Tesla and SpaceX: What America Still Has to Offer

February 16, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Washington and Wall Street and the collective international order they've built over the decades following the Second World War appear to have run their course.

To adversaries and allies alike, the US has become more of a liability than the global leader it attempts to present itself as. Yet there are still nations around the globe, including those which find themselves the target of Washington and Wall Street's most aggressive machinations, who still desire to work with and benefit from cooperation with the American people at large.

There is no doubt that nations like Russia and China which find themselves the subject of sanctions, trade wars, covert subversion and even covert terrorism and proxy war, still benefit greatly from the ties, trade and cooperation they are still able to maintain with the United States. There is no doubt that if the special interests in Washington and on Wall Street were to fade and an alternative, more collaborative circle of political and economic interests took their place, these benefits would grow immensely for the US and the rest of the world.

But is there any ray of hope that as America's current leadership fades from the global stage, something else (and something better) can take its place?

It appears that the answer may be, yes.

Tesla and SpaceX 

Tesla is an American electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer. Founded by Elon Musk who also serves as the company's CEO, the company has accelerated the otherwise stalled US electric vehicle market into unprecedented territory.

After passing many hurdles, the company has finally broken through into what appears to be sustainable success. In CNN's recent article, "Tesla just proved all its haters wrong. Here's how," it was reported that:

This week, the company reported its first annual profit in 10 years as a public company.

Perhaps more significant for Tesla skeptics: the company generated $1.1 billion of free cash flow last year. That means it is no longer in danger of running through its cash or depending on investors to pump more money into its operations.

The stock has skyrocketed more than 250% over the last eight months, making Tesla the second most valuable automaker in the world by market value, behind only Toyota (TM).

Tesla's meteoric rise has created a mix of reactions within and beyond America. It has inspired the general public with an entirely fresh approach to car design, manufacturing and sales. Coupled with the attractiveness of Tesla's vehicles being entirely electric, existing automakers have little to offer in terms of competition.


This has forced incumbent auto monopolies who had previously and deliberately dragged their feet regarding EVs to finally make commitments toward R&D, manufacturing and sales of their own EVs.

While Tesla's rise has introduced badly needed competition to the existing, stagnant auto industry, it has also provoked attempts by incumbents to sabotage Tesla's success. Shady union protests and dishonest media organizations engaged in campaigns to smear Tesla have attempted to poison the public against the new automaker.

However, this pressure within the United States will likely do little to stop Tesla. The company has strong public support and has already expanded into China with its new Gigafactory opening in Shanghai which is already producing cars.

Tesla's eager desire to work with China, putting business, cooperation and mutual benefits ahead of shortsighted monopolistic practices provides a template for other emerging US companies to follow in creating an alternative to the exhausted and fading interests still dominating Washington and Wall Street, including the deeply entrenched incumbent US auto industry.

Another example is the US aerospace company SpaceX, also founded and chaired by Elon Musk.

It has gone from just barely launching its tiny Falcon 1 rocket in 2008 to regularly launching its Falcon 9 rockets which are used for domestic and foreign missions, military and commercial as well as supplying the International Space Station (ISS). SpaceX is also developing a manned spacecraft to send astronauts to the ISS and beyond.

Not only has SpaceX achieved a launch cadence on par with established US aerospace giants, it regularly recovers and reuses the first stage of its Falcon 9 rockets, a feat no other aerospace enterprise public or private has achieved, meaning SpaceX offers access to space for considerably less than its competitors.

SpaceX has likewise inspired the public as well as entrepreneurs who are attempting to replicate or improve upon SpaceX's style of business.

And just like Tesla, SpaceX has spurred ugly reactions from entrenched special interests who, with the aid of those in Washington, sought to bar SpaceX from competing for US Air Force contracts. Just like Tesla, SpaceX has overcome these obstacles through persistence and by simply providing vastly superior alternatives than its competitors.

Tesla and SpaceX' trials, tribulations and eventual success provide insight into how a wider transition of power from established, entrenched and exhausted special interests  to more constructive alternatives may play out in the future as Tesla and SpaceX expand and as the companies they've inspired begin growing and competing against established US monopolies as well.

