off global production and 20% off global trade. Global growth became negative – on a scale where anything below +3% is counted as a recession. It produced, in the west, a depression phase longer than in 1929-33, and even now, amid a pallid recovery, has left mainstream economists terrified about the prospect of long-term stagnation. The aftershocks in Europe are tearing the continent apart.
The solutions have been austerity plus monetary excess. But they are not working. In the worst-hit countries, the pension system has been destroyed, the retirement age is being hiked to 70, and education is being privatised so that graduates now face a lifetime of high debt. Services are being dismantled and infrastructure projects put on hold.
Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”. Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up.
Meanwhile in the absence of any alternative model, the conditions for another crisis are being assembled. Real wages have fallen or remained stagnant in Japan, the southern Eurozone, the US and UK. The shadow banking system has been reassembled, and is now bigger than it was in 2008. New rules demanding banks hold more reserves have been watered down or delayed. Meanwhile, flushed with free money, the 1% has got richer.
Neoliberalism, then, has morphed into a system programmed to inflict recurrent catastrophic failures. Worse than that, it has broken the 200-year pattern of industrial capitalism wherein an economic crisis spurs new forms of technological innovation that benefit everybody.
That is because neoliberalism was the first economic model in 200 years the upswing of which was premised on the suppression of wages and smashing the social power and resilience of the working class. If we review the take-off periods studied by long-cycle theorists – the 1850s in Europe, the 1900s and 1950s across the globe – it was the strength of organised labour that forced entrepreneurs and corporations to stop trying to revive outdated business models through wage cuts, and to innovate their way to a new form of capitalism.
The result is that, in each upswing, we find a synthesis of automation, higher wages and higher-value consumption. Today there is no pressure from the workforce, and the technology at the centre of this innovation wave does not demand the creation of higher-consumer spending, or the re‑employment of the old workforce in new jobs. Information is a machine for grinding the price of things lower and slashing the work time needed to support life on the planet.
Occupy was right: capitalism has failed the world
As a result, large parts of the business class have become neo-luddites. Faced with the possibility of creating gene-sequencing labs, they instead start coffee shops, nail bars and contract cleaning firms: the banking system, the planning system and late neoliberal culture reward above all the creator of low-value, long-hours jobs.
Innovation is happening but it has not, so far, triggered the fifth long upswing for capitalism that long-cycle theory would expect. The reasons lie in the specific nature of information technology.
We’re surrounded not just by intelligent machines but by a new layer of reality centred on information. Consider an airliner: a computer flies it; it has been designed, stress-tested and “virtually manufactured” millions of times; it is firing back real-time information to its manufacturers. On board are people squinting at screens connected, in some lucky countries, to the internet.
Seen from the ground it is the same white metal bird as in the James Bond era. But it is now both an intelligent machine and a node on a network. It has an information content and is adding “information value” as well as physical value to the world. On a packed business flight, when everyone’s peering at Excel or Powerpoint, the passenger cabin is best understood as an information factory.
Postcapitalism evolution. Illustration by Joe Magee
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Is it utopian to believe we’re on the verge of an evolution beyond capitalism? Illustration by Joe Magee
But what is all this information worth? You won’t find an answer in the accounts: intellectual property is valued in modern accounting standards by guesswork. A study for the SAS Institute in 2013 found that, in order to put a value on data, neither the cost of gathering it, nor the market value or the future income from it could be adequately calculated. Only through a form of accounting that included non-economic benefits, and risks, could companies actually explain to their shareholders what their data was really worth. Something is broken in the logic we use to value the most important thing in the modern world.
The great technological advance of the early 21st century consists not only of new objects and processes, but of old ones made intelligent. The knowledge content of products is becoming more valuable than the physical things that are used to produce them. But it is a value measured as usefulness, not exchange or asset value. In the 1990s economists and technologists began to have the same thought at once: that this new role for information was creating a new, “third” kind of capitalism – as different from industrial capitalism as industrial capitalism was to the merchant and slave capitalism of the 17th and 18th centuries. But they have struggled to describe the dynamics of the new “cognitive” capitalism. And for a reason. Its dynamics are profoundly non-capitalist.
During and right after the second world war, economists viewed information simply as a “public good”. The US government even decreed that no profit should be made out of patents, only from the production process itself. Then we began to understand intellectual property. In 1962, Kenneth Arrow, the guru of mainstream economics, said that in a free market economy the purpose of inventing things is to create intellectual property rights. He noted: “precisely to the extent that it is successful there is an underutilisation of information.”
You can observe the truth of this in every e-business model ever constructed: monopolise and protect data, capture the free social data generated by user interaction, push commercial forces into areas of data production that were non-commercial before, mine the existing data for predictive value – always and everywhere ensuring nobody but the corporation can utilise the results.
