TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy

TRANSCRIPT [Text emphasis added] Professor Noam Chomsky:  You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy. I started by saying that one of the relations between capitalism and democracy is contradiction. You can't have capitalist democracy, and the people who really sort of believe in markets (or at least pretend to understand them) - so if you read Milton Friedman and other philosophers of so-called libertarianism - they don't call for democracy they call for what they call 'freedom.' There is a very constrictive concept of freedom. It's not the freedom of a working person to control their work, their lives, and so on; it's their freedom to submit themselves to control by a higher authority. That's called 'freedom', but not 'democracy'. They don't like democracy and they're right; capitalism and democracy really are inconsistent. Actually, what's called libertarianism in the United States, is about as an extreme example of anti-libertarianism that you can imagine. They're in favour of private tyranny – the worst kind of tyranny. Tyranny by private, unaccountable, concentrations of wealth. When they say, “Well, we don't want government interference in the market”, they mean that. They mean - maybe they don't understand it, but if you think it through, it's pretty obvious – the kind of interference in the market they want blocked is the kind that would permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of totally unaccountable private tyrannies, which is what corporations are. It's worth bearing in mind how radically opposed this is to classical liberalism. They like to invoke, say, Adam Smith. But if you read Adam Smith, he said the opposite. He's famous for not, you know, the claim is that he was opposed to regulation – government regulation – interference in markets. That's not true. He was in favour of regulation, as he put it, when it benefits the working man. He was against interference when it benefited the masters. That's traditional classical liberalism. This, what's called 'libertarian' in the United States, which likes to invoke the history that you’ve concocted, is radically opposed to basic classical libertarian principles and it's kind of astonishing to me that a lot of young people - say, college students - are attracted by this kind of thing. I mean, you can, after all, read the classical text. So take, say, Adam Smith. Adam Smith, at the time – he's the icon, you know. He was considered to be a dangerous radical at the time, because he was pretty anti-capitalist in this pre-capitalist era that he was opposed to, and he condemned what he called the 'vile maxim of the masters of mankind': all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else. That's an abomination. Take the phrase 'invisible hand' – everybody's learnt that in high school or college – Adam Smith actually did use the term, rarely. But take a look how he used it. In Wealth of Nations, his major work, it's used once. And if you look at the context, it's an argument against what is now call neo-liberal globalisation and what he argued is this (in terms of England, of course): he said, suppose in England that the merchants and manufacturers invested abroad & imported from abroad; he said, well that would be profitable for them, but it would be harmful to the people of England. However, they will have enough of a commitment to their own country, to England (it's called a 'home bias', in the literature); they'll have enough of a 'home bias' so that, as if by an invisible hand, they'll keep to the less profitable actions and England will be saved from the ravages of what we call neo-liberal globalisation. That's the one use of the term in Wealth of Nations. In his other major work, Moral Sentiments, the term is also used once, and the context is this - remember, England is basically an agricultural country then - he says: suppose a landlord accumulates an enormous amount of land everyone else has to work for.  He says:  well, it won't turn out too badly, and the reason is that the landlord will be motivated by his natural sympathy for other people.  So he will make sure that the necessities of life and the goods available will be distributed equitably to the people on his land, and it will end up with a relatively equal and just distribution of wealth, “as if by an invisible hand”. That's his other use of the term. Just compare that with what you're taught in school, or what you read in the newspapers. And it goes across the board. Like, everybody probably has read the first paragraphs of Wealth of Nations, which talks about how wonderful it is that the butcher pursues his interests, and the baker pursues his interests, and we're all happy, so we should be in favour of a division of labour. Everybody's read that. How many people have read a couple of hundred pages into Wealth of Nations, where he has a bitter attack on division of labour for interesting reasons, and reasons that were standard in the Enlightenment in which he lived (very different from ours)? He says if you pursue division of labour, people will be directed to actions in which they'll complete the same mechanical actions over and over. They'll be de-skilled and that's the goal of management for over over 100 years: de-skill the workforce. He says that's what will happen if you pursue division of labour. He goes on to say, this will turn people into creatures as stupid and as ignorant as a human being can possibly be and, therefore, in any civilised society, the government will have to intervene to prevent any development like this. That's Adam Smith's view of division of labour. Next step – now, here's a research project.  