2014 Will Bring More Social Collapse

kawilt

New Member
2014 Will Bring More Social Collapse
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, December 30, 2013
Url of this article:
2014 Will Bring More Social Collapse | Global Research


2014 is upon us. For a person who graduated from Georgia Tech in 1961, a year in which the class ring showed the same date right side up or upside down, the 21st century was a science fiction concept associated with Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film, “2001: A Space Odyssey.” To us George Orwell’s 1984 seemed so far in the future we would never get there. Now it is 30 years in the past.

Did we get there in Orwell’s sense? In terms of surveillance technology, we are far beyond Orwell’s imagination. In terms of the unaccountability of government, we exceptional and indispensable people now live a 1984 existence. In his alternative to the Queen’s Christmas speech, Edward Snowden made the point that a person born in the 21st century will never experience privacy. For new generations the word privacy will refer to something mythical, like a unicorn.
Many Americans might never notice or care. I remember when telephone calls were considered to be private. In the 1940s and 1950s the telephone company could not always provide private lines. There were “party lines” in which two or more customers shared the same telephone line. It was considered extremely rude and inappropriate to listen in on someone’s calls and to monopolize the line with long duration conversations.
The privacy of telephone conversations was also epitomized by telephone booths, which stood on street corners, in a variety of public places, and in “filling stations” where an attendant would pump gasoline into your car’s fuel tank, check the water in the radiator, the oil in the engine, the air in the tires, and clean the windshield. A dollar’s worth would purchase 3 gallons, and $5 would fill the tank.
Even in the 1980s and for part of the 1990s there were lines of telephones on airport waiting room walls, each separated from the other by sound absorbing panels. Whether the panels absorbed the sounds of the conversation or not, they conveyed the idea that calls were private.
The notion that telephone calls are private left Americans’ consciousness prior to the NSA listening in. If memory serves, it was sometime in the 1990s when I entered the men’s room of an airport and observed a row of men speaking on their cell phones in the midst of the tinkling sound of urine hitting water and noises of flushing toilets. The thought hit hard that privacy had lost its value.
I remember when I arrived at Merton College, Oxford, for the first term of 1964. I was advised never to telephone anyone whom I had not met, as it would be an affront to invade the privacy of a person to whom I was unknown. The telephone was reserved for friends and acquaintances, a civility that contrasts with American telemarketing.
The efficiency of the Royal Mail service protected the privacy of the telephone. What one did in those days in England was to write a letter requesting a meeting or an appointment. It was possible to send a letter via the Royal Mail to London in the morning and to receive a reply in the afternoon. Previously it had been possible to send a letter in the morning and to receive a morning reply, and to send another in the afternoon and receive an afternoon reply.

When one flies today, unless one stops up one’s ears with something, one hears one’s seat mate’s conversations prior to takeoff and immediately upon landing. Literally, everyone is talking nonstop. One wonders how the economy functioned at such a high level of incomes and success prior to cell phones. I can remember being able to travel both domestically and internationally on important business without having to telephone anyone. What has happened to America that no one can any longer go anywhere without constant talking?
If you sit at an airport gate awaiting a flight, you might think you are listening to a porn film. The overhead visuals are usually Fox “News” going on about the need for a new war, but the cell phone audio might be young women describing their latest sexual affair.
Americans, or many of them, are such exhibitionists that they do not mind being spied upon or recorded. It gives them importance. According to Wikipedia, Paris Hilton, a multimillionaire heiress, posted her sexual escapades online, and Facebook had to block users from posting nude photos of themselves. Sometime between my time and now people ceased to read 1984. They have no conception that a loss of privacy is a loss of self. They don’t understand that a loss of privacy means that they can be intimidated, blackmailed, framed, and viewed in the buff. Little wonder they submitted to porno-scanners.