If we restate Arrow’s principle in reverse, its revolutionary implications are obvious: if a free market economy plus intellectual property leads to the “underutilisation of information”, then an economy based on the full utilisation of information cannot tolerate the free market or absolute intellectual property rights. The business models of all our modern digital giants are designed to prevent the abundance of information.
Yet information is abundant. Information goods are freely replicable. Once a thing is made, it can be copied/pasted infinitely. A music track or the giant database you use to build an airliner has a production cost; but its cost of reproduction falls towards zero. Therefore, if the normal price mechanism of capitalism prevails over time, its price will fall towards zero, too.
For the past 25 years economics has been wrestling with this problem: all mainstream economics proceeds from a condition of scarcity, yet the most dynamic force in our modern world is abundant and, as hippy genius Stewart Brand once put it, “wants to be free”.
There is, alongside the world of monopolised information and surveillance created by corporations and governments, a different dynamic growing up around information: information as a social good, free at the point of use, incapable of being owned or exploited or priced. I’ve surveyed the attempts by economists and business gurus to build a framework to understand the dynamics of an economy based on abundant, socially-held information. But it was actually imagined by one 19th-century economist in the era of the telegraph and the steam engine. His name? Karl Marx.
The scene is Kentish Town, London, February 1858, sometime around 4am. Marx is a wanted man in Germany and is hard at work scribbling thought-experiments and notes-to-self. When they finally get to see what Marx is writing on this night, the left intellectuals of the 1960s will admit that it “challenges every serious interpretation of Marx yet conceived”. It is called “The Fragment on Machines”.
In the “Fragment” Marx imagines an economy in which the main role of machines is to produce, and the main role of people is to supervise them. He was clear that, in such an economy, the main productive force would be information. The productive power of such machines as the automated cotton-spinning machine, the telegraph and the steam locomotive did not depend on the amount of labour it took to produce them but on the state of social knowledge. Organisation and knowledge, in other words, made a bigger contribution to productive power than the work of making and running the machines.
Given what Marxism was to become – a theory of exploitation based on the theft of labour time – this is a revolutionary statement. It suggests that, once knowledge becomes a productive force in its own right, outweighing the actual labour spent creating a machine, the big question becomes not one of “wages versus profits” but who controls what Marx called the “power of knowledge”.
In an economy where machines do most of the work, the nature of the knowledge locked inside the machines must, he writes, be “social”. In a final late-night thought experiment Marx imagined the end point of this trajectory: the creation of an “ideal machine”, which lasts forever and costs nothing. A machine that could be built for nothing would, he said, add no value at all to the production process and rapidly, over several accounting periods, reduce the price, profit and labour costs of everything else it touched.
Once you understand that information is physical, and that software is a machine, and that storage, bandwidth and processing power are collapsing in price at exponential rates, the value of Marx’s thinking becomes clear. We are surrounded by machines that cost nothing and could, if we wanted them to, last forever.
In these musings, not published until the mid-20th century, Marx imagined information coming to be stored and shared in something called a “general intellect” – which was the mind of everybody on Earth connected by social knowledge, in which every upgrade benefits everybody. In short, he had imagined something close to the information economy in which we live. And, he wrote, its existence would “blow capitalism sky high”.
Marx imagined something close to our information economy. He wrote its existence would blow capitalism sky high
With the terrain changed, the old path beyond capitalism imagined by the left of the 20th century is lost.
But a different path has opened up. Collaborative production, using network technology to produce goods and services that only work when they are free, or shared, defines the route beyond the market system. It will need the state to create the framework – just as it created the framework for factory labour, sound currencies and free trade in the early 19th century. The postcapitalist sector is likely to coexist with the market sector for decades, but major change is happening.
Networks restore “granularity” to the postcapitalist project. That is, they can be the basis of a non-market system that replicates itself, which does not need to be created afresh every morning on the computer screen of a commissar.
The transition will involve the state, the market and collaborative production beyond the market. But to make it happen, the entire project of the left, from protest groups to the mainstream social democratic and liberal parties, will have to be reconfigured. In fact, once people understand the logic of the postcapitalist transition, such ideas will no longer be the property of the left – but of a much wider movement, for which we will need new labels.
Who can make this happen? In the old left project it was the industrial working class. More than 200 years ago, the radical journalist John Thelwall warned the men who built the English factories that they had created a new and dangerous form of democracy: “Every large workshop and manufactory is a sort of political society, which no act of parliament can silence, and no magistrate disperse.”
Today the whole of society is a factory. We all participate in the creation and recreation of the brands, norms and institutions that surround us. At the same time the communication grids vital for everyday work and profit are buzzing with shared knowledge and discontent. Today it is the network – like the workshop 200 years ago – that they “cannot silence or disperse”.
