It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
1961. The twenty year old military industrial complex would have been in full swing, doing whatever it was they were doing back then. The cold war was well underway, and had been for more than ten years at this point. If some of the scuttlebutt we've been reading around here for the last few months has any merit, there was also a robust secret space program being carried out. All very hush-hush of course, no one had anything to say about it. Or did they? President Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation, had a few thoughts on these matters to offer.

During this speech Ike warned of the potential dangers of the military industrial complex, and also warned us of the potential dangers of a "social technological elite", that he worried might subvert the nation's technological and social evolution, if not carefully checked. Both of these threats were to be "gravely regarded", as he said. Eisenhower was not only President of the United States, he was also Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces of Europe during World War II. If anyone was in a position to be "in the know", it was Eisenhower. Look here people, and see the wisdom this man shared with the world more than fifty years ago:


The record of many long years stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little resemblance to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.
Now, this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.


Here he goes on to name the second threat:
(from where we left off)


We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
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. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system—ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.


Eisenhower's Farewell Address

A "scientific-technological elite" seem to be the object of his second warning, and the dangers they might pose to the evolution of society. The entire speech deserves a good read. It pertains, but also just because. Ike was a pretty smart guy, and the Wiki background says he spent a couple of years composing this speech. I can believe it, its a pretty brilliant piece of work. What do you think, ATS? Was he trying to warn us, or was this some big smokescreen to scare our enemies?

If truthful in his warnings, was he correct? Is the Military Industrial Complex out of control? Have they acquired unwarranted influence, as he warned? Were the social-technological elites that he warned of really a threat to progress as he warned, or was he chasing smoke monsters? Have these social-technological elites succeeded in subverting progress, or are we chasing smoke monsters? Was/is there a secret space program, and what about technology in general? Is it suppressed?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter. I will weigh in further down the page, to avoid steering the topic too much.




posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The 'factories for war' have become permanently entrenched. Behind those are big business, behind them, big finance. And the grease for the wheels is provided by the American taxpayer.

Politicians no longer represent the populace, their loyalty lies with the most dollars "donated" for their reelection.

Lockheed, F35 Joint Strike Fighter Production, Fort Worth, Texas



Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia



Colt Firearms, Hartford, Connecticut


edit on 20-1-2015 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Good Thread!

I've always thought of the Eisenhower speech as a smoking gun to the danger of the clandestine world. The guy was as plugged in as you can be and he writes THAT speech...wow. Clearly his message has not been heard in the corridors of power...or it was heard and they went even blacker and darker with their budgets and plans.

I also believe Eisenhower left out specific details that simply couldn't be said in that speech.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Well he was right the MIC has gotten too much power and look at what has happened we spend more the the next nine countries in line combined. You hear politicians from both sides scream cut spending but don't touch defense. Anyone that thinks we need to spend this much on defense is crazy. We could cut that number in half and still be able to defend our nation. Our defense programs are nothing more than corporate welfare.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout

Is the Military Industrial Complex out of control?


Not at all. In fact, there's way too much control. Especially on Navy projects.



Have they acquired unwarranted influence, as he warned?


Not so far as YOU know.



Were the social-technological elites that he warned of really a threat to progress as he warned, or was he chasing smoke monsters? Have these social-technological elites succeeded in subverting progress, or are we chasing smoke monsters?


That's scientific-technological elites. They're not a threat to progress, they ARE progress. It's most of the progress you see,if you were looking. The day of the lone inventor in the garage making super duper advances is over for a bit, because it costs so much to do the research. And most people would rather play video games or watch Jackass than study calculus.

Now, is there a subtle but very real social engineering going on to keep the rank and file of citizenry fat dumb and somewhat happy, but grossly uneducated, yep, I'd say that started in the 60s, right about the time he gave the speech.



Was/is there a secret space program, and what about technology in general? Is it suppressed?


Of course there is. Well, it's steered away from where the real advances are being made, which is solely the purview of the gubmint at this point. Which is actually a good thing.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
originally posted by: [post=18901870]Bedlam[/]



That's scientific-technological elites.


Aw nuts! I let my editing window slide by, too. Now my lack of proof-reading skills have been posted for the world to see. Ignorant. Very un-ATSey. Delete account! Delete account!

Seriously though, thanks for setting me straight again. I'll hold off on my opinions for awhile yet, see what else posts up.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout
originally posted by: [post=18901870]Bedlam[/]



That's scientific-technological elites.


Aw nuts! I let my editing window slide by, too. Now my lack of proof-reading skills have been posted for the world to see. Ignorant. Very un-ATSey. Delete account! Delete account!

Seriously though, thanks for setting me straight again. I'll hold off on my opinions for awhile yet, see what else posts up.