The loss of privacy is a serious matter. The privacy of the family used to be paramount. Today it is routinely invaded by neighbors, police, Child Protective Services (sic), school administrators, and just about anyone else.
Consider this: A mother of six and nine year old kids sat in a lawn chair next to her house watching her kids ride scooters in the driveway and cul-de-sac on which they live.
Normally, this would be an idyllic picture. But not in America. A neighbor, who apparently did not see the watching mother, called the police to report that two young children were outside playing without adult supervision. Note that the next door neighbor, a woman, did not bother to go next door to speak with the mother of the children and express her concern that they children were not being monitored while they played.
The neighbor called the police. Mom sues police and neighbor after she is arrested for letting her kids play outside
“We’re here for you,” the cops told the mother, who was carried off in handcuffs and spent the next 18 hours in a cell in prison clothes.
The news report doesn’t say what happened to the children, whether the father appeared and insisted on custody of his offspring or whether the cops turned the kids over to Child Protective Services.
This shows you what Americans are really like. Neither the neighbor nor the police had a lick of sense. The only idea that they had was to punish someone. This is why America has the highest incarceration rate and the highest total number of prison inmates in the entire world. Washington can go on and on about “authoritarian” regimes in Russia and China, but both countries have far lower prison populations than “freedom and democracy” America.
I was unaware that laws now exist requiring the supervision of children at play. Children vary in their need for supervision. In my day supervision was up to the mother’s judgment. Older children were often tasked with supervising the younger. It was one way that children were taught responsibility and developed their own judgment.
When I was five years old, I walked to the neighborhood school by myself. Today my mother would be arrested for child endangerment.
In America punishment falls more heavily on the innocent, the young, and the poor than it does on the banksters who are living on the Federal Reserve’s subsidy known as Quantitative Easing and who have escaped criminal liability for the fraudulent financial instruments that they sold to the world. Single mothers, depressed by the lack of commitment of the fathers of their children, are locked away for using drugs to block out their depression. Their children are seized by a Gestapo institution, Child Protective Services, and end up in foster care where many are abused.

According to numerous press reports, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 year-old children who play cowboys and indians or cops and robbers during recess and raise a pointed finger while saying “bang-bang” are arrested and carried off to jail in handcuffs as threats to their classmates. In my day every male child and the females who were “Tom boys” would have been taken to jail. Playground fights were normal, but no police were ever called. Handcuffing a child would not have been tolerated.
From the earliest age, boys were taught never to hit a girl. In those days there were no reports of police beating up teenage girls and women or body slamming the elderly. To comprehend the degeneration of the American police into psychopaths and sociopaths, go online and observe the video of Lee Oswald in police custody in 1963. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDDuRSgzFk]Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas Police Department - YouTube[/ame]

Oswald was believed to have assassinated President John F. Kennedy and murdered a Dallas police officer only a few hours previously to the film. Yet he had not been beaten, his nose wasn’t broken, and his lips were not a bloody mess. Now go online and pick from the vast number of police brutality videos from our present time and observe the swollen and bleeding faces of teenage girls accused of sassing overbearing police officers.
In America today people with power are no longer accountable. This means citizens have become subjects, an indication of social collapse.
Copyright © 2013 Global Research
 
This piece is garbage. Roberts' has become a paranoid nutcase, IMO, with a dedicated following of the same.

As he said "In America today people with power are no longer accountable. This means citizens have become subjects, an indication of social collapse."

Doesn't seem to paranoid. :)
 
As he said "In America today people with power are no longer accountable. This means citizens have become subjects, an indication of social collapse."

Doesn't seem to paranoid. :)

Google some of his ideas and writings. Any *thinking* person will quickly come to the conclusion that he is as crazy as a rat in a shit house.
 
Every year there are more restriction on "We The People." More rules and regulation. Being told what we can and can't do. Politicians and corporations are creating and using loopholes so they don't have to be accountable to the same laws.

More social collapse in 2014? Not a bold prediction.

