Robert David Steele, former Marine, CIA case officer, and US co-founder of the US Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, is a man on a mission. But it's a mission that frightens the US intelligence establishment to its core.
Steele started off as a Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer. After four years on active duty, he joined the CIA for about a decade before co-founding the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, where he was deputy director. Widely recognised as the leader of the Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) paradigm, Steele went on to write the handbooks on OSINT for NATO, the US Defense Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Forces. In passing, he personally trained 7,500 officers from over 66 countries.
Last month, Steele presented a startling paper at the Libtech conference in New York, sponsored by the Internet Society and Reclaim. Drawing on principles set out in his latest book, The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth and Trust, he told the audience that all the major preconditions for revolution were now present in the United States and Britain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:24PM
Real Time Science? Create infinite wealth for all? Slapping buzzwords like "peer to peer" and "open source" on governance? world-brain.{org,com,net,edu} which are... apparently some sort of email service and internet forum that Mr. Steele registered?
Is this TimeCube? I think I just woke up in 1998
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:34PM
> Real Time Science?
Didn't see that one mentioned.
> Create infinite wealth for all?
Infinite as in non-rivalrous. The kind of wealth he's talking about are public goods like knowledge. Don't misconstrue his argument to apply to scarce resources like oil. His whole kick is applying "open source" principles beyond just "intelligence" and software to everything where knowledge is applied. He's kind of saying that since "information wants to be free" we shouldn't fight it, that post-scarcity economics will eventually re-order the world.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rune of Doom on Thursday June 26 2014, @12:06AM
It's certainly a hopeful and positive outlook for all that he also sees some sort of collapse as inevitable, if not imminent. I find his idea intriguing and they parallel much of my own thinking, but he's throwing a lot out there - I'm going to need to do weeks of reading now that I've read the article. I haven't read anything that simultaneously acknowledged the flaws of the status quo while still being energetic and optimistic since Virgina Postrel's "The Future and Its Enemies"
(Score: 1) by tadas on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:50AM
I think you wanted "tripe", not "trite".
I've gotta admit, though, some of the charts made me think of time cube as well (though this guy's not a nutjob like the Time Cube guy, and certainly makes far better typographical choices).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @12:04AM
Revolution is coming, eh? OK then.
(Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Thursday June 26 2014, @12:15AM
As Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". While I certainly don't want to see The French Revolution's 21st Century American remake, when there are no other options, its what will happen.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:02AM
Who is making peaceful revolution impossible? I don't see revolution happening either in the US or the UK, because it isn't a case of elite versus everyone else. There are fundamental ideological divides among the citizenry that are greater IMHO than the difference between elite and non-elite, for example, the difference between Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street or between British nationalists and just about everyone else. While I'm sure that there is a case to make of this being a tactic to keep the populace fractious and divided, it remains that there are differences, currently irreconcilable, between us that stand in the way of any revolution. That is, we are divided whether by machinations of an elite or our own foibles.
It's also worth noting that we identify with various elites in significant ways, for example, by thinking that one day we might be that rich or that we too know what is best for our fellow man. I notice for example, that the people who complain about "the 1%" tend to favor political elites who advocate for social safety nets and other paternalist social structures. Meanwhile, the people who complain about government interference tend to respect the wealthy who give an air or act of individualism whether deserved or not.
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:09AM
Based on that, a civil war would be more likely. Given such deep polar divides, I don't think that it would be too unreasonable a possibility.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:28AM
*sigh* A Hollywood remake of the Spanish Civil War?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday June 26 2014, @07:32PM
Starring Paul Reubens as Peewee Herman, the revolutionary leader searching for his 'Freedom Cycle'!
"I'm a loner... a rebel."
THAT, I'd watch! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 26 2014, @02:07AM
You seem to have missed Occupy Wall Street. Or, apparently, you just dismissed them as kooks and nuts. That little revolution was smothered, and the greviances ignored. A fair sampling of the younger generation took part in that demonstration.
As for identifying with the elites - I'm happy for you that you have your role models. None of them are models that I have ever wanted to emulate.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday June 26 2014, @03:32AM
No. I even mention them in my story. Now, perhaps I do "dismiss" them as kooks. That would be, given the general kooky and frequently myopic behavior of the protests, understandable.
