The Ati-thesis , Marxism

"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Thursday, April 17, 2014

     Preserving The American Political Philosophy: FacebBook Blocking- in-Q-Tel and the Private Hegemony Of Power

Call it a conspiracy theory- but after receiving messages appearing to be from FaceBook and stating rules nowhere to be found on officual FaceBook Page - I speculate that the message isn't from FaceBook at all- and take it from there

     Preserving The American Political Philosophy: FacebBook Blocking- in-Q-Tel and the Private Hegemony Of Power

Call it a conspiracy theory- but after receiving messages appearing to be from FaceBook and stating rules nowhere to be found on officual FaceBook Page - I speculate that the message isn't from FaceBook at all- and take it from there

     Preserving The American Political Philosophy: FacebBook Blocking- in-Q-Tel and the Private Hegemony Of Power

Call it a conspiracy theory- but after receiving messages appearing to be from FaceBook and stating rules nowhere to be found on officual FaceBook Page - I speculate that the message isn't from FaceBook at all- and take it from there

     Preserving The American Political Philosophy: FacebBook Blocking- in-Q-Tel and the Private Hegemony Of Power

Call it a conspiracy theory- but after receiving messages appearing to be from FaceBook and stating rules nowhere to be found on officual FaceBook Page - I speculate that the message isn't from FaceBook at all- and take it from there

Monday, April 14, 2014

FacebBook Blocking- in-Q-Tel and the Private Hegemony Of Power

Recently a message appeared  on my screen , being identified as from Facebook. It brought up the Facebook login screen and warned against sending friend requests to people that one does not know in one's circle of friends , family, work, and classmates

I first received the message several months ago. The first message included a list of twenty names of people who did not respond to my friend request over all the years that I have been on Facebook. It asked that I delete all the requests and suggested that I stop sending friend requests for a week.

The next was a list of 7 names - some of them very recent requests, which I did not think were given adequate response time.

The third message to appear  told  that I am blocked for a week from adding friends and displayed a list of five names- all very recent requests- all in response to those with whom I interacted on Facebook- and one within the last hour of receiving the message

This is the message I sent to Facebook:

I do not respond to Facebook friend requests ( I meant facebook invitations to add a Friend)  as I only send requests to those who have responded favorably to something that I posted. If one could only be friends with people one knows in the real world Facebook would be a tiny fraction of what it is and also would have no purpose as I cannot discuss many interests that I have with people that I know in the real world.

After sending me invitation after invitation to befriend people that I know nothing about- You are now blocking me for sending requests to people that I do know- in cyberspace. There are about five people very recently sent requests- one of them sent within the hour and for this you are blocking me for a week-

What you are telling me just does not add up/ makes no sense - and one has to wonder what is motivating Facebook.

HOWEVER  After looking at the Facebook Rules And Responsibilities Page- which was updated at the end of 2013- and finding no mention of the specifically stipulated rules that I am being told that I violated, I am weighing in with the speculation that this message is not from FaceBook but is generated by some other source that has figured out how to gain access to some of my online activities. For the last several months, my computer has been plagued by an inexplicable data processing sound going on in the background and unrelated to any activity that I am doing. I found that I can temporarily stop that sound by switching out browsers but recently I allowed it to go on longer than usual. Co-incidentally, I thereafter received the alleged FaceBook message.

The message specifically states that Facebook is meant only for connecting with people that one already knows -specifying friends, family, work, and classmates and claims that sending a singular friend request to someone whom one does not know through such circles can be considered to be "harassment" . The recent message then told me that I was blocked from sending friend requests for a week.

I googled this message and found reports of others receiving the same message and a conversation about these rules on what appears to be a Facebook message board, However there is no official correlating rule posted on FaceBook .

It is well publicized that the CIA has a venture capitalist fund called In-Q-Tel which invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping  intelligence agencies equipped with the latest information technology (spying tech) . This means that the same technology that is available to the CIA is available to other private sources. I don't think the CIA is bugging my computer and to Facebook I am just a grain of sand on a huge beach, but to the power hegemony in Maine I am a spanner in the works and a loose canon voice and here we are entering another election season. The power hegemony loves the word "world class" and it is heavily invested in the 21st century gold rush to make the next billions or trillions in the next high tech revolution and/or to become the controlling hand in the next technological power house and so it is likely that the tzars of the hegemony  have access to the latest spying technology, the development of which is being capitalized by the In-Q-Tel. and their own access to those functions being capitalized by taxpayers every where.

And so- it is reasonable to speculate that spying technology is out there which is accessible not only to the CIA but to the hegemony of power, who may also have an interest in retaining such technology in their own hands- unavailable to others who could then use it against them- and the hegemony does not like to have their own activities to be transparent to the general public.