Take the standard edition (scholarly edition) of Wealth of Nations produced by the University of Chicago Press – naturally, on the bicentennial – with a scholarly apparatus (you know, footnotes and everything else) – and take a look at the Index.  There's a scholarly index. Look up 'division of labour'. This part of the book is not referenced. You can't find it, unless you decided to read 700 pages; then you can find it. But that's his concept of the division of labour, and it continues like this – and I'm not extolling, you know, a lot of things that you can harshly criticise, like his advice to the colonies – but, nevertheless, it's a very different picture from what's called 'libertarianism' or 'capitalism' today. Capitalist democracy would self destruct - capitalism would self destruct – and that's why it hasn't been instituted. The masters understand that they cannot survive a capitalist economy – a laissez fair economy. Take a look at the history; it's pretty interesting. So the United States, when it was independent – so it could reject the rules of sound economics and develop. There were other countries that were poised for an industrial revolution and were given the same advice. Like Egypt and India. In fact, India already was the commercial and industrial centre of the world, moreso than England . Egypt was poised for an industrial revolution and it's not impossible that it might have developed as a rich, agrarian society. It had cotton – produced cotton. As I said, that's the main product (like oil today), and it didn't need slaves. It had peasants. It had a developmental government aimed that the industrial development. It could have taken off – just as India could have taken off. But they were not free to reject sound economics because they were ruled by British force. So they were forced to accept sound economics, and Egypt became Egypt, and the United States became the United States. India went through a century of de-development before it finally got independent. That's what happens when you apply laissez fair principles. In fact, that's essentially how the Third World and the First World divided. Take a look at the countries that developed. They are the countries who violated the principles. England, the United States, Germany, France, Netherlands. One country of the south. One country developed: Japan. The one country that wasn't colonised and was able to pursue the same course that the rich countries developed. I mentioned that in mid Nineteenth Century – 1846 - Britain was so far ahead of the rest of the world in industrial development that they did decide that laissez faire would be possible, so that moved to what's called a 'free trade era'. First of all, they imposed sharp constraints on it. They've cut off the Empire. India. India was not allowed. Others could not invest in India, their main possession; and India was not allowed to develop. And there were other restrictions. Pretty soon, British capitalists called the game off because they couldn't compete. By the 1920s, they couldn't compete with Japanese production so they literally closed off the Empire to Japanese exports. It's part of the background for the Pacific War of the 1940s. The United States did the same with a smaller empire in the Philippines. The Dutch did the same with Indonesia. All the imperial systems decided: no more free trade, we can't compete. So they closed off the empire and Japan had no markets, no resources, and they went to war. That's a large part of the background. The United States, in 1945, did move towards laissez fair. In fact it was an important conference (the united states was basically running the world at that point, for obvious reasons) – there was a hemispheric conference called by Washington in February 1945 in Mexico, where the western hemisphere was compelled to adopt an economic charter for the Americas, which banned any interference with market principles. The goal was, in the State Department reports, to oppose the new nationalism in Latin America, which is based on the idea that the people of a country should benefit from the country's resources. That's 'evil', we can't allow that; it's Western and US investors who have to benefit from the resources. So that was the economic charter of the Americas imposed on the countries of the southern hemisphere, with one exception – here. The United States did not follow those policies. Quite the contrary. As I mentioned, there was a massive development of a state based economy with an industrial policy – the kind that created the modern high-tech