Well, sure - after it had become inconvenient for the elite who had previously supported it.
Whatever. People become "elite" for all sorts of reasons, good and bad.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @04:10AM
> People become "elite" for all sorts of reasons, good and bad.
No, they become "elite" for exactly one reason - good luck. For every one "elite" there are one thousand-plus people who are better educated, more determined, smarter and more effective at their jobs. The one thing they are missing is the convergence of events known as luck.
The problems come when the elite don't understand that, whether they were "born on 3rd and thought they hit a home run" or really did work their way up from nothing and just didn't notice all the other people doing the same but who weren't at the right place at the right time. When they think that they are uniquely qualified rather than uniquely fortunate and they think that fortune means they are the most qualified to decide the direction of society. You can see guys like Eric Schmidt [gawker.com] doing just that sort of thing nowadays - utterly convinced of his own insight, utterly oblivious to his own ignorance.
FWIW, I'm a 1%'er myself. I'm on the low-end of the 1% range, but I made enough money to opt of the rat-race and haven't had to work a day in last 6 years. I grew up with other 1%'ers - attending the most prestigious private elementary and high schools in my state. And from what I've seen, most of them don't have a clue how lucky they are because they are just as myopic and self-centered as anyone in the 99%.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:03PM
Yea, a lot of stuff gets attributed to good luck.
(Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Thursday June 26 2014, @06:05PM
Don't forget sociopathy, or a convincing imitation of it.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Thursday June 26 2014, @03:28AM
While I nearly respect your opinion sir, I, frankly, identify with just the members of the 1% that share my philosophies. In fact, they are identical to me in every way with the exception of billions of dollars of wealth. When I find these doppelgangers, I shall tie them up and hide them in my trunk, replacing them and living out the rest of my days as a billionaire.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Thursday June 26 2014, @03:20AM
The voters votes still count. I doubt there's massive diebolding being done because if you bother to ask a many voters, they actually did vote for the bad people you hate. Go see the various polls done by different people, or just ask around outside your circle of friends. There really are many people who still would vote for Obama (or Bush etc).
To those who itch for a revolution:
If you don't like any of the options, why don't you be a candidate or get someone you like to be a candidate? No? Well then too bad maybe the candidates you have are truly the best your country has to offer given the constraints, and the best isn't good enough.
Beware that violent revolutions usually lead to Dictatorships. When you choose leaders by "most effective firepower" instead of "most votes", guess who tends to end up at the top? And how often would this leader hold elections and step down? Who can make him? He has proven himself to have the most firepower.
In the American Revolution, America got lucky with people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams etc. And in some ways it was a secession and not a revolution.
The French Revolution led to a Dictatorship. Same for the Chinese and Russian ones. How many other violent revolutions didn't produce Dictatorships? It is because the Communist Manifesto suggests violence that "Communist" revolutions end up as Dictatorships. The peaceful communists get overthrown by the CIA ;).
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday June 26 2014, @02:19PM
I think peaceful revolutionaries would have an easier time if they showed people exactly what they'd be getting in exchange for their blood and sweat.
Hold an online constitutional convention. Rewrite the US Constitution in a manner applicable to today's society. i.e., replacing "secure in your papers" to "secure in your communications," or specifying "persons" as "humans" to disallow corporations from claiming personhood. Whatever, I'm sure there are plenty of constitutional scholars with some free time who could contribute to a sourceforge or wikipedia for laws to hammer out better language. Laurence Lessig could be our new Thomas Jefferson.
Rewrite state, local and national laws. Rewrite the regulations. It's easy to say "shit sucks, this fascist government needs to go!" But nobody seems to have a clue what the replacement would look like. So show us! Write down the alternative system of government! Then we could have our revolution peacefully by having 51% of people say, "Yeah, this looks better" and voting on it. And there wouldn't be a thing the 1% could do because votes still count.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 26 2014, @03:06PM
We ought to do what you propose, convene a second constitutional convention. We ought also to specifically dis-invite everyone from the current power structure. We know exactly what their purpose would be.