( Unfortunately as I am typing- the date processing sound has now found my way back into my system after switching to a way off the known grid browser- if you have ever used Quickbooks and pressed "enter" - this is what it sounds like)

I just can't see the very restrictive rules as being generated by FaceBook- which would never have become the most used social networking in the world if  FaceBook were dictating the use of its network in such a limiting way. However the very idea of such rules being implemented- especially being implemented on targeted individuals and organizations- extrapolates on how FaceBook could be manipulated if ICCAN is taken out of United States governance and handed over to the"world community" as President Obama plans to do in 2015. If you think the recent activities of the IRS are a threat to free speech, wait until you see what happens when the hypothetical "global community" is controlling ICCAN ! Enjoy what is left of free speech while you can!

Maine passes Government Transparency Bill After Receiving Low National Grade For Corruption Risk

While I was researching the University of M, I came across a thesis written by Shelby K Lane:

State-Level Government: An Evaluation of Maine's Conflict of Interest Laws and Amendments to Improve Transparency Through Financial Disclosure

The paper is dated 5/1/2013. It became the basis for a bill passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Lepage on 7/3/3013

Co-incidentally during 7/2013  I was researching the statute for the Department of Economic and Community Development ., which led to further questions about the Maine Technology Institute. During the process, I contacted the State Ombudsman, Brenda Kielty, at the Attorney General's Office where there is a published  introduction promoting government transparency. I suggested that if the government really wants to be transparent and keep things honest they should have the data base online and allow the public to search the data base themselves and create their own reports. The information that I wanted could be readily available by applying search terms to a data base. Since MTI is all about new tech it is inconceivable that they do not have state of the art data base functions available to them.- not to mention that it would save the bureaucracy time and the taxpayer money. This is the response received to that suggestion, just a little more than two weeks after the Governor signed the Transparency Act.


1.Information made available on an agency website but not in a searchable database format may not provide the research and investigative tool needed by the public. The Freedom of Access Act does not require that public information be posted online in any particular format, just that public records be made available. While there is a strong argument for increasing the accessibility and usefulness of information, there is no current requirement that the technology in place achieve that objective.

2.The collection of data and reports generated from that data may be public records but the agency is not required under the law to create a new record or report in response to a FOAA request. If the dataset you request does not exist, the agency may choose to produce it for any number of reasons but not because they are legally required to take such an action. I appreciate your comments on this topic and I will continue to bring attention to the need for accessible, useful public data.
Brenda Kielty
I had not made any reference in my correspondence to legal requirements but that was the way Ms Keitly chose to respond, clearly sending the message that the government is not going to be transparent with the public unless they are required to do so by statute.

Shelby K Lane introduces the subject of his thesis with this statement:

In March of 2012, the State Integrity Investigation published a Corruption Risk Report Card for each state, giving them a grade on 14 different areas relating to government transparency. Based on those grades, the states were then ranked 1-50, with 50 being the worst in government transparency; Maine ranked 46th.
And later says:
The bill topic stemmed from a Corruption Risk Report Card and the work of the State Integrity Investigation. The State Integrity Investigation is a project pointed at “keeping government honest.” 
The major players who facilitated this project were The Center for PublicIntegrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio International.

One of the considerations on which states are rated is the following
The access that citizens have to those mechanisms, such as access to public records at reasonable cost and within a reasonable time

However the latter consideration is not included in the bill passed by the legislature which focuses only on conflicts of interests of the legislative body- and not on public transparency regarding the activities of our government"- giving the apearance of a minimum effort made motivated by improving the states low grade in a national report- as opposed to a sincere willingness for the activities of the state to be transparent to the public
Bill Summary:
This bill amends financial disclosure laws applicable to Legislators and certain executive branch employees. Annual income received of $2,000 or more must include a description as to the nature of the income. Ownership interests of 5% or more in business entities must be reported. Involvement as a responsible officer of a political party or political committee by the Legislator or executive employee, or by a member of that person's immediate family, must be reported. The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices is directed to adopt rules that require reporting of in come of $2,000 or more in ranges. Finally, Legislators and executive employees are required to file their disclosure statements electronically and those statements must be on a publicly accessible website
 "Certain executive branch employees" are members of the legislature and their families. 