economy. You can see it right across the river. Take look at MIT, one of the main centres of this **** If you had a look at MIT in the 1950s (when I got there) it was surrounded by electronics-based high-tech firms, like Raytheon and iTech, and huge IT firms. Take a look at MIT today, take a look at the buildings, it's Novartis, Pfizer and so on. The reason's completely obvious: during the 50s and 60s, the cutting edge of the economy was electronics based, so the way to get the public to pay for it was to scream 'Russians!' and to get them to pay higher taxes for the Pentagon, and then the Pentagon would fund the research and development – like my own salary, for example (I shouldn't complain too much) – and, of course, private industry was around there like vultures to pick up the products and the research and to market. Well, since the 70s, the cutting edge of the economy has been moving towards be biology based, so funding – government funding – has shifted. Pentagon funding is declining. Funding from the NIH and other so-called health related government institutions is increasing, and the private corporations understand that. So, now, Novartis, genetic engineering firms and so on, are hanging around trying to pick up the research that you're paying for, so that they can market it and make profits. It's just transparent. It's in front of our eyes, and it takes a very effective educational system to prevent people from seeing it. It's virtually transparent. That's the way this really exists in capitalist democracy, folks. A final word about democracy then, before I have to leave. There's a major attack on democracy all the way through. But by now it's reached the point which is pretty remarkable. Take a look at one of the main topics in the mainstream political science (and we're not talking about radicals). Mainstream political science is comparing public attitudes with public policy. It's a fairly straight-forward – it's hard work but a straight-forward effort. We have the public policy so you can see it. There's extensive polling. Quite reliable generally and consistent in its results. It gives you a good sense of what public attitudes are, and the results of this are published in the major books and articles - with references, if you like. The results are very straight-forward. About 70% of the population – the lowest 70% on the income scale – are literally disenfranchised. Their opinions have no affect on policy. Their elected representatives don't pay any attention to them. That's one of the reasons why many of them don't bother voting: they're not going to pay attention to them anyway. You know, I've read the technical literature to understand it in other ways. As you move up the income scale, you get a little more influence on policy. When you get to the top (and contrary to the Occupy Movement, it's not 1% - it's more like one-tenth of 1%) - when you get to the top where the massive concentration of wealth is, they basically set policies. That's not democracy; that's plutocracy. And that's what we have accepted. The good thing about it is that it's changeable. It's not controlled by force. We are very free in that respect, thanks to victories over the centuries. It's not possible now for a corporation to do what Andrew Carnegie, the great pacifist, did in 1890. That gives a lot of options and you have to make use of them. I'm afraid I've got to leave. [17:35] APPLAUSE VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98PSkGSk9kw&feature=youtu.be MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded 1861. --------------------- end --------------------- COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. --------------------- video credits --------------------- TITLE: A PROGRESSIVE VOICE VIDEO: Leigha Cohen AUDIO: Leigha Cohen & Cynthia Smith VIDO & SOUND EDITING: Leigha Cohen COPYRIGHT: LEIGHA COHEN PRODUCTION 2014 WEBSITE: www. leighacohen.com ---------------------  COMMENT Good talk.   Also relevant to the US free trade agreements that are going down now. Thought I'd transcribe what was said. Nearing the end, I realised someone else may have transcribed this somewhere already. Never mind.  It's a good learning tool, focusing on every word.  Or it can be.  I hope.  LOL Missing word(s) where marked.  It's something of a drama playing audio at any volume level in this place right now, so filling the gaps will have to wait.  Think it was only the one word.  This took ages, but it's heaps easier now that I've figured how to minimise, position & hold my Writer window on top of the running video window, so I don't have to flip screens. *Part re interference in market they want blocked & tyranny reads kind of funny to me.  It's the interference they want blocked so they can get away with tyranny is what he's getting at, I think.  But the sentence seems confusing (to me). *I disagree with the last part, about there not being rule by force.  We are ruled by force & there's nothing we can do.  Look what happens to protesters.  When they're not beaten, imprisoned etc, martial law is imposed and they're beaten and imprisoned if they dare break curfew, I guess.