Move on sheeple. Nothing to see here. I said move on or we will beat you and put you in jail, for everyones safety of course.

:banghead: :explode:
 
As he said "In America today people with power are no longer accountable. This means citizens have become subjects, an indication of social collapse."

Doesn't seem to paranoid. :)

It's what we are facing more of each day in America. But who really cares, as long we can watch who will be the Next American Idol or whatever fake-ass reality TV shows the brain dead watch these days. As long as we make enough to keep us alive and working, paying taxes, having our social security funds raided, earning just enough to get loans to keep us in debt for the rest of our lives, tax our inheritance so our kids can't get ahead on the hard work we have done. As long as our guardians are keeping us safe against the eveils of PED;)

As for the author of this peice. I'm not sure who he is. I just know what I have seen first hand the past half century.
 
Roberts is bat shit crazy!

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts]Paul Craig Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

South Ossetia War

In an interview on August 27, 2008, on a broadcast of The Alex Jones Show, Roberts stated that he believed that influential neoconservatives affiliated with the George W. Bush administration were leading the United States into a nuclear confrontation with Russia over the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia. Roberts gave the conflict “almost total certainty if John McCain gets in office" and stated that the conflict would be in a timeframe of about two or three years.

September 11, 2001 attacks

Of the 9/11 Commission Report, he wrote in 2006, "One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations."[citation needed] (see Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report). He has reported findings by experts who conclude there is a large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. He says that this deficit remains unexplained.

Roberts comments on the "scientific impossibility" of the official explanation for the events on 9/11. On August 18, 2006, he wrote:

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void.[16]

In November 2012 Roberts referred to al Qaeda's role in the attack as "unsubstantiated.

The Osama bin Laden Myth - PaulCraigRoberts.org
Adolf Hitler claimed that communists burned down the Reichstag and that Polish troops had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. With 9/11 americans experienced Washington’s version of these grand lies. An omniscient bin Laden dying from terminal illnesses in distant Afghanistan defeated the American National Security State and drove his attack through the walls of the Pentagon itself, requiring for our defense a “war on terror” that destroyed US civil liberties and financially ruined the country in order to prevent the triumph of a man who died of natural causes in December 2001.
 
I cant argue the sanity/insanity of this fellow. But in the same way that "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then" Couldnt he be a smidgen correct on this one?
 
I cant argue the sanity/insanity of this fellow. But in the same way that "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then" Couldnt he be a smidgen correct on this one?

Well, he gave us an interesting history lesson on telephone etiquette in the 1950's. And we learned that the Royal Mail Service was apparently efficient back then too.

I don't know what the story about the mother being arrested for letting her kids play outside has to do with privacy, which was the issue he was raising in the lead-up to that point. Regardless, mothers just don't get arrested for letting their children ride scooters in the driveway. There is obviously more to this story.

The bit about police brutality being a recent phenomenon is laughable. He used a video of a visibly battered Lee Harvey Oswald to prove his point and claimed "he had not been beaten, his nose wasn’t broken, and his lips were not a bloody mess." I guess he didn't notice the black eye and facial swelling.

I'll grant him this point: privacy, or more precisely, the lack thereof, is a serious issue today but only because the technology is new. It doesn't render the constitution null and void; those rights still exist. I'm confident that as better counter-technology becomes available and the government's use of spying technology gets tested in courts, privacy will improve.

So, I maintain my original opinion - Roberts is a paranoid nutcase and this article is yet another example of that.

CBS
 
Roberts is bat shit crazy!

