Breakaways and the Military Industrial Complex-Oh My! Eisenhower's Farewell Address-1961

Having responded somewhat to most of you so far, I shall now take a moment and try to add to my own opinions of the subject of the OP.

Not a smokescreen, he was defenitely trying to warn us. He was truthful and he was correct. Furthermore, all of the dangers he warned us of have come to pass.

"The acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." Been there, done that, been going on for decades. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power" has been realized, in my opinion, and likely had been before Eisenhower even took office, to some degree. NWO Globalist types, in my opinion. Subverting our constitutional system of government to allow their exploitation of it. The madman wielding that really bitchin' sword we've crafted...(let's hope the guys with the keys to the toybox don't let that guy break the world with our toys!)

"Domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money." We're so there, been there for decades. "The equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." This train has also left the station, in my opinion, decades ago. Secret space program? Yes. Suppressed technology? Yes, and affecting every aspect of our industries in the process, in my opinion.

To speculate on suppression of technology, I think it's not like MIB's will show up at your door and eat your homework, but I suspect that certain ideas are quietly stepped on, systematically and by concerted effort, to keep the people disempowered, by some force. I'm not talking about just defense stuff and/or big business being big business. In my opinion, if we could somehow peel back the curtain here we would find that control, and not money, is the true motivating factor. The globalist NWO type agenda tends to fit this motivation fairly well. A more empowered populace would undoubtedly be more difficult to control.

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Bedlam

You are deflecting my argument, sir!

Your characterization of the paper's non-use of patents as socialism of mind is innaccurate. While that point of view is discussed in the paper, it is only a small aspect of the overall issue of patent non-use and how it relates to the issue of technology suppression. It's really not "all" that they are "on about".

You asked if I had read the paper. I had. If you like, we can bandy it about paragraph by paragraph, but in the end, yes, the theme is that no one should withhold a patent from anyone, nor should they buy up competition to procure patents, nor should they have a lot of patents, nor should the licensing be too draconian etc. I stand by the thing being a sort of paean to "open source creation". I'm sure it's trendy, but I don't agree with them, either on a personal or on a business level.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Bedlam

You are deflecting my argument, sir!

Your characterization of the paper's non-use of patents as socialism of mind is innaccurate. While that point of view is discussed in the paper, it is only a small aspect of the overall issue of patent non-use and how it relates to the issue of technology suppression. It's really not "all" that they are "on about".

You asked if I had read the paper. I had. If you like, we can bandy it about paragraph by paragraph, but in the end, yes, the theme is that no one should withhold a patent from anyone, nor should they buy up competition to procure patents, nor should they have a lot of patents, nor should the licensing be too draconian etc. I stand by the thing being a sort of paean to "open source creation". I'm sure it's trendy, but I don't agree with them, either on a personal or on a business level.

I don't feel the need, as the creative uses of patents are listed in the quote I posted. Patent non-use is not the cut and dried push for open source creation type of issue that you see it as, in my opinion, so I guess we disagree there.

I think patent shenanigans are really only one of the many possible pitfalls on the way from drawing board to market. Guess you'd have your various regulatory agencies(assuming you're some super plugged in NWO tyrant guy), but those would be more of an intervention system to catch anyone who "gets through the gate". I would imagine business as usual in new technology development would be more than the average inventor could handle, as you've said, and I know buying out little guys is part of that business as usual(I'm not trying to say all buyups are evil, just listing another potential pitfall). If I were some evil overlord, I suppose some kind of "offer he couldn't refuse" could be cooked up(mwhahahahah). There would be the homework eating MIB's, as Bedlam suggested, for special occasions. The chance that if your super-widget is really juicy it could fall under the national security umbrella, and end up swept into the basement. I guess you could add the whole gamut of dirty business tactics that range beyond big company vs. little company/guy. Business espionage, supply chain tinkering, etc.

What do you think, Bedlam? Is there anybody out there doing the stepping? If so, who, and how? What do you think are the major pitfalls for the inventor? Does he have to throw in with the big boys to be viable, even if his invention doesn't use some exotic material? Even the business as usual end of it must get a little sordid, sometimes. Thrill and disgust us with tales of dirty dealings in the world of tech development, if you please. When I walk out of the drawing room with my new super-widget plans, where should I expect the curve ball to come from?

Every form of technology that gets released to general public needs to be reviewed for its impact statement on every facet of society. for example replace nuclear with fusion the nuclear goes out of business. Sometimes the impact wont just have an impact on economy the technology could have military and offensive uses. I am an advocate of not allowing any ET technology into our world because the technology will inevitably fall into wrong hands and be used for malicious purposes on a scale above what we see now. No ET technology needs to stay locked in a box for another thousand years.

originally posted by: engineercutout

What do you think, Bedlam? Is there anybody out there doing the stepping? If so, who, and how? What do you think are the major pitfalls for the inventor? Does he have to throw in with the big boys to be viable, even if his invention doesn't use some exotic material? Even the business as usual end of it must get a little sordid, sometimes. Thrill and disgust us with tales of dirty dealings in the world of tech development, if you please. When I walk out of the drawing room with my new super-widget plans, where should I expect the curve ball to come from?