National Endowment for Democracy ('NED') A CIA Trojan Horse / NED & WaPO Propaganda

SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ Why Russia Shut Down NED Fronts July 30, 2015 Exclusive: The neocon-flagship Washington Post fired a propaganda broadside at President Putin for shutting down the Russian activities of the National Endowment for Democracy, but left out key facts like NED’s U.S. government funding, its quasi-CIA role, and its plans for regime change in Moscow, writes Robert Parry. By Robert Parry The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.” If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty. Russian President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on May 8, 2014, as part of the observance of the World War II Victory over Germany. The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED. The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’ “The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts. … “The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.” But there are several salient facts that the Post’s editors surely know but don’t want you to know. The first is that NED is a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1983 to do what the Central Intelligence Agency previously had done in financing organizations inside target countries to advance U.S. policy interests and, if needed, help in “regime change.” The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money. But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.” NED Is Born The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation. This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill. The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand. The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy. Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.” Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects. A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin. “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In other words, NED is a U.S. government-financed entity that has set its sights on ousting Russia’s current government. A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a US law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison. If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.” Gershman’s Op-Ed But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate. “Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy on Tuesday was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,” Gershman wrote, adding: “This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.” The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the op-ed. So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power? Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any. Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here. SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ --------------------- COMMENT So there you go:  expect most of what you read in mainstream media to be US foreign policy serving propaganda. Likewise for Western banking/corporate-controlled, US foreign policy aligned, governments. Here's a bit more on NED: Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy excerpted from the book Rogue State A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/TrojanHorse_RS.html ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NED (National Endowment Democracy) >> funded Ukraine’s first think tank, Centre for Independent Political Research  ('independent' LOL) #USA 'democracy promoting' organisations  - eg National Endowment for Democracy (NED) & USAID - a front for political interference abroad.  National Endowment for Democracy helped to overthrow democratically elected govts in: >> Bulgaria 1990 >> Albania 1991/92 >> Ukraine 2014  National Endowment for Democracy (NED) successfully manipulated elections in: >> Nicaragua in 1990 >> Mongolia in 1996 #France, #Portugal & #Spain unions (& lefties) are being undermined by US / CIA National Endowment for Democracy   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And here's China on Washington Post: Chinese embassy rebukes WASHINGTON POST  re unfair accusations - cyberattacks / megaphone diplomacy counterproductive http://www.ecns.cn/2015/08-01/175371.shtml  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't know that I'll remember much of this.  Got a shocking memory. All I know is NED's bad news; US govt & mainstream media are hypocrites; and all you'll generally get in MSM is propaganda.  LOL

TPP - Raw Deal - "ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc"

Public Media and Utilities Could be Crushed by TPP: Wikileaks Published 30 July 2015 Wikileaks has dropped another TPP bombshell with a leaked letter suggesting the deal could force mass privatizations of state-owned enterprises The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could force state enterprises such as public utilities to put profits before public welfare and lead to mass privatizations, according to documents published by Wikileaks Wednesday. Under the TPP, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) would be forced to act “on the basis of commercial considerations,” according to the leak. The document also suggests multinational corporations could be empowered to sue SOEs for supposedly uncompetitive actions like favoring local businesses. The bombshell leak centers around a classified letter from the TPP's December 2013 ministerial meeting. SOEs themselves are common in most TPP countries, and advocates say they perform crucial services aimed at supporting public needs rather than turn a profit. Some examples include Canada's main postal operator, Canada Post, and Australia's public broadcaster ABC. The latter is consistently rated by viewers as one of Australia's most trusted sources of news. “SOEs are almost always state owned because they have functions other than those that are merely commercial, such as guaranteed access to important services, or because social, cultural, development and commercial functions