The success of Tesla and SpaceX against the odds and the impressive achievements they've both made should not only inspire Americans and demonstrate to the world that the US still has much to offer, it should also serve as an example for other nations to follow, creating industries that are driven by specific purposes rather than purely for profit and power.

These industries abroad could then meet those popping up in the US somewhere in the middle. Considering the positive impact Tesla and SpaceX alone have had on the auto and aerospace industry, more of a good thing certainly will have a positive impact on the world in the years to come.

Only time will tell if purpose-driven industry will win out over fading profit-driven models and the fading international orders they've constructed, but the more aware people are that there is an actual alternative to existing circles of special interests, the more likely these alternatives are to succeed.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

China's Huawei Continues to Move Around US Sanctions

December 26, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - By establishing facilities in Europe to produce components, Chinese telecom giant Huawei is continuing the process of circumventing US sanctions amid a wider US-led trade war aimed at artificially quelling the growing trend of foreign companies outcompeting long-entrenched US monopolies.

US State Department-funded media platform, Voice of America, in an article titled, "Sanctions-Hit Huawei Plans Components Plant in Europe," would claim:

Chinese telecommunications group Huawei is working on a plan to build its own components at a site in Europe, its chairman told AFP, after it was hit by U.S. sanctions.

Huawei chairman Liang Hua would be quoted in the article as claiming:

"We are planning to manufacture our own components at a production site in Europe in the future," he said in an interview at AFP's headquarters. "We are conducting a feasibility study to open a factory in Europe for this. The choice of country will depend on that study."

Finally, the VOA article would quote Liang Hua as noting:

"In the area of 5G technology, we are already no longer dependent on the supply of chips and other components from American companies."

The VOA article would also admit that despite full-spectrum pressure from the US, Huawei continues to break records in terms of sales while it continues investing in both growing its market share and moving around US sanctions.

The US-led trade war aimed at firms like Huawei who have recently begun to pull ahead of their US counterparts was meant to hinder, setback or entirely overturn the competition with minimum effort on the part of US firms. Instead, it seems to have only compounded the troubles of American firms unable to compete against Chinese alternatives, while hurting US companies providing parts for or receiving final products from Chinese companies like Huawei.

Too Little, Too Late 

Huawei is already a massive enterprise with a global-spanning business coupling together it with other businesses and even other nations around the world. It possesses a momentum of its own that even in the face of immense setbacks, is able to continue moving forward.

US efforts to curtail or even cripple the firm appear to only be providing temporary setbacks while providing the Chinese firm with impetus to create a more self-sufficient and resilient business model in the intermediate to long-term.

The fact that US sanctions have led to Huawei circumventing any need to deal with US firms to acquire components for its 5G telecom network technology is one example of this.

The US forcing Huawei to move on without Google appears to only have set back the company temporarily while in the long-term illustrating that Google may not be as indispensable as it and the US government attempted to portray it as.

It is likely that this process will only continue, as the necessity for the US to invest in a genuine strategy to compete in terms of developing better business models and through technological innovation over cheap and unsustainable (not to mention ineffective) political tricks seems lost on Washington and the special interests lobbying it to pursue the current regime of sanctions and smears.

While US tactics have set back Huawei in certain terms, they have also set back the interests of US businesses themselves; both businesses that had until recently supplied Huawei with components and thus were rising alongside Huawei throughout its continued success, but also for companies that sold Huawei products or, like Google, placed their products and services within Huawei's final products (smartphones).

Stitching China and Europe Closer Together 

While Washington has attempted to portray Huawei and other Chinese firms as global pariahs as well as threats to security, the fact is that many nations prefer to do business with Huawei, having conducted their own assessments of the company regarding any potential security threats it might pose to their respective nations and telecom infrastructure.

Nations acquiescing to US pressure do so for political rather than practical reasons, with many fully understanding the high cost of their acquiescence. The nations of Europe, who find themselves under constant pressure from Washington regarding a wide spectrum of issues, has begun taking steps to likewise move out from under Washington's shadow and to conduct business freely with whomever it desires and with whomever offers them the greatest benefit.