Current Time 0:00
Duration Time 4:19
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Manuel Castells: how modern political movements straddle urban space and cyberspace
True, states can shut down Facebook, Twitter, even the entire internet and mobile network in times of crisis, paralysing the economy in the process. And they can store and monitor every kilobyte of information we produce. But they cannot reimpose the hierarchical, propaganda-driven and ignorant society of 50 years ago, except – as in China, North Korea or Iran – by opting out of key parts of modern life. It would be, as sociologist Manuel Castells put it, like trying to de-electrify a country.
By creating millions of networked people, financially exploited but with the whole of human intelligence one thumb-swipe away, info-capitalism has created a new agent of change in history: the educated and connected human being.
This will be more than just an economic transition. There are, of course, the parallel and urgent tasks of decarbonising the world and dealing with demographic and fiscal timebombs. But I’m concentrating on the economic transition triggered by information because, up to now, it has been sidelined. Peer-to-peer has become pigeonholed as a niche obsession for visionaries, while the “big boys” of leftwing economics get on with critiquing austerity.
Illustration by Joe Magee
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Information wants to be free. Illustration by Joe Magee
In fact, on the ground in places such as Greece, resistance to austerity and the creation of “networks you can’t default on” – as one activist put it to me – go hand in hand. Above all, postcapitalism as a concept is about new forms of human behaviour that conventional economics would hardly recognise as relevant.
So how do we visualise the transition ahead? The only coherent parallel we have is the replacement of feudalism by capitalism – and thanks to the work of epidemiologists, geneticists and data analysts, we know a lot more about that transition than we did 50 years ago when it was “owned” by social science. The first thing we have to recognise is: different modes of production are structured around different things. Feudalism was an economic system structured by customs and laws about “obligation”. Capitalism was structured by something purely economic: the market. We can predict, from this, that postcapitalism – whose precondition is abundance – will not simply be a modified form of a complex market society. But we can only begin to grasp at a positive vision of what it will be like.
I don’t mean this as a way to avoid the question: the general economic parameters of a postcapitalist society by, for example, the year 2075, can be outlined. But if such a society is structured around human liberation, not economics, unpredictable things will begin to shape it.
For example, the most obvious thing to Shakespeare, writing in 1600, was that the market had called forth new kinds of behaviour and morality. By analogy, the most obvious “economic” thing to the Shakespeare of 2075 will be the total upheaval in gender relationships, or sexuality, or health. Perhaps there will not even be any playwrights: perhaps the very nature of the media we use to tell stories will change – just as it changed in Elizabethan London when the first public theatres were built.
Think of the difference between, say, Horatio in Hamlet and a character such as Daniel Doyce in Dickens’s Little Dorrit. Both carry around with them a characteristic obsession of their age – Horatio is obsessed with humanist philosophy; Doyce is obsessed with patenting his invention. There can be no character like Doyce in Shakespeare; he would, at best, get a bit part as a working-class comic figure. Yet, by the time Dickens described Doyce, most of his readers knew somebody like him. Just as Shakespeare could not have imagined Doyce, so we too cannot imagine the kind of human beings society will produce once economics is no longer central to life. But we can see their prefigurative forms in the lives of young people all over the world breaking down 20th-century barriers around sexuality, work, creativity and the self.
The feudal model of agriculture collided, first, with environmental limits and then with a massive external shock – the Black Death. After that, there was a demographic shock: too few workers for the land, which raised their wages and made the old feudal obligation system impossible to enforce. The labour shortage also forced technological innovation. The new technologies that underpinned the rise of merchant capitalism were the ones that stimulated commerce (printing and accountancy), the creation of tradeable wealth (mining, the compass and fast ships) and productivity (mathematics and the scientific method).
Present throughout the whole process was something that looks incidental to the old system – money and credit – but which was actually destined to become the basis of the new system. In feudalism, many laws and customs were actually shaped around ignoring money; credit was, in high feudalism, seen as sinful. So when money and credit burst through the boundaries to create a market system, it felt like a revolution. Then, what gave the new system its energy was the discovery of a virtually unlimited source of free wealth in the Americas.
A combination of all these factors took a set of people who had been marginalised under feudalism – humanists, scientists, craftsmen, lawyers, radical preachers and bohemian playwrights such as Shakespeare – and put them at the head of a social transformation. At key moments, though tentatively at first, the state switched from hindering the change to promoting it.
Today, the thing that is corroding capitalism, barely rationalised by mainstream economics, is information. Most laws concerning information define the right of corporations to hoard it and the right of states to access it, irrespective of the human rights of citizens. The equivalent of the printing press and the scientific method is information technology and its spillover into all other technologies, from genetics to healthcare to agriculture to the movies, where it is quickly reducing costs.
David Graeber interview: ‘So many people spend their working lives doing jobs they think are unnecessary’
The modern equivalent of the long stagnation of late feudalism is the stalled take-off of the third industrial revolution, where instead of rapidly automating work out of existence, we are reduced to creating what David Graeber calls “bullshit jobs” on low pay. And many economies are stagnating.