are inextricably intertwined,” said Professor Jane Kelsey, from New Zealand's University of Auckland. In an analysis of Wednesday's leak commissioned by Wikileaks, Kelsey concluded the TPP could carve out a “backdoor to privatization” of state enterprises. She argued seemingly proposed regulations outlined in the leaked document ignore “the reality that SOEs and private firms are driven by different imperatives and obligations.” Kelsey's main complaint was with the document's demand that SOEs prioritize “commercial considerations,” pointing out many state enterprises intentionally run at losses for the public good. “Even where SOEs are profit-oriented, a government may elect not to extract full commercial profits, and choose to reinvest in the enterprise to strengthen the asset base or the quality of the services in ways that private investors would rarely do,” she explained. For example, Australia Post is restricted to using its profits to reinvest in improving services, or handing dividends back to Australia's federal government. Australian Greens trade spokesperson Peter Whish-Wilson told The Saturday Paper that the TPP's chapter on SOEs “directly challenges a government's right to own and operate any enterprise such as Australia Post, the ABC or power utilities that compete with corporate entities, but ultimately also the provision of public good services including healthcare, education. “(It's) a direct assault by corporations trying to limit the role of government,” he said. In a statement, Wikileaks said the leaked document proved the TPP will force member states to swallow “a wide-ranging privatization and globalization strategy.” “In this leak we see the radical effects the TPP will have, not only on developing countries, but on states very close to the center of the Western system,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Under negotiation for more than seven years, supporters say the TPP will streamline global trade and promote economic growth. Once the TPP is completed, its provisions will override national laws of its 12 member states, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United States. The deal is already being hailed as the largest trade agreement in world history, and will encompass over 40 percent of global GDP. However, the deal's provisions have been almost entirely withheld from the public, prompting critics to argue the agreement is subject to undue secrecy. The few glimpses the public has had into the closed door talks have been leaked drafts of the TPP published by Wikileaks. Independent analysts say the trade deal is a “bonanza” for big business, and a raw deal for consumers. U.S. trade officials have responded by urging the public not to read the leaks, arguing the draft documents may not accurately represent the final document. The controversial deal has already sparked international protests, with activists demanding negotiators open talks to public scrutiny. Warning that the TPP will erect a “'one size fits all' economic system,” Assange said public debate on the trade deal is urgently needed. “If we are to restructure our societies into an ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc that will last for the next 50 years then this should be said openly and debated,” he said. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Public-Media-and-Utilities-Could-be-Crushed-by-TPP-Wikileaks-20150730-0014.html --------------------- COMMENT This isn't democracy; this is corporate control of the state.   Western politicians and governments place corporate interests ahead of vital public interests and public well-being, as if this were already a corporate dictatorship it will definitely become under the TPP. Everything the public, workers, unions, and other activist have fought for over the decades is about to be denied the public, and government is even assigning national sovereignty to corporations, by virtue of placing corporate powers set out in the 'free trade' agreement ahead of national, state, and local authorities' ability to subsequently legislate in the interest of public well-being. In negotiating the TPP, elected government is working against public interest by even entertaining an agreement which lets corporations call the shots: with the threat of corporate lawsuits blocking future lawmaking; by letting corporations block the right to public ownership of vital public services; and by letting corporations dictate that the good of the corporation (profit) must come before the public good. It's criminal that this trade agreement has been kept from the public by politicians, who also hoped to keep the sell-out agreement under wraps for something like 5 years, even after signing. It's ironic that whilstleblower publisher WikiLeaks - whose editor is presently under siege, and under an unprecedented 5-year long attack by US authorities - is the source of information regarding this immense threat from corporate America and friends.  The hide of the politicians acting contrary to their mandate to serve the public, rather than to screw the public (as intended by the TPP), who have acted to keep this agreement from public scrutiny, is really something to behold. And the prospect of life under corporate rule, a la corporate controlled, less than minimum wage, downtrodden, union-less, exploited, underclass hell-hole USA, is positively frightening. So why are the unions silent? SEE ALSO: TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy

PILIGER article: ASSANGE - Epic Struggle For Justice

SPECIAL FEATURE 31 Jul 2015 Julian Assange: The Untold Story Of An Epic Struggle For Justice By John Pilger This is an updated version of John Pilger’s 2014 investigation which tells the unreported story of an unrelenting campaign, in Sweden and the US, to deny Julian Assange justice and silence WikiLeaks. FULL ARTICLE @ SOURCE: https://newmatilda.com/2015/07/31/julian-assange-untold-story-epic-struggle-justice --------------------- COMMENT Another great article, and an excellent overview of what's going on.