Of course, we have to design the process carefully to eliminate or mitigate the risk of subversion. Subversion is a real tactic really employed in the real world by the forces of evil. They are usually quite successful at it, so nothing changes.
That's why I believe the real starting point is to fully map those people, because we are talking about flesh and blood humans and not aliens or disembodied intelligences, and neutralize them.
Then we build in a cooling-off period to let the designed and promulgated partisan vapors dissipate. Beneath the stupid talking points, most people want the same things. We proceed in a deliberate manner to retain those fine things in the first Constitution and troubleshoot its fatal flaws.
I believe one of those fatal flaws is the dominance of wealth over policy. That link must be severed with prejudice. Another fatal flaw is asymmetric access to policy-making. The wealthy and powerful have it, we do not. That must change. Corporations, transnational as they have become, aloof to all laws as they now are, must be broken down. They cannot be considered natural persons with rights. They are activities.
TFA has many other excellent recommendations, and they are worth our deep consideration.
Of course, I perceive that these kinds of tidy, peaceable schemes will not have enough time to gain purchase. The anger out there is titanic. It will overwhelm the status quo soon.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday June 26 2014, @05:17PM
I guess I'm just surprised nobody has done this yet. People complain loudly about what they don't like ("money in politics!" "corporations aren't people!" "patent reform!") and they'll outline general policy ideas, but then they always expect the politicians to actually hammer out the language. Why would we ever trust these already co-opted people to write legislation that genuinely reflects the will of the people?
Don't like the PATRIOT Act? Rewrite it! Don't like FCC regulations? Rewrite them! All of these things are published online. How difficult is it to fork 'em and make either a wiki or perhaps better, a sourceforge/github repository for proposed changes? Argue back and forth with other like-minded people to compromise on language. The politicians can't be bothered. We already know they don't know crap about anything, really, don't bother to read the bills they vote on, spend all their time raising money and just vote however their corporate masters tell them to vote. I don't see how concerned citizens writing and arguing on the internet could possibly do a worse job.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday June 27 2014, @11:39AM
Two states (CA and NH) have already voted for a constitutional convention regarding repealing corporate personhood. It's in progress, but sometime like that takes a LOT of time and effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC#Progress_in_particular_states [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday June 27 2014, @03:56PM
Well that's a start. To be honest, it won't happen until control of state legislatures are wrested from the Republicans and Democrats. The establishment is funded by corporations who are perfectly happy with corporate personhood, and campaign finance reform is of no interest to incumbents who enjoy being able to speak louder than their opponents by virtue of having bigger war chests.
Change has to start from the ground up. The way I would do it is this:
1) Fork the software that powers sourceforge to create a repository/version control system for law code instead of computer code.
2) Encourage concerned citizens in each town and county to get their local laws and upload them to the lawforge.
3) Hack the local laws. Make things better. Eliminate the tax subsidies for the golf course where the city council has free memberships. Fix the potholes in the streets. Roll out community fiber. Etc etc.
4) Present these better local laws to the voting public. Advertise via social media. Kickstart old media campaigns.
5) Present a slate of candidates who promise to enact these new, streamlined, better laws.
6) It'll work somewhere. Some 500 population town will adopt this system. Then it'll snowball. Wikipedia started with one article, too.
7) Each city council that gets taken over nets the effort a tax base and a militarized police force.
8) Once you've got cities and towns, hack the state laws. Take over state legislatures.
9) With state legislatures controlled, re-gerrymander districts to favor the open source government candidates and pit republican and democrat controlled areas against each other. Also, start pushing for constitutional amendments.
10) With the re-gerrymandered districts, start taking control of the house of representatives. Eventually the senate will follow, too.
11) The law hackers can now revise or repeal shitty laws that favor corporations over people, like the DMCA or the Patriot Act.
It could work. Starts small and snowballs. If I were a millennial with a college degree but no job living in my parents' basement I'd do it myself, but I'm a gen-xer with a job, a mortgage and a family. It's too late for me! But save yourselves, kids! Nobody's gonna do it for you...