I wasn't being serious about that part, btw.
edit on 20-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
The 'factories for war' have become permanently entrenched. Behind those are big business, behind them, big finance. And the grease for the wheels is provided by the American taxpayer.

Politicians no longer represent the populace, their loyalty lies with the most dollars "donated" for their reelection.



Donors like our dear defense companies, perhaps. I agree, and I think this is one of the primary concerns Ike was trying to warn us about. "Unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought". "Misplaced power". Of course he qualified the statement, saying: "Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential agressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction." Everyone wants the best sword. Of course, if that sword is a talking sword that keeps getting you into fights, it might be more trouble than its worth. I'm all for having the biggest stick, but I have a healthy concern that some of these companies might lobby us into more war so they can land some more juicy contracts. Actually, I suspect that is one of the major contributing factors influencing our current extended military tour of the eastern hemisphere. Sure hope they don't light off World War III while they're screwing around over there...



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
Good Thread!

I've always thought of the Eisenhower speech as a smoking gun to the danger of the clandestine world. The guy was as plugged in as you can be and he writes THAT speech...wow. Clearly his message has not been heard in the corridors of power...or it was heard and they went even blacker and darker with their budgets and plans.

I also believe Eisenhower left out specific details that simply couldn't be said in that speech.


I agree, these warnings are profound. Eisenhower was just about on the top of the heap as far as our defense infrastructure goes. Probably AT the top. For him to come out and say these things...well that's a big deal. As to specific details left out, perhaps. Ike was certainly "in the know", as they say. I doubt there was much of our secret dealings that he didn't know about. Is there evidence of that possibility to your knowledge, or is that just a hunch or supposition on your part?

His message was heard alright. Kennedy certainly seemed to take it to heart. "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings." That's from Kennedy's "President And The Press" speech, given in April of 1961 I believe(just a few months later). I believe JFK is also quoted as saying something like "I want to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces" as well. Of course John F. Kennedy was assassinated before completing his term of office as our chief executive, so it's hard to know what he might have done had he not been prevented from carrying out the duties of his office. They were defenitely kicking these issues around at the time. I suspect we already had too many of the wrong people in positions of power to stop the steamroll though. The decision had been made to go ahead with certain things in secret, and from then on it would be viewed as a national security issue, with all that that implies.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: engineercutout

Sorry for the delay responding to you. Thanks for the reply.


Sure hope they don't light off World War III while they're screwing around over there…

Me too. I think that would end the gravy train though. They don't want that. The idea is to make as much money as possible without destroying the sandbox in the process. To be a fly on the wall in the board rooms discussing that formula….

Heres to dancing on the brink…

clink



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Well he was right the MIC has gotten too much power and look at what has happened we spend more the the next nine countries in line combined. You hear politicians from both sides scream cut spending but don't touch defense. Anyone that thinks we need to spend this much on defense is crazy. We could cut that number in half and still be able to defend our nation. Our defense programs are nothing more than corporate welfare.


Agreed. Don't get me started on spending. Corporate welfare? I dunno...it took a pretty big machine to put the ass-kick in our World War II campaign. Hardware takes money to develop and produce. That being said, I still agree that we spend too much money on "defense". If we weren't so busy campaigning, we could spend quite a bit on development and at a fraction of the current overall defense budget. Real corporate welfare is terrible, though...I could do without bailouts altogether, personally.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

Not at all. In fact, there's way too much control. Especially on Navy projects.


I can imagine. I am quite certain our overlords are well aware of the power wielded by those in charge of the toybox


Not so far as YOU know.


I think the military industrial complex will serve itself wherever possible, but I worry more about other aspects of our government apparatus. Corporations like to grow, and make profits. These would be no different. In that sense, unwarranted influence, you bet, as much as they can get away with. Trying to take over or run the show? Nah. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't. A sword is a sword, sometimes double edged, sometimes maybe a talking sword that wants you to fight, but still just a sword. It's the scientific-technological elites that concern me...


That's scientific-technological elites. They're not a threat to progress, they ARE progress. It's most of the progress you see,if you were looking. The day of the lone inventor in the garage making super duper advances is over for a bit, because it costs so much to do the research. And most people would rather play video games or watch Jackass than study calculus.

Now, is there a subtle but very real social engineering going on to keep the rank and file of citizenry fat dumb and somewhat happy, but grossly uneducated, yep, I'd say that started in the 60s, right about the time he gave the speech.


Come now, Bedlam, do you honestly believe this? I contend that the day of the lone inventor seems to be "over for a bit" because any lone inventor encounters a hefty entrenched corporate infrastructure and subverted government processes, effectively barring most ideas that might upset the status quo power structure from entering the marketplace. I contend that the cost is not so much in the research(as many proud scientists are happy devotees to their craft), as in the political, corporate, and legal wrangling necessary to achieve success with a suppressed technology. Sure, some ideas take big money to work out, but plenty of stuff gets stepped on, too. I contend that there is suppression of technology in every facet of industry. How's that for progress?