Business Insider - "British spies are officially setting the standard for fighting hackers"

British spies are officially setting the standard for fighting hackers Business Insider Alastair Stevenson, Business Insider Jul. 29, 2015, 7:27 AM 13 UK big ben union flag jack umbrellaREUTERS/Luke MacGregorBritish spy standards have gone international. A pilot scheme for the UK government’s cyber security training initiative has launched in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – meaning British spies are now setting the international standard for fighting hackers. The scheme will be run by the Communications-Electronics Security Group (CESG), the information security arm of the GCHQ. It is an extension of the CESG's ongoing UK Certified Professional (CCP) scheme. The UK scheme launched in October 2012 and is designed to ensure security professionals meet a quality benchmark set by the CESG, assuring potential hirers of their anti-hacker abilities. The scheme ranks professionals at three levels of competency: Practitioner, Senior Practitioner, and Lead Practitioner. To date, the scheme has accredited 1,200 UK professionals in a variety of roles, including penetration testers and crypto custodians. Penetration testers are hackers companies hire to find holes in their defences. Crypto custodians are professionals that manage companies' use of encryption. Encryption is a security technology that scrambles digital information using specialist mathematics. It makes it so only people in possession of a specific unlock key or password can read the encrypted information. The pilot international scheme will be limited to security and information risk advisors (SIRA) and IA architects – the people who advise companies on how to protect their data and design their information security systems. The new US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand tests will be run by the APMG International examination body and CESG. BUSINESS INSIDER - VIA http://www.techinsider.io/gchq-has-expanded-its-security-training-scheme-to-run-in-the-us-canada-australia-and-new-zealand-2015-7 --------------------- COMMENT Thought this was interesting, but now I'm not that sure.  LOL IA = information assurance APM Group Ltd (APMG) =  global accreditation body, UK based (offices all over) More:  CCP - 'CESG Certified Professional' http://apmg-cyber.com/products/ccp-cesg-certified-professional

Google Compute Engine - Cloud Computing & Customer Held Encryption Keys / Red Herrings

Google has just done something that’s going to annoy the US and UK governments Business Insider     Alastair Stevenson, Business Insider     Jul. 29, 2015, 11:15 AM    2 UK Prime Minister David Cameron is not going to like this. Google has rolled out a security service for its business customers that could put a serious downer on the UK government’s plans to increase law enforcement’s surveillance powers. The service was revealed by Google product manager Leonard Law in a blog post and is currently in beta form. It will let businesses running the company's Google Compute Engine create their own encryption keys. Encryption is a security technology that scrambles digital information using specialist mathematics. It makes it so only people in possession of a specific unlock key or password can read the encrypted information. Google’s move may not sound like a big deal to people outside the technology community, but the implications for the move are pretty massive. What the Google Compute Engine is Google’s Compute Engine is the basis of the company's cloud computing platform. Cloud computing is a special type of technology that uses a network of remote servers hosted on the internet to run computer processes traditionally done on a device’s internal hardware. In theory, this means cloud computing customers can get high-powered computer performance, or run complex tasks beyond normal hardware’s capabilities without having to buy lots of equipment. As well as Google, which uses the tech to power many of its own services, such as YouTube, numerous big-name companies including Coca Cola, Best Buy, Rovio, Avaya and Ocado also use the Compute Engine. How it links to government surveillance The widespread use of Google’s cloud tech means it handles vast amounts of  user data. Data running through the platform can include things like customer records, account information and, at times, the user's geographic location. PRISM documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and GCHQ, have been siphoning vast amounts of web user information from Google's cloud platform – as well as many other cloud service providers. The move makes sense, as the Compute Engine’s large customer base lets the agencies collect data from multiple companies and services from one central source. A game of cat and mouse Google already encrypts services running