Shelby K Lane writes that "
Maine prides itself on “the state’s citizen legislature composed mostly of amateur legislators” who perform their civic legislative
duties on only a part-time basis.   
This echoes a similar line used by Steve Mistier used in a Portland Press Herald article that touched on conflicts of interest:
The Maine Legislature is a part-time, citizen legislature. Many of its members have jobs or interests that intersect with public policy that they, as lawmakers, are either voting on or proposing.
As of this writing, I have not been able to find the publicly accessible website but it is fair to say that most of the Maine legislature are in business and that people in business know about the state's economic development polices which redistribute public wealth to private corporations and capitalists. These policies have been in existence and expanding since at least the late seventies. Anyone in business knows that if they are in the legislature,  they can have a hand in centrally managing the state economy and in constructing the terms by which the public's wealth is re-distributed to the "targeted sector"- such as The Expanded and Improved Seed Capital Tax Credit  that was passed with a unanimous vote in 2013. That means that the legislature can write laws to benefit any special interest and to even benefit themselves once they leave office. There is no way of knowing what private deals might be taking place behind the scenes even if there is no direct and transparent conflict of interest readily identifiable. Corruptibility is in the very nature of targeted sector economics . The bill passed is restricted to the legislature and members of the legislature's family and does not apply to the unelected tzars and boards that have the authoritative positions in the wealth redistribution process- nor does it apply to any other member of government.

Another statement by Mr lane is this:

It appears obvious that at least some people do think changes need to be made; the opposition is either avoiding the challenge of creating such change or believes that because Maine has not yet had any major corruption that we will never have any in the future
I beg to differ with that analysis. All of the economic development programs are a corruption of our state constitution, which I have written about repeatedly in this blog. The legislature is not an uneducated lot. They have legal advisers. They take an oath to uphold the Maine Constitution and the United States Constitution, They cannot claim ignorance of the law-and  the ultimate foundation of the law- the constitution -  and it is inconceivable that those involved in politics are ignorant of basic political philosophy including that which distinguishes the Maine and United States political philosophy from the philosophy of Marxism.

It is the culture of Augusta to ignore the Maine State Constitution. Mr Lane pays reverence to the culture of Augusta when he provides this definition

Political Culture
-the system of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols, and values
which defines the situation in which political action takes place; grounded in the states historical experience and dominant traditions about what constitutes proper government faction
.The state constitution is more than  a tradition or an historical experience - it is the consent of the governed- but over and over again we see that those doing the governing in Maine rarely mention the word "constitution" ( with an exception for when they are campaigning for office) as if the word has been vanquished from their vocabulary and thus vanquishing the constitution its self!

I decided to search the Shelby K Lane's thesis for the word "constitution" (since I don't have time to read the whole length.) There is found some discussion of  Jame's Madison, and constitutional conventions and even a mention of the Maine constitution:
Maine operates under its original 1819 constitution, which has been categorized by Daniel Elazar, an expert on state politics, as a“commonwealth constitution.” He notes that this type of constitution “is usually brief and concerned mostly with setting forth the essentials of government.”
I researched this description  and came upon the same words in an excerpt from Maine Politics and Government by Kenneth T Palmer. Reading a little bit further down the Kenneth T Palmer book extract,I found this paragraph:

Among the amendments particularly restrictive to the legislature are the sixth ...and the fourteenth (1876) which promises that acts of incorporation will be established under general laws and not not under special legislation.
Mr Lane's paper discusses the influence of scholars and academics on the legislative process. Mr Palmer is clearly an established scholar in Maine Politics. Any scholar of Maine  politics should first of all read the Maine Constitution themselves and also read scholars such as Mr Palmer. Considering all the scholarly and legal advisers to the legislature- such as Professor Powell who will be conducting a new minor in leadership at the University of M and whose credentials include grooming the youth for legislative positions - so how then, can the hegemony of power in the state of Maine not be cognizant that the legislature is in violation of the Maine State Constitution in chartering corporations to serve as "instrumentalist of the state' ? And how can they not understand that a corporate state is part and parcel to Marxist political philosophy ?

An amendment must be proposed by two thirds vote of each House. It was the 1876 legislature which imposed the restriction against chartering corporations by special acts of legislation on its own body. 1876 was a little more than a quarter of a century since Marx and Engels issued the Communist Manifesto in 1848 , prior to which the American Constitution was the most revolutionary political doctrine of the western world. If the 14th Amendment of the Maine State Constitution were honored, it would be very difficult for centralized management of the economy - in other words-  the government controlling the means of production (capital) -in other words Marxism - to become entrenched in Maine as it is today. I submit that as a purposeful intention of Article IV part Third Section 14 of the  Maine State Constitution is to protect Maine from encroachment by Marxist philosophy:

Section 14.  Corporations, formed under general laws.  Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained; and, however formed, they shall forever be subject to the general laws of the State.
The hegemony of power in Maine knows that it is operating outside of the Maine State Constitution. To say this does not qualify as corruption is to occlude honoring an oath to uphold Maine State Constitution from the measure of corruption.

Once again I submit that there is need for  a constitutional  requirement that members of the legislature takes yearly classes in Maine and United States Constitutional law and the Federalist Papers.