A very nice set of questions. I'm working on the last bits of the house the next three days or so, Mom'll be coming home from the Pruitt next week after breaking her hip at Thanksgiving, so I'm removing furniture and adding in grab bars, elevated toilet seats etc to the auld homestead. Only with Dad gone, folks have been just chucking stuff in the storage building and it's all screwed up, so before I can move the furniture I have to fix other stuff, in a sort of Chad Gadya sequence of exploding tasks.

So I'll pop in and answer it in bits and pieces when I wear out.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Dont be dissapointed when you dont get what you expect meaning you expect things to remain and to stay the same forever, all things are in a state of constant change. Dont expect more freedoms, that way you wont be dissapointed when you dont get them in fact less freedoms may be where we are headed due to circumstance, wether man made or otherwise.

I must disagree. While it is true that realistically, our freedoms will likely continue to be curtailed until we can curtail that curtailing activity, we should expect more freedom. This is America, freedom is our birthright. We should expect more freedom, demand more freedom, strive for more freedom in this nation. A good libertarian (or constitutionalist) should always ask herself how rights can least be restricted in the process of governing. Our constitution is written so as to place limits on the authority of government, not limits on the rights of the people. Do not expect less. Expect more, demand more. As free as we are, we are not half as free as we should be.

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I know I know, it's like, our dog and pony show has like one old dog that barks and spins around in a circle, those are his tricks, and one pony that won't even let your kids ride it. Where's the backflippin' dog? How about a team of ponies? Hmmm? At least one I can let my kids ride? Uncle Sammie?

I thought I would temper this statement by adding that I still like the dog and pony show. I just wish it had some bacflippin' dogs and a team of ponies that my kids could ride instead of just the one old dog and the mean pony.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Begging your pardon, sir: Do you have anything to contribute to the ongoing discussion about "Breakaways, the Military Industrial Complex, and Eisenhower's Farewell Speech", perchance? Something other than a youtube video, perhaps? I'd like to hear your thoughts and/or opinions. What do you think of the questions I asked in the OP?

Perhaps I was a little too harsh here. I guess I just get frustrated when users post too many youtube videos. Those readers with slower machines will experience quite a slowdown when they try to load those pages. The data related slowdown kept me from reading a few threads over the years as a reader until I learned how to compensate for it. I just didn't want you to go all youtuballistic on me. Besides, I'd rather hear your opinions, thoughts, and observations.

a reply to: TonyS

From Ike's speech:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.

Agreed with your concerns, and it looks like Ike was in agreement as well.

I meant factions, though. What factions within shadow government and other than shadow government figure into our musings? I have a hard time just picturing this big poopshow as a homogenized, unified bunch; so, yes, what factions I wonder.

What the hell's goin' on, myan?

Seriously though, what the hell is going on up there?

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
Every form of technology that gets released to general public needs to be reviewed for its impact statement on every facet of society. for example replace nuclear with fusion the nuclear goes out of business. Sometimes the impact wont just have an impact on economy the technology could have military and offensive uses. I am an advocate of not allowing any ET technology into our world because the technology will inevitably fall into wrong hands and be used for malicious purposes on a scale above what we see now. No ET technology needs to stay locked in a box for another thousand years.

I see your point, though I disagree with you philosophically. I think it's important to point out in response that these ideas won't be kept from everyone in reality, though, only the average man. Whatever is being kept from the public, an astute and observant enough researcher or team of researchers will likely discover the truth of things eventually. Not to mention the "scientific technological elite", or whatever you call that group of people whose job it is to decide what gets kept in the dark. Let's also not forget that group of individuals who is capable of figuring or ferreting out what those secrets are.

Where does that leave the average man? Beholden to the institutions that he depends on for his survival, I guess. Working half a lifetime for artificially scarce energy that is a large portion of the market so that he may purchase engineered to be scarce food, shelter, and, living space. What's your pleasure, petroleum dirty burn artificially scarce energy, or the ultra-toxic omfg we're all gonna die nuclear variety of artificially scarce energy? You know nuclear energy, that industry that creates tons of toxic waste a year that we have officially as of yet found no way to neutralize?

I personally do not believe that all suppressed technology is kept secret because someone might use it to blow up the world. To gain or maintain a military advantage, sure. I think that somewhere along the line though we've branched into a side job of controlling the population as well, which is beyond the mission objective of securing the nation.

a reply to: engineercutout

He wasn't only trying to warn us, he said it in plain English what he knew would happen.