through its Compute Engine by default. This partially protects customers as it means agencies like the NSA or GCHQ cannot read the data without knowing which encryption key was used. However, the tactic is not foolproof, as the NSA and GCHQ can use legal requests, such as letters sent under the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), to force Google to unlock or hand over unencrypted copies of the data. This issue was set to get even worse in the UK and US as both governments have hinted at plans to make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Law enforcement agencies within the US have been lobbying for the US government to control business use of encryption since the PRISM leaks emerged. FBI director of counter-terrorism Michael Steinbach warned lawmakers that strong encryption technology allows terrorists "a free zone by which to recruit, radicalize, plot and plan," in June. UK prime minister David Cameron has hinted at plans to hamper the use of encryption. Cameron told Parliament he wants to "ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate," on June 6. How companies having their own keys will hamper surveillance Experts within the security community have argued that Google’s move will cause problems for the UK government’s plans. FireEye global technical lead Simon Mullis explained to Business Insider this is because it will make it so Google won’t be able to decrypt the data, even if ordered to. “Essentially the access to, ownership and management of the keys used to encrypt all data within Google Cloud is now handled by the end-customer," he said. "[This will] make it harder for any external agencies such as law enforcement or intelligence services to gain access to the decrypted data as there are fewer parties [people able to unlock the data] involved.” As a result, if law enforcement wanted access to the encrypted Compute Engine data, they would have to mount individual requests to each customer, a practice that would slow their surveillance operations. Business Insider has reached out to the UK Prime Minister's press team for comment on how custom encryption keys will impact Cameron's plans. Google is one of many technology companies working to fight the UK and US government’s surveillance plans. A group of 140 companies, including Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook, sent an open letter to President Obama in May urging him to reject the encryption proposals, fearing they would damage the US economy. Apple CEO Tim Cook claimed law enforcement’s hostility towards encryption is dangerous in June. SOURCE http://www.techinsider.io/google-has-offered-compute-engine-customers-advanced-encryption-powers-2015-7 --------------------- COMMENT 'Terrorists' is the big stick / leverage go-to for governments to demand access. If I were a company, I would prefer complete control of my own data.  Relying on cloud computing doesn't appeal, even though it may be cheaper.  And why would you trust any company that can unencrypt your data?  But I guess the advantage might be in passing the buck.  As in, if data is compromised, you can maybe blame it on the third party cloud host & they get lumped with compensation payouts? This is a good companion article regarding encryption offerings:   The Red Herring of Digital Backdoors and Key Escrow Encryption Bill Blunden EXTRACTS By concentrating on key escrow the CEOs of Silicon Valley are able to conjure up the perception of an adversarial relationship with federal agencies. This is absolutely crucial because tech companies need to face the public wearing a white hat. In the aftermath of the PRISM scandal, where C-suite types were caught colluding with the government on a first-name basis, American executives are frantically trying to convince people on behalf of quarterly revenue that they’re siding with consumers against spying. An interesting but fundamentally flawed narrative, given how much economic espionage the government conducts and how much spying corporate America does. Who do you think benefits from this sort of mass surveillance? All told it’s likely that private sector involvement henceforth will transpire off stage. Far removed from the encryption debate. Rather than forgo the benefits of aggressive spying, CEOs will merely conceal their complicity more deeply while making lots of noise for rubes about encryption. In this sense zero-day bugs offer the added benefit of plausible deniability. That is, backs doors based on zero-day bugs are vital spy tools that masquerade as mere accidents. Only fitting, one might conclude, as spies and magicians are kindred spirits performing artful tricks that beguile more susceptible members of the audience. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/29/the-red-herring-of-digital-backdoors-and-key-escrow-encryption/ I really like this guy's articles.