Welcome to the Machine

Welcome to the Machine

Paul Rosenberg

Editor, A Free Man's Take

I’ve been flying around to conferences and warning folks about electronic surveillance for years. At first, people were generally willing to believe me (I presented them with evidence, after all), but more than a few thought I was probably exaggerating. Then came Edward Snowden, and a few more people believed that the threat was real. But Snowden’s revelations were only part of the story, and not really the most important part.

The electronic surveillance machine is far larger than Snowden’s slides portrayed, including not just government abuses, but massive commercial abuses. And the structure of this vile machine is being completed now.

But before I go through the details, I’d like you to remember, if you can, a song called Wlcome to the Machine,” by Pink Floyd. Here are two sections of the lyrics that encapsulate the essence of the new surveillance machine:

Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
Where have you been?
It’s all right; we know where you’ve been…

Welcome my son
Welcome to the machine
What did you dream?
It’s all right; we told you what to dream

I’m not a huge Pink Floyd fan, but they sure nailed this one. There are two primary functions of this machine: full-life surveillance (“We know where you’ve been”) and persistent, deep manipulation (“We told you what to dream”).

I’m here to tell you that this has already been built and that most Westerners are sitting right in the middle of it.

Yes, I know this is something many people don’t want to hear. Far too many are like the ones who complained to the prophet Isaiah, telling him, “Speak unto us smooth things.” But some things are not smooth… and they’re true anyway.

Why Facebook MUST Sell You

Facebook—and all the other big, free services—are selling your minds, thoughts, and lives just like a butcher sells meat. And please understand: They have no choice. Not if they want to keep their quarterly numbers positive.

Think about this: Facebook users pay the company nothing, as in not a single penny. So if you’re a Facebook user, you are not its customer. Someone pays Facebook; those revenues come from somewhere, but they don’t come from you.

So if you’re not the company and you’re not the customer, what are you?

Yep, that’s right—you’re the product. Facebook, Google, and their ilk are selling you to their customers.

And please understand that the free model gives these companies no choice at all. Their users won’t pay, and they have to make money somehow.

“That’s okay; a few ads won’t kill me.”

Facebook’s gross revenue is running at over $1 billion per month. Google’s is approaching $4 billion per month. Do you really think they get all that money by selling lame ads for backpacks and skis? These companies are selling you in far more sophisticated ways than that.

Google’s boss, back in 2009, bragged that, “We know where you’ll be Tuesday morning,” and you can be very, very sure that they’ve been selling such information for the past five years. You can further be sure that they’re a lot better at it now.

Did you know that Facebook—three years ago—ran an experiment on 689,000 of its users, to see if it could alter their moods by altering the headlines they saw? And did you know that the experiment was a success?

So three years ago, Facebook found out that it could alter people’s moods, making them happier or sadder as it wished. And Facebook found something else: those users would transfer those moods to their friends in a cascade effect.

Do you really think Facebook hasn’t done anything with that information in the meanwhile? Do you really think Google hasn’t?

Making things worse, both of these outfits are in bed with the feds. Facebook’s infamous experiment was partly financed by the US Army, and Google is deeply intermingled with the US State Department (as well as other agencies). If you’re curious about this, read Julian Assange’s new book on the subject.

You Want Proof?

Think about being in Google’s position. Auctioning off little ads would never bring in billions per month; you’d have to find better ways of supercharging your ad revenue. So what would you do?

First, you’d tell your advertisers you could get ads to people the moment they expressed the first interest in their product. That’s a good idea, but that moment came, was monetized, and went more than 10 years ago. You need new ideas to juice your quarterlies.

So what do you do?

The answer is easy: You learn how to implant desires in your users. And if you want to do it well, you do it in ways that are specific to each individual. After all, what works to manipulate me may be completely ineffective for you.

That’s where we are now. And when I say that these companies fulfill Pink Floyd’s lyric of “We told you what to dream,” I don’t mean that they tried to make everyone dream the same thing; I mean that they got your friend to dream things that will squeeze money out of her life… and that they’ll make you dream different things, things designed to squeeze money out of your life.

Here's how to prove this: Take your laptop to a friend’s house. Both of you log in to YouTube, or Facebook, or Google. You’ll both see different screens. And that means that you’re already getting customized environments.

So if you were Facebook or Google, why would you give people customized environments? Shall we really pretend that Google, Facebook, and the others are doing this as a public service?

Of course not; the purpose of everything they do is to generate more revenue. In other words, they’re manipulating you for their profit. That’s the only way they can make money from you.

I’ll leave you to decide where this is likely to go.

If you want to do something about it, here’s Cryptohippie’s Guide to Online Privacy. The guide is free; the service is not.

Source: Casey Research

Follow us on Twitter: @blacklioncm

A Few Radical Ideas About Wealth

By Doug Casey, Chairman, Casey Research 

Friday, September 9, 2011

Now that more than 45 million Americans receive food stamps … and over half receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, it's clear things have gone horribly wrong in this country's attitude toward wealth.