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Thursday June 26 2014, @05:45PM
I don't want violent revolution. It will be bad for all the reasons you point out and more besides. But you need to realize that votes do not matter in the United States today. A choice between Republicans and Democrats is like a "choice" between Coke and Pepsi to drink. Milk, water, tea, or anything else are not even options. From Noam Chomsky, to Jimmy Carter, to several recent studies it's quite clear: positions the vast majority of the voting public support are regularly ignored, but positions supported by the oligarchs are regularly adopted and put into practice. And before you say, "just vote 3rd party" consider how entrenched and privileged the two branches of the establishment party are, and then consider how you intend to prevent the same forces that use the Ds and Rs like sock puppets form doing the same to 3rd parties.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Friday June 27 2014, @07:08AM
The last I checked the majority of the US voting public do support those politicians (the nonvoting ones may not, but since they don't vote, they literally don't count).
This is because many politicians actually try to give the public some of what the public wants most. The public's priorities are stuff like abortion, gay marriage and other hot button topics. When marijuana started becoming a bigger priority for the public in some states, the politicians actually did stuff. And what the public wants often doesn't conflict with what the corporations want (most corps don't care about gay marriage and abortion - they care about 120+ year copyrights which most people don't care as much about as abortion). That's why corporations can bribe^h^h^h^h^hsponsor both sides, and still get some of what they want.
So the public gets what they want most, and the politician's corporate sponsors and friends can get what they want most. Win-win. Same goes for the push against Big Government - the politicians will shrink government and outsource stuff to corporations. The cost may be more, but they deliver on making gov smaller (not cheaper or better - but even the supposedly more intelligent libtards are more bothered about the quantity than the quality ).
If the public want something different they should start voting accordingly. But I can't see the majority caring about a lot of stuff. They have started caring that the NSA spies on them, but the politicians will just do stuff so they satisfy the public AND the ones who want to keep spying.
Just look at the recent legislation blocking funds to search without a warrant: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/20/house-bans-nsa-backdoor-search-surveillance [theguardian.com]
Notice they didn't block funds to collect data without a warrant ;). Searching is cheap - maybe they can use their private "doughnut fund". But the majority of the public will be satisfied that something is being done. So everyone gets what they want. Win-win ;).
So if you want a better country, you need better informed and educated voters - spread the word.
Otherwise right now if you're a politician and try giving the public what they should have for their own good instead of what they care about, you won't get voted in AND you won't get any corporate sponsors (corporations prefer to back those they think will have a chance AND will listen to $$$).
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday June 26 2014, @12:31AM
Actually, that is taken slightly out of context. His work in the 70's (if i remember the article correctly) covered revolutions. He built a matrix of sorts that shows different areas of society and the state they are in. If all of them are pointed towards revolution that still doesn't mean one will happen. Some sort of trigger is required. Revolution may never happen.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 26 2014, @07:14AM
No, just illiterates. On another site, there was a transcript of what Sarah Palin said, and it made reference to going "gun hoe". Now obviously this was mean to be "gung ho", and in all charity, Mrs. Palin could have been intoning the correct spelling. Unless she was going "rouge" or was trying to say "Get a Brian, Moran!" So what is it with spelling and the less smart parts of the American electorate? They should not be allowed to paint signs, lest they say, "make English the offical language!" Well, if you can't spell, I think we will go with Esperanto. And Metric. And UN Agenda 21 (where we have to all pedal our asses). And the Chemtrails laying down the mind-control chemicals that make us think that Chris MacDonald could actually lose in Mississippi. At least no one . . . (wait for it!), BEGGED The Question! Incorrectly. Apologies to all English as a second language speakers, did you notice that this is the only language that has spelling contests? And for the rest of you undereducated bastard, my only advice is to read, read a lot. And attend live theatre, preferably Shakespeare. And many write, but not like this, not here, not on Soylent News where words are , words,. Data corrupted. File not readable. System reboot in progress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:55PM
Did you just spelling flame conservatives?
You might as well have complained that they are ugly.
