Margaret Thatcher Volume Two: The Iron Lady
AvJohn Campbell pic.twitter.com/nWeRn5wbhP
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) March 26, 2020
THE CLAIRVOYANT RULING CLASS [“SCENARIOS FOR THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY & INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT” 2010 REPORT]
March 25, 2020
Wrong Kind of Green
“The ruling class exists, it’s not a conspiracy theory. They operate as a class, too. They share the same values, the same sensibility and in Europe and North America they are white. They act in accordance with their interests, which are very largely identical. The failure to understand this is the single greatest problem and defect in left discourse today.”
— John Steppling, Author, Playwright
“This report is crucial reading for anyone interested in creatively considering the multiple, divergent ways in which our world could evolve.”
— Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation
Storytelling. Dystopian scenarios. Not Huxley, Orwell, Bradbury or Brunner.
Scenario planning for corporate strategy was pioneered by Royal Dutch Shell in the 1970s. [Further reading on scenario planning: The Art of the Long View]The following excerpts are highlights from the May 2010 “Scenarios for the Future of Technology & International Development” report produced by The Rockefeller Foundation & Global Business Network. Not just the more known “Lock Step” scenario, but all four scenarios.
Following “Event 201” (Oct 18, 2019), we must concede that the ruling class has been gifted with phenomenal and prophetic intuitions and insights. (They truly are the chosen ones.) Thus it is worthwhile, even mandatory, to study their scenario exercises and simulations.
“We believe that scenario planning has great potential for use in philanthropy to identify unique interventions… scenario planning allows us to achieve impact more effectively.” [p 4]
“The results of our first scenario planning exercise demonstrate a provocative and engaging exploration of the role of technology and the future of globalization.” [p 4]
“This report is crucial reading for anyone interested in creatively considering the multiple, divergent ways in which our world could evolve.” [p 4]
“*I offer a special thanks to Peter Schwartz, Andrew Blau, and the entire team at Global Business Network, who have helped guide us through this stimulating and energizing process.” [*Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation] [p 4]
“*I hope this publication makes clear exactly why my colleagues and I are so excited about the promise of using scenario planning to develop robust strategies.” [*Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation][p 5]
Peter Schwartz is an American futurist, innovator and co-founder of the Global Business Network (GBN), a corporate strategy firm, specializing in future-think & scenario planning. Founded in 1987, GBN was “a membership organization comprising executives from many of the world’s leading companies alongside individual members from business, science, the arts, and academia.” The proprietary list of GBN’s corporate members included “more than 100 of the world’s leading companies, drawn from virtually every industry and continent.” Members paid an annual subscription fee of $35,000. [Source] Following an acquisition by Monitor in 2000, GBN then specialized in scenario-based consulting and training. GBN ceased to be active following the acquisition of the Monitor Group by Deloitte in 2013.
As of Oct. 2011, Schwartz has served as Senior Vice President Strategic Planning for Salesforce. [Bio]
Video. Peter Schwartz, Salesforce “welcomes Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum  Executive Chairman and Founder, into the Salesforce LIVE Studio for a chat about the future of global governance.”  
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) March 26, 2020
Could you stomach it?
Sat, Sep 12, 1998, 01:00
I naturally expected to be involved in challenging intellectual activities and mingling with the political glitterati. Chowing down stuffed pig’s stomach couldn’t possibly fit into this glamorous scenario
Will (Matt Damon): “Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just got finished readin’ some Marxian historian — Pete Garrison probably. You’re gonna be convinced of that ’til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you’re gonna be talkin’ about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s gonna last until next year — you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-Revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization… Wood drastically — Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.’ got that from Vickers, ‘Work in Essex County,’ page 98, right? Yeah, I read tYouhat too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you…is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend…you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don’t do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f—-n’ education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.”
Howard Zinn (August 24, 1922 – January 27, 2010) was an American historian, playwright, and socialist thinker. He was chair of the history and social sciences department at Spelman College, and a political science professor at Boston University. Zinn wrote over 20 books, including his best-selling and influential A People’s History of the United States. In 2007, he published a version of it for younger readers, A Young People’s History of the United States.
Zinn described himself as “something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist.” He wrote extensively about the Civil Rights Movement and anti-war movement, and labor history of the United States. His memoir, You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train (Beacon Press, 2002), was also the title of a 2004 documentary about Zinn’s life and work. Zinn died of a heart attack in 2010, at age 87.
After two years as a post-doctoral fellow in Williamsburg, Virginia, and a year teaching at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Vickers was appointed to a permanent position at Memorial University in 1984. The family flourished in Newfoundland, but in early 1999 Vickers was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The high reputation of the doctors at the University of California, Dan Diego was a factor in Vickers accepting an offer to join the UCSD History Department later that year.