I agree with you on the social engineering/dumbing us down thing. I suspect more people might enjoy calculus if they knew how cool it is, or if someone had ever bothered to introduce them to the scientific principles that help to make calculus so cool.


Of course there is. Well, it's steered away from where the real advances are being made, which is solely the purview of the gubmint at this point. Which is actually a good thing.

Sure, sure, I know the first layer secret party line. I tend to a darker view, myself, that scientific-technological elitism again comes into play here. The notion that this is something reserved for the "special, beautiful" people, not the "unwashed masses". "Space! They can't even take care of their own planet!" As if most people have willfully chosen the ignorant, toxic lifestyle they are born into.

Anyhow, as to the extent of it, I suspect we're WAY beyond the X-37 in terms of capability.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: engineercutout

Sorry for the delay responding to you. Thanks for the reply.


Sure hope they don't light off World War III while they're screwing around over there…

Me too. I think that would end the gravy train though. They don't want that. The idea is to make as much money as possible without destroying the sandbox in the process. To be a fly on the wall in the board rooms discussing that formula….

Heres to dancing on the brink…

clink


Yeah, seems like we're right there, too. "U.S. Hegemony Abroad" I believe is what the strategy you've named is called. Yech.
I tend to favor the "Non-Interventionist" foreign policy, myself. We could go back and forth on the pros and cons but I suppose only time will tell if this strategy succeeds without starting World War III. I suspect it's just a matter of time if we keep on as we have. The way that we as a nation blatantly violate other nations' sovreignty can't be lost on the leaders of the world's nations.
edit on 1-2-2015 by engineercutout because: punctuation



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: engineercutout

The world looks up from its breakfast one day and realizes a fox is in the chicken coop. They aren't going to sit by and do nothing…



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout

Come now, Bedlam, do you honestly believe this? I contend that the day of the lone inventor seems to be "over for a bit" because any lone inventor encounters a hefty entrenched corporate infrastructure and subverted government processes, effectively barring most ideas that might upset the status quo power structure from entering the marketplace.


So, how do you envision this occurring? Teams of MIBs who show up and eat the lone inventor's homework?

The only one's I've seen at my workplace are ONI. Now, they are very good at barring ideas, but mostly because filling out forms supersedes getting work done from their point of view.



I contend that the cost is not so much in the research(as many proud scientists are happy devotees to their craft), as in the political, corporate, and legal wrangling necessary to achieve success with a suppressed technology.


Many proud scientists really like those paychecks. Most do have a sideline running at the house - I have several - but it does take money to develop the stuff I'd like to do. Sometimes it's actually not something I COULD do at the house because I'd have to handle UF6 or hydrazine or the like.



Sure, some ideas take big money to work out, but plenty of stuff gets stepped on, too. I contend that there is suppression of technology in every facet of industry. How's that for progress?


Again, contend away, but how do you see this happening? Who steps? And how?

I agree with you on the social engineering/dumbing us down thing. I suspect more people might enjoy calculus if they knew how cool it is, or if someone had ever bothered to introduce them to the scientific principles that help to make calculus so cool.



"Space! They can't even take care of their own planet!" As if most people have willfully chosen the ignorant, toxic lifestyle they are born into.

Anyhow, as to the extent of it, I suspect we're WAY beyond the X-37 in terms of capability.


You'd suspect right.
edit on 1-2-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


So, how do you envision this occurring? Teams of MIBs who show up and eat the lone inventor's homework?


Well, I suppose it depends on the situation, but, YEAH, MAYBE!
Consider this, ATS:

Invention Secrecy Act of 1951



Again, contend away, but how do you see this happening? Who steps? And how?


Again, depends on the situation, I suppose. With our dear Mr. Elon Musk, it appears to be the NADA(National Automobile Dealers Association, I think), if we are to believe Joe Rogan's piece on the NLBS:
NLBS #15-Killing Tesla

With the case of Preston Tucker, founder of Tucker, it appears to have been the SEC:
Demise of the Tucker Corporation

In the case of Tom Ogle, the waters are fairly murky, but there is also SEC involvement in the roadblock he encountered on his attempted journey from the drawing board to the marketplace. Died under mysterious circumstances of an apparent overdose after having previously been gutshot......
Mysterious Deaths: Tom Ogle, Inventor

Creative use of the patent laws certainly factors into suppresion of technology. Government regulatory agency action seems to be a recurring theme in some of these stories. I'm not trying to indict the gubmint here. Most of those people are just doing their jobs the best they can, I'm sure.