Grow up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @03:38PM
I think he was rightfully mocking those who believe in conspiracy theories and batshit-crazy 'the revolution is coming' type stuff like TCA.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @12:08AM
So "Eponymous Coward" is an idiot who can't even shill.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Thursday June 26 2014, @12:40AM
You will succeed to oust the people in power. And you will get new replacements that will work in the same manner because they just are their own human nature, not enough people will escape this. Same system new people and a lot of people hurt in the process. Power corrupts and most people just can't be aware of their own change and just get caught in a self made path that you can't step out from.
But as the imbalance increases so does the risk for abrupt alterations to the power structure. I'll give you that. The illusion of stability now and the manageability of the feature is just that.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday June 26 2014, @03:28AM
I don't think he cares much about people, that is not what he thinks should change. Secretive processes should not be allowed. He points out that corruption is typically done in secret. It's the process he wants to change, not the people.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Thursday June 26 2014, @04:22AM
I'd just say that if there is a revolution then people usually change but not the system. His research seems to show that US/UK is ripe for such process regardless what anyone wants or if it's a good idea at all.
To change processes might be a very good idea. However one can't be completely open when in a situation like with the cold war. But secrecy must not be used to permit corruption otoh perhaps the tension acted as a absolute motivator to be attentive for everybody. Without this external factor secret organizations have the ability to use resources for things that is only self serving or that is just bad priorities.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday June 26 2014, @02:25PM
It would be great if the wannabe revolutionaries could show us what their better system would be. It's easy to chant "down with corruption! Down with secrecy! Down with the 1%!" But please show us the replacement system would look like. And it's not unfeasible. Just get together online with scholars, lawyers, anybody who wants to contribute and rewrite the constitution. Rewrite the laws. You think everything sucks now? Agreed! Now show us the system you'd replace it with, in specific terms, and people might even just vote for it, bloodlessly removing those in power and replacing them and the system in one fell swoop. If they started now, we could have an entirely new system of government by 2016.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday June 26 2014, @02:58PM
I pointed out the consequences of to large unbalances. There's no implication that the outcome would be better.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Thursday June 26 2014, @12:44AM
I am more interested in the book and its message. Not his credentials.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:02AM
This guy's credentials put him firmly in the "realist" camp, and so his thoughts on what are typically considered fantastical will be from a different perspective than usual.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Thursday June 26 2014, @11:27AM
That's all well and good. But I assume the guy wrote a book to get a point/message across and that's more important than his credentials. A summary should reflect that.
Now if the book was a biography, that would be a different story.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday June 29 2014, @02:04PM
He does a speech / hosts a talk at the every other year 2600 HOPE conference in NYC, every con, for decade or so now.
If you don't know who 2600 or the HOPE con are, then you've got something to google for and also how did you ever end up here?
I haven't read this book (he's written a few) but I've either attended or listened to free mp3s of his HOPE con speeches.
They're worth the time, interesting stuff. Not super deep, safe to listen to while driving (not like trying to listen to talks about reverse engineering machine code or whatever while trying to keep up with the presenter in your head, while navigating traffic)
(Score: 1) by Sir Garlon on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:42AM
Well for God's sake don't RTFA then. It's a paean to the glory of his credentials, and very little more.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:00AM
Perhaps this guy is jumping the gun, but things can only get worse for so long before something has to give. The political left used to be a safety valve, but they've pretty much accepted the authodoxy of their rivals. I REALLY hope a political way is found out of this... revolutions aren't pretty or automagically better. Some on the left (myself included) are beginning to be attracted to the ideas of Roberto Unger [wikipedia.org]. One of his ideas is "crisis without crisis" - crisis traditionally allows societal experimentation/evolution, but experimentation without disaster as a precondition would be much better.
I first heard Ungers name several times on the Australian ABC and the BBC connected to some intriging ideas. "Unger 101" on YouTube is a good primer on his politics.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:40AM
Makes you wonder how this snap event will turn out and who will be hurt in the process. Or if by any miracle the right people get it in time and do the appropriate acts to deal with the root rather than the symptoms.
(Score: 1) by WanderCat on Thursday June 26 2014, @01:19PM
Modern technology promises to undermine any structure which depends on controlling the flow of information for power. This can be delayed, but never stopped. Calling the collapse of these structures "revolution" stretches the meaning of the word, but the result is the same.