By this time Vickers was well known to historians throughout the States. His award-winning 1994 book Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex Country, Massachusetts, 1630-1830, had delineated through painstaking analysis of archival records of entire communities the extent to which the development of New England had depended on labor that was largely unfree—with workers held in check not by slavery but by onerous burdens of debt. It had been hailed by reviewers as “one of the best works yet written on the early American economy” and as a book that explained “the deepest inner workings of New England society.”
|Chuckie: …How ya like me now?!|
had delineated through painstaking analysis of archival records of entire communities the extent to which the development of New England had depended on labor that was largely unfree—with workers held in check not by slavery but by onerous burdens of debt
Follow the debt in the Bailouts!
A WARNING FROM
By Peter Singer and August Cole
You spend your whole career on Capitol Hill hoping for an office with a window.
Then when you finally get it, all you want to do is look away.
They set up our emergency offsite for essential Senate staff in vacant offices once belonging to
one of the contractors that lobbied us before they went belly-up last year. The offices are in a
high-rise in Rosslyn, with a literal million-dollar view; looking across the Potomac River, you can
see past the National Mall and the monuments all the way into downtown DC.
And it just breaks your heart.
The rainbow of colors in the window paints how everything went so wrong, so fast. The
water in the Potomac still has that red tint from when the treatment plants upstream were
hacked, their automated systems tricked into flushing out the wrong mix of chemicals.
By comparison, the water in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has a purple glint to it.
They’ve pumped out the floodwaters that covered Washington’s low-lying areas after the
region’s reservoirs were hit in a cascade of sensor hacks. But the surge left behind an oily
sludge that will linger for who knows how long. That’s what you get from deciding in the
18th century to put your capital city in low-lying swampland and then in the 21st century
wiring up all its infrastructure to an insecure network. All around the Mall you can see the
black smudges of the delivery drones and air taxis that were remotely hijacked to crash into
crowds of innocents like fiery meteors. And in the open spaces and parks beyond, tiny dots
of bright colors smear together like some kind of tragic pointillist painting. These are the
camping tents and makeshift shelters of the refugees who fled the toxic railroad accident
caused by the control system failure in Baltimore. FEMA says it’s safe to go back, now that
the chemical cloud has dissipated. But with all the churn and disinfo on social media, no one
knows who or what to trust. Last night, the orange of their campfires was like a vigil of the
obstinate, waiting for everything to just return to the way it was.
But it won’t.
Cyberspace Solarium Commission
iA knock on the door shakes me out of it. It’s the legislative director, checking back in. She’s
anxious because the boss promised that we’d get a draft of the bill out tonight to all the
other committees that touch on cybersecurity. No cars are online and nobody wants to risk
the Metro after what happened on the Blue Line, though, so it’ll mean hours of walking from
office to office. At least the irony of backpacking around paper printouts of new cybersecu-
rity laws will be lost on no one.
I tell her that I’ll get it done and turn back to wordsmithing the preamble. I mostly mined the
language from old legislation that someone just like me wrote after the 9/11 attacks. I know
some online troll or talking head on the news will end up calling it lazy, but it’s the closest
anyone can think of as a parallel. Of course, with the servers down, our poor intern had to
run down a paper copy from the Library of Congress.
Whereas, for as long as the United States has been the nation that invented and then
became dependent on the Internet, it has faced online threats; and
Whereas, as these threats grew in scale and frequency, we grew too accustomed to digital
interference in our society, economy, and even elections; and
Whereas, AI and automation changed these networks from use not just for communications
but to connect and operate the “things” that run our physical world; and
Whereas, a new type of vulnerability thus emerged, where software could be not just a
means of theft, but a weapon of disruption and even physical destruction; and
Whereas, our government and industry failed to keep pace with this change of technology
and threat, being ill-organized and ill-prepared; and
Whereas, these vulnerabilities have just been exploited in extraordinary acts of treacherous
violence that caused massive loss of life and effectively held the nation hostage; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose a threat to the national security and very way of life of
the United States;
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, that the government of the United States must… 1
What can we really do? No matter what legislation we pass now, after everything that’s
happened, we’re too late.
4.7 Congress should pass a national data security and privacy protection law establishing and
standardizing requirements for the collection, retention, and sharing of user data.
The creation, storage, transmission, and analysis of
data are core components of the modern economy.
Seven of the United States’ 15 most profitable firms are
software or telecommunications companies, and the
technology industry as a whole represents more than
10 percent of overall economic output. 286 The private
information and behavior of individual consumers and
businesses are fueling this industry and powering a new
wave of data-centric commerce. This concentration
and monetization of Americans’ personal and business
data is creating new industries and value—but also new
opportunities for the unintentional mishandling or the
malicious misuse of that data. The loss or exposure of
sensitive information is becoming more common and
more severe, and each instance provides malign actors
with additional opportunities for exploitation, espio-
nage, or attack.