In an interview on August 27, 2008, on a broadcast of The Alex Jones Show,

You could have saved a lot of Copy and Past and just posted this info to discredit the man. Seriously, I'm a fairly open minded person to different topics, opinions and viewpoints but I listened to Alex Jones maybe twice and even I figured out real fast that he was a nut case. Or just a guy making money selling garbage to nut cases. :)
 
It's what we are facing more of each day in America. But who really cares, as long we can watch who will be the Next American Idol or whatever fake-ass reality TV shows the brain dead watch these days. As long as we make enough to keep us alive and working, paying taxes, having our social security funds raided, earning just enough to get loans to keep us in debt for the rest of our lives, tax our inheritance so our kids can't get ahead on the hard work we have done. As long as our guardians are keeping us safe against the eveils of PED;)

As for the author of this peice. I'm not sure who he is. I just know what I have seen first hand the past half century.

I Have no idea who Alex Jones is, and I've never heard Craig Roberts speak. But like you Gunrunner I know what I've experienced in a lot of years, and some of it up close. I read a lot of view points and opinions from diverse sources, some of it hits home and a lot doesn't .
 
This site is a joke - Global Research .

Once I see this, I do not waste my time.

That's very sad Dr. Scally. I've looked at this sight off and on for a good while, like many other sights, and there have been some very good articles. There are quite a few authors to far left for my liking, But It's never a waste of time to know what's going on in the minds and camps of others. Keep an open mind as they say, just sift thru the info. and channel it to the right places, wherever that may be.
 
That's very sad Dr. Scally. I've looked at this sight off and on for a good while, like many other sights, and there have been some very good articles. There are quite a few authors to far left for my liking, But It's never a waste of time to know what's going on in the minds and camps of others. Keep an open mind as they say, just sift thru the info. and channel it to the right places, wherever that may be.

Such as ?

For now, No Thanks.
 
Last edited:
That's very sad Dr. Scally. I've looked at this sight off and on for a good while, like many other sights, and there have been some very good articles. There are quite a few authors to far left for my liking, But It's never a waste of time to know what's going on in the minds and camps of others. Keep an open mind as they say, just sift thru the info. and channel it to the right places, wherever that may be.




Globalresearch.ca - RationalWiki
Globalresearch.ca (also under the domain name globalresearch.org) may best be described as a left-wing equivalent to WingNutDaily. It is the website of the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), founded by Michel Chossudovsky.

The website describes itself as an "independent research and media organization." Globalresearch.ca takes pride in being a reliable "alternative news" source serving as a major repository of a broad range of "news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media" (such as the New World Order). Its politico-economic stance is strongly anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, "internationalist but anti-globalization." Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.

While many of Globalresearch.ca's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bullshit throughout its pages.

Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch.ca mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order. Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11, vaccines, genetic modification, Zionism, HAARP, global warming, and David Kelly. Analyses of these issues tend follow the lines of the site's political biases.

Apparently, contributors to Globalresearch.ca consider information sourced from anyone who seems aligned to their ideology as reliable; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi, reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader. It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and crank elements from the left in general. And ironically, it has more in common with its writers' enemies and wingnut rivals than they would ever admit.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization]Centre for Research on Globalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
A 2005 article in The Jewish Tribune criticized GlobalResearch.ca as "rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial." B'nai Brith Canada had complained that there were comments on a forum that questioned how many Jews died in the Holocaust. Website editor Michel Chossudovsky responded that there was a disclaimer that the website was not to be held responsible for the views expressed in the forum, and he had the comment removed. He also said that he was of Jewish heritage and would be one of the last people to condone antisemitic views.[3] The same article also reported that B'nai Brith Canada wrote a letter to the University of Ottawa (Chossudovsky's former employer) asking for the university "to conduct its own investigation of this propagandist site.
 
Last edited:
Globalresearch.ca - RationalWiki
Globalresearch.ca (also under the domain name globalresearch.org) may best be described as a left-wing equivalent to WingNutDaily. It is the website of the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), founded by Michel Chossudovsky.

The website describes itself as an "independent research and media organization." Globalresearch.ca takes pride in being a reliable "alternative news" source serving as a major repository of a broad range of "news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media" (such as the New World Order). Its politico-economic stance is strongly anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, "internationalist but anti-globalization." Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.

While many of Globalresearch.ca's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bullshit throughout its pages.

Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch.ca mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order. Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11, vaccines, genetic modification, Zionism, HAARP, global warming, and David Kelly. Analyses of these issues tend follow the lines of the site's political biases.

Apparently, contributors to Globalresearch.ca consider information sourced from anyone who seems aligned to their ideology as reliable; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi, reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader. It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and crank elements from the left in general. And ironically, it has more in common with its writers' enemies and wingnut rivals than they would ever admit.


Centre for Research on Globalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 2005 article in The Jewish Tribune criticized GlobalResearch.ca as "rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial." B'nai Brith Canada had complained that there were comments on a forum that questioned how many Jews died in the Holocaust. Website editor Michel Chossudovsky responded that there was a disclaimer that the website was not to be held responsible for the views expressed in the forum, and he had the comment removed. He also said that he was of Jewish heritage and would be one of the last people to condone antisemitic views.[3] The same article also reported that B'nai Brith Canada wrote a letter to the University of Ottawa (Chossudovsky's former employer) asking for the university "to conduct its own investigation of this propagandist site.

Having a problem in researching just who and what "is" RationalWiki". And who the hell is Richard Dawkins. And yes the site does lean left, which is not my cup of tea, like I said. But it is also right on in a number of articles. I don't know how informed you are, but if you mention the word Jew in anyway that can be construed as negative, weather true or not, you are labeled an anti-Semitic, which can be a career death sentence. Just ask the Senate or Congress. I'm not going to get into a heated discussion of all the sites that slant the "news" one way or the other (NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. etc.) which by the way, I don't listen to because I don't watch T.V.. We all can read for ourselves and have enough sense (God willing) to research from where and who the information is coming from, and why? That goes for the left and the right. Who do you think is running this world? And who do you think the global elite are if not Governments, corporations, banks. The "new world order" was mentioned by Bush by the way.. Look up Bill Clintons mentor Carroll Quiqley. And there are certainly questions about some vaccines, environmental problems, genetic modifications. Read and research your information, go back and see where you got that article you posted, there's a lot of information about "RationalWiki" also. Sometimes we tend to throw out the baby with the bath water.
 
Last edited:
Having a problem in researching just who and what "is" RationalWiki". And who the hell is Richard Dawkins. And yes the site does lean left, which is not my cup of tea, like I said. But it is also right on in a number of articles. I don't know how informed you are, but if you mention the word Jew in anyway that can be construed as negative, weather true or not, you are labeled an anti-Semitic, which can be a career death sentence. Just ask the Senate or Congress. I'm not going to get into a heated discussion of all the sites that slant the "news" one way or the other (NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. etc.) which by the way, I don't listen to because I don't watch T.V.. We all can read for ourselves and have enough sense (God willing) to research from where and who the information is coming from, and why? That goes for the left and the right. Who do you think is running this world? And who do you think the global elite are if not Governments, corporations, banks. The "new world order" was mentioned by Bush by the way.. Look up Bill Clintons mentor Carroll Quiqley. And there are certainly questions about some vaccines, environmental problems, genetic modifications. Read and research your information, go back and see where you got that article you posted, there's a lot of information about "RationalWiki" also. Sometimes we tend to throw out the baby with the bath water.

No offence, but if you don't know who Richard Dawkins is, you would be better served by learning who these people are and what they believe. Knowing that ahead of time would help you to better evaluate these articles. Just my .02.

Again, no offence intended.
 
Thanks CBS....No offense taken, none at all. When I saw his name connected to the web site I did take a quick look. And when I get some time I will do more reading about him and rationalwiki. I may read more of the articles by this web, and I may or may not agree with them, but just because it's on their site, I won't dismiss it out of hand. Although at first glance, it did look like a site that was not writing "news" and events, but more of a site to attack the messengers of uncomfortable and unacceptable (to them) viewpoints.
Thanks for the alternative views.
 
Back
Top