I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about wealth. Over the years, I've developed some radical ideas on wealth. You may find them valuable.

Mind you, these ideas weren't radical 200 years ago… But they are considered radical now. That's why it's important to keep them in mind. In the financial crisis I see coming, the right ideas might mean your life.

First, recognize that wealth is a high moral good. 

Don't feel guilty about having it or about wanting more.

If you've already accumulated and deployed enough capital to allow you to jump off the golden treadmill, congratulations: chances are high that you are an exceptional human being. I say that because the moral value of being wealthy is underrated. I don't mean that in a Calvinistic way, in that Calvin believed Yahweh rewarded the righteous by making them rich. But I do believe that productive people – people who work hard to provide goods and services for others – definitely tend to be wealthier than unproductive people. They deserve to be.

And since we don't live in a malevolent universe, people generally get what they deserve. So, yes, wealth is definitely one indicator of moral excellence.

Sure, some wealthy people got that way by lying, cheating, and stealing. But they're exceptions. It's much easier to become wealthy if (in addition to having virtues like diligence, competence, and judgment) you are known to be truthful and honest. Those who automatically think ill of the rich are, at best, paranoid fools. Put it this way: Rich people may lack some virtues, but they definitely have at least a few that made them rich. Poor people, on the other hand, will certainly lack some virtues, and they'll definitely have some vices that kept them poor.

I'm a fan of some aspects of Gurdjieff, the late-19th to mid-20th century Russian mystic, who was also a merchant adventurer at some points in his colorful life. He said that anyone who successfully employed at least 20 other people must be considered at least partially enlightened and a type of guru. That viewpoint always resonated with me. Self-made wealthy people may not be saints or mystics or intellectuals or even especially thoughtful or moral. But they've proven they're better than the average bear in at least one important way: they can create and conserve wealth. And they've thereby eased everyone's path to further accomplishments.

Second, figure out your purpose in having money. 

Sure, money makes life easier. And it's nice how it enables you to assist people you like with material things. But I strongly suggest that you not take too short a view on this matter.

Accelerating advances in medical science are not only lengthening human life expectancy, but new developments now in the works have the potential to vastly improve your capability and health, as well.

Is it possible to live to age 200, with all the wealth, knowledge, and wisdom that implies, while maintaining the body of a 30-year-old? Not yet. But the prospect is on the horizon. It will, however, be available only to those who can afford it.

Ray Kurzweil makes a case that the Singularity is near, and I buy his reasoning. It would be tragic indeed if anyone frittered away his wealth, thinking he wouldn't live very long, and then succumbed to a self-fulfilling prophecy, not because of medical difficulties, but because of financial difficulties.

Third, don't give your money to charity. 

Entirely apart from showing a lack of both imagination and foresight, it's a complete waste of good money, pure and simple. Contrary to popular opinion, it rarely does any good. It often does great harm. Here's an interview I gave on this subject.

The whole concept of charitable giving is corrupt and desperately in need of a complete rethinking.

Fourth, if you do care about posterity (who knows, you might be reincarnated), and on the chance you don't make it to the Singularity,carefully consider how to dispose of your estate. 

For one thing, there's no reason to automatically leave anything to your children – unless they deserve it. The notion that someone should inherit just because he shares your genes is flawed and thoughtless. The example of Marcus Aurelius leaving the Roman Empire to his worthless son, Commodus, should be instructive. Wealth should be left to someone who is most capable of increasing it – at least if you want to benefit humanity in general. And, yes, I'm quite aware that humanity in general may deserve absolutely nothing.

At a minimum, consider that memes are far more important than genes. It's wiser, therefore, to leave your wealth only to individuals (related to you or not) who will carry forth values you hold dear and are worthy of the wealth. If nothing else, make sure you disinherit the government.

Also consider that dividing wealth dissipates it and generally makes it less useful. If you have $1 million, you could leave $1,000 to each of 1,000 people. But apart from the fact that it's unlikely anyone knows 1,000 worthy people, that much money is only enough for a modest vacation or a few baubles.

The larger the pool of capital, the more ways it can be used, the more creative power it has, and the more likely it will be conserved and used creatively. I favor the Roman system, in which one could adopt children of any age – but always after you could see what their character was. You might want to do that if your own kids don't make the grade.

The bottom line is, if you want serious money, you have to get serious about money. You need to understand these fundamentals and never forget them. Don't let all the garbage reported in the financial media you read, see or hear confuse you about what money really is. Don't consume more than you make: save! Don't spend: invest!

Again, these are radical ideas in today's America, where bailouts and handouts are desired and expected. But these are timeless rules of wealth… and they always will be.

Regards,

Doug Casey

Source: Daily Wealth