Benefits and Challenges of End-to-End Encryption
There is broad consensus across industry and the government on the importance of strong encryption. Advanced encryption of
data in motion (i.e., as it is being transmitted) and at rest (i.e., as it is stored) should be a cornerstone of responsible data security.
This includes, for example, using mature, well-researched protocols such as Transport Layer Security (TLS) to shield email, web
browsing, and other important internet traffic from interception or modification by malicious actors. Strong encryption helps
prevent or limit data breaches, and when data is breached it mitigates the harm to businesses, the government, and individuals.
One particular implementation of encryption, known as “end-to-end,” is the subject of considerable debate. End-to-end
encryption enables the transmission of data in such a way that only the communicating parties have the ability to access the
data being secured—intermediaries, such as the company that provides the communication system, do not. Broad implemen-
tation of this form of encryption could improve the systemic data security of the overall cyber ecosystem, though it may also
conceal the activities of criminals and shield them from government action. The debate over balancing these concerns has
run for decades, but recently it has been energized by the rapid adoption of end-to-end encrypted communications. Between
WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, and iMessage, numerous companies around the world are now offering end-to-end encrypted
messaging services to more than 100 million Americans and 1.5 billion global citizens. 289
One reason the debate over end-to-end encryption has been so difficult is that its benefits and costs are so hard to compare.
As end-to-end encryption is more comprehensively adopted, and beyond the domestic data security benefit described above,
it helps protect democratic values around the globe by making unfettered surveillance more difficult in certain repressive
nations where such values are under siege. The United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has
observed that end-to-end encryption is becoming an important tool for pushing back against a rising tide of increasingly lethal
high-tech illiberalism and for protecting global freedom of expression. 290 In this way, end-to-end encryption is currently making
repression more difficult and less effective, imposing persistent costs on authoritarian governments.
This form of encryption is a double-edged sword, however, as it also challenges democratically authorized and judicially circum-
scribed access to data that law enforcement agencies require for public safety and security. End-to-end encryption is currently
impeding the government’s ability to obtain lawful access to electronic evidence in investigations ranging from cyber intrusions
and attacks to crimes threatening serious harms, like child exploitation, gang violence and drug trafficking, and domestic and
international terrorism. For example, attributing responsibility for malicious cyber activity to particular actors—a necessary precur-
sor to many law enforcement responses—can be difficult and slow without access to relevant encrypted data content.
The quest for solutions to these issues should be informed by the core values that unite citizens of free and open societies. All
government access to data should be, as it is in the United States, tightly circumscribed by protections like those in our Fourth
Amendment. The United States requires infrastructure that enables citizens to confidently and securely conduct their affairs
without unwarranted infringement of their essential liberties and that incorporates methods to protect them from harm. While
the Commission does not express a position on the growing adoption of end-to-end encryption, the Commission does assert
that both the government and the private sector should look to the future with a dual mandate on which all agree: strong
encryption can and must underpin the essential functions of a free, open, interoperable, secure, and resilient global internet,
but appropriately authorized and publicly accountable government officials must also be able to pursue criminal elements
exploiting the internet to prey upon innocent persons.
This debate is difficult, but the U.S. government should rely on these principles to engage with the trade-offs of end-to-end
encryption honestly—while recognizing that market forces and other countries (democratic and not) are rapidly shaping the
5.3 Congress should direct the executive branch to strengthen a public-private, integrated cyber
center within CISA in support of the critical infrastructure security and resilience mission and to
conduct a one-year, comprehensive systems analysis review of federal cyber and cybersecurity
centers, including plans to develop and improve integration.
Any one see and irony developing here, Corporate and Government Power suppressing Individual rights to Privacy?
Roosevelt called it this.
Project Solarium was an American national-level exercise in strategy and foreign policy design convened by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the summer of 1953. It was intended to produce consensus among senior officials in the national security community on the most effective strategy for responding to Soviet expansionism in the wake of the early Cold War. The exercise was the product of a series of conversations between President Eisenhower and senior cabinet-level officials, including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and George F. Kennan, in the Solarium room on the top floor of the White House. Through these conversations, Eisenhower realized that strategic guidance set forth in NSC 68 under the Truman administration was insufficient to address the breadth of issues with which his administration was presented, and that his cabinet was badly divided on the correct course of action to deal with the Soviet Union. He found that internal political posturing threatened to undermine policy planning, and thus U.S. national security.
Project Solarium’s findings produced NSC 162/2, a national strategy directive commonly assessed to have guided U.S. strategy from its publication to the end of the Cold War.
Covid19 wheres the beef?