A scientific-technological elite. "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

If you want to control a people, controlling the technology that they have access to can be a very effective control mechanism. There's the corporate profit motive as well, but I suspect that if we could somehow brush aside the cobwebs and obfuscation around this phenomenon we would find at the heart of it that it is control that is often the motivating factor(just my opinion here). Plenty of potential steppers and methods listed here...controlling public policy as Ike warned would defenitely work to their advantage...

It's a long way from the drawing board to the marketplace. Plenty of potential pitfalls, ambushes, or roadblocks along the way.
edit on 4-2-2015 by engineercutout because: To add the last paragraph

edit on 4-2-2015 by engineercutout because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout
a reply to: Bedlam


So, how do you envision this occurring? Teams of MIBs who show up and eat the lone inventor's homework?


Well, I suppose it depends on the situation, but, YEAH, MAYBE!
Consider this, ATS:

Invention Secrecy Act of 1951


As a proud holder of a gagged patent or three, you're not going to be seeing this as the generic joe schmo inventor at the house. If you'd like, I can go into detail but if you google ats for gagged patent bedlam you'll find where I spoke about it in years gone by. Generally, the quickest way to buy a patent gag is to design a component for a nuclear weapon or a process that produces nuclear material, because ALL of those end up gagged under "born secret". The next quickest is to patent a use for a material, process or device that's currently classified. And you see the bulk of the other gagged patents fall under that category. Only about 500 filings a year are gagged for single inventor/small business. And while the stats aren't available for 'why', I'd suspect it's like me, they worked for the sorts of places that tend to give you ideas gagged under those two categories.




Again, depends on the situation, I suppose. With our dear Mr. Elon Musk, it appears to be the NADA(National Automobile Dealers Association, I think), if we are to believe Joe Rogan's piece on the NLBS:
NLBS #15-Killing Tesla


That's a lobby war thing. Unfortunately, Ford, Chevrolet, Nissan et al have more bribe money than Mr Musk. But no one's "suppressing his invention", they're making him play the game the way they do, and he doesn't want to. He's free to make all the electric cars he wants as long as he has dealerships.



With the case of Preston Tucker, founder of Tucker, it appears to have been the SEC:
Demise of the Tucker Corporation


And if you peel away the movie parts, I think you're going to find that Tucker was a bit of a fraud.



In the case of Tom Ogle, the waters are fairly murky...


Looks like he od'd to me.



Creative use of the patent laws certainly factors into suppresion of technology. Government regulatory agency action seems to be a recurring theme in some of these stories.


Which sort of creative use? Back to gags, or are you unhappy that you have to demonstrate a working model if it's "over unity"?




It's a long way from the drawing board to the marketplace. Plenty of potential pitfalls, ambushes, or roadblocks along the way.


It helps if what you're trying to patent works. So many that whine about this are blatantly trying to patent over-unity/perpetual motion machines and can't pony up a demo. However, a lot of them weasel word their patents enough to get a patent issued, but it's still total bs, patent or no. Which is why you don't see them build examples. Hell, if they could get it to work in the first place, they wouldn't have to obfuscate it.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I'd be super pissed if I was a NASA astronaut and found out that there was a secret space program.

"You mean I'm stuck in this ghetto tin can called the ISS and they have these sleek black triangles that can go to the Moon and Mars? Look at this thing, there are wires sticking out all over and exposed conduit everywhere. It looks like a bunch of kids made this module in someone's back yard! How'd I get stuck on the B-team in LEO?!"



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Bedlam

I'd be super pissed if I was a NASA astronaut and found out that there was a secret space program... How'd I get stuck on the B-team in LEO?!"


Hey, SOMEONE's got to do it.

Besides, 20 years ago you'd have a better chance by far of coming HOME if you were in a traditional spacecraft. At least in some marginally recognizable shape.

"Ok, these three are helo accidents, that guy there had an unfortunate fueling accident and was BBR, and those four were let's see did we use "fell during a climbing exercise during their ice environmental rotation" and were crushed beyond recognition on impact this week? No? Ok. that's them then.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom



I'd be super pissed if I was a NASA astronaut and found out that there was a secret space program.


Geez, I'd be super-pissed too. Especially if some other group of astronauts had some technology that allows a human being to stay in space for more than 437 days.

I mean, there you'd be, hanging out in the ISS with your bones slowly disintegrating and your body turning to a pointless microbial goo, and here are these other assholes zipping around with no gravity problems whatsoever.

Who wouldn't be pissed?



ETA: Maybe all they had to do was put a lite on the command console that says "Gravity"; as long as the light is on, folks can stand up. It works for Battlestar Galactica. *shrug*
edit on 4-2-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join