Huawei's plans to produce components in Europe will be one step further in helping both the Chinese firm and its European partners step out together from under US coercion.


For Washington, policymakers must begin to understand that in the process of trying to isolate and precipitate the decline of companies like Huawei and entire nations like China, they are only bringing about America's further isolation and decline. This is done not only to the detriment of US-based companies more than happy to collaborate with and share mutual benefits with Chinese firms, but for foreign firms including those in China who have benefited from doing business with their US counterparts and would continue doing so had it not been for the current trade war and sanctions leveled amid it.

A similar process of US sanctions and pressure backfiring against Washington is taking place in Southeast Asia where nations told by the US to abandon Huawei have decided to disregard US demands and move forward in earnest.

Only through genuine competition can the US reverse its current fortunes. At one point in the past, coercion, threats and punitive actions were able to ensure US hegemony militarily and economically across the globe but no longer.

For US interests lobbying Washington to continue to pursue its current, unsustainable and clearly ineffective policies, they have demonstrated that they no longer deserve the power and influence they possess, lacking the ability to upkeep it and laying down the gauntlet for more responsible and constructive US enterprises to take the reins of American policy while there is still something left to steer into the future.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

The American Empire Will Fall, Not America Itself

December 12, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The collapse of an entire nation is as spectacular as it is rare. For a nation to simply cease to exist it must suffer such absolute defeat across the entire spectrum of what constitutes a nation; economically, militarily, culturally, socially and politically.

What is much more common is a transition from existing, prevailing socioeconomic, political and military orders to new ones driven by new, emerging special interests. It can happen quickly and violently, or take place as a long-term process with ups and downs and both constructive and destructive processes intertwining.

For the United States, a massive nation with the third largest population on the planet, the largest military and still currently the largest economy, for it to suffer such full-spectrum defeat is impossible.

What is not impossible is for the small handful of special interests currently directing US policy foreign and domestic, to find itself displaced by a new order consisting of entirely different kinds of special interests and, hopefully, special interests that better reflect the best interests of the United States as a whole and function more sustainably among the nations of the world rather than hovering above them.

It is a process that is already ongoing.

America's Prevailing Order is Fading 

The current special interests driving US foreign and domestic policy are centered around Wall Street and Washington and represent an increasingly unrealistic, unsustainable, archaic network based on traditional banking, energy and manufacturing monopolies.

Many of the tools used by these special interests to maintain and expand their power and influence including mass media, extensive lobbying, networks dedicated to political subversion abroad and political distractions at home find themselves increasingly ineffective as both the American people and nations around the globe become increasingly familiar with them and as they begin developing effective countermeasures.

While US special interests dedicate a seemingly immense amount of time countering "Russian" or "Chinese" "propaganda," it is primarily alternative media from the United States and its partner nations that have done the most to expose and diminish the unwarranted influence wielded from Wall Street and Washington. Wikileaks is a prime example of this.

As America's elite and their networks weaken, alternatives continue to grow stronger.

An unsustainable socioeconomic and political model, coupled with equally unsustainable military campaigns abroad along with a political and media strategy that is no longer even remotely convincing even to casual observers demarks what is an irreversible decline of America's current, prevailing order.

America's Elite Face Challenges from Within as Well as From Abroad

The topic of Chinese corporations out-competing long-established US monopolies has become an increasingly common topic across global media. It is indeed this process that has precipitated the seemingly pointless and futile US-led trade war against China, a futile exercise that seems to only highlight the decline of America's established elite rather than address it.

Corporations like Huawei, despite facing serious setbacks owed to US sanctions and efforts to undermine them, still move forward, while their US competitors continue to struggle. This is because despite setbacks, Huawei is built upon a solid foundation of business and economic fundamentals, while its American counterparts, despite their initial advantages owed to a lack of competition, have neglected and continue to neglect such fundamentals.

But Chinese corporations aren't the only challengers America's established elite face.

Within the US itself some of the most innovative and disruptive companies in the world are cropping up, challenging not only foreign competition but also long-established monopolies based in the US.

Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla is a perfect example of this. Its breakneck pace of innovation, high-profile successes and the disruptive impact it is having on traditional car manufacturing is setting back the American car industry first and foremost. It also poses a serious threat to the petroleum-centric energy model the US has adopted and propagated globally for over a century.


American car manufacturing monopolies have spent decades developing a model of planned obsolescence and marketing gimmicks as a stand-in for genuine consumer value and innovation. The industry has become a means of simply making as much money as possible and to increase profits each year, with "making cars" merely the means through which this money and the influence it buys is being accumulated.

Tesla has for years now been growing both in terms of business and in terms of sociopolitical influence. US car manufacturing monopolies have attempted to ape the most superficial aspects of Tesla's appeal, but have entirely failed to examine or replicate the substance that drives the new company's success.

Just as the US elite have attempted to use what could be described as "dirty tricks" rather than direct competition to deal with competitors like Huawei abroad, similar "dirty tricks" have been employed against disruptive companies within the US itself like Tesla. Attempts by faux-unions to complicate Tesla's US-based factories are one example of this.

US-based aerospace manufacturer SpaceX is another example of an American-bred competitor directly challenging (and threatening) long-established US monopolies, in this case aerospace monopolies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

SpaceX is not only driving aerospace innovation forward at breakneck speeds, it is driving down the overall cost of access to space at the same time. It is doing this at such impressive rates that established aerospace monopolies like Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop, even with their immense lobbying networks, are unable to dissuade SpaceX customers (including the US government itself) from purchasing rides on its rockets.

Bloated monopolies who have become overly reliant on maintaining profits through lobbying and political games have little means to overhaul their massive organizations in the face of real competition as it emerges. Because of this, the prevailing order driving US policy faces an insurmountable obstacle that already appears to have resulted in terminal decline and displacement.

Those doing the displacing stand to assume the position at the levers of American power and influence, with an opportunity to set an entirely new course into the future that will have a fundamental impact on both the American nation and its people, and the nations of the world it will interact with.

America's New Order May Seek Genuine Competition and Collaboration 

Tesla and SpaceX are prominent examples, but by no means the only examples of the ongoing transition that is increasingly evident within America. There are emerging innovations and companies threatening virtually every area America's current elite dominate. From the alternative media targeting the deeply rooted corporate media of America, to a growing movement of local organic farmers chipping away at America's massive agricultural monopolies, there are already many tangible examples of a transition taking place; a positive transition that those interested in truly addressing the negative aspects of America's current role globally can invest in or contribute toward.

In what is perhaps a hopeful sign of the new America that might emerge as this process continues forward is the fact that emerging disruptors like Tesla are not afraid of collaborating with other nations, seeking to simply do business rather than construct a global spanning network aimed at dominating others. Tesla's massive Gigafactory going into operation in Shanghai, China takes place as the US attempts to sever China's access to the economic benefits of doing business with the US for purely political and hegemonic purposes.

Despite the apparent hostilities between the US and nations like Russia and China, the consensus in nations targeted by America's current prevailing order is one of simply wanting to do business on equal terms. Whatever hostility may exist is reserved not for America as a nation or as a people, but toward the handful of special interests obstructing constructive competition and collaboration between these nations and the US.

In the near to intermediate future, this process will continue to resemble a bitter struggle as US special interests attempt to maintain their grip on power, fighting against inevitable decline and displacement, and against competitors both abroad and within the US itself.

Beyond that, there is a hopeful future where the US finds itself a constructive member of a multipolar world, constructively competing against and collaborating with nations rather than attempting to assert itself over them.

Because of this, it is important for nations and peoples to refrain from unnecessary, broad hostilities and to instead patiently weather current efforts emanating from Wall Street and Washington. It is important to establish ties and relations with US interests genuinely interested in true competition and collaboration and who represent America's future, and to distinguish them from deeply rooted US interests that represent America's abusive past and and are responsible for America's current decline.

The foreign policies of Moscow, Beijing and even of many emerging and developing nations may seem overly passive or appeasing, but around the capitals of the world many are aware of the transition taking place in America and are attempting to position themselves advantageously for the fall of the American Empire so they can do business with those who assume the levers of power in America once it does.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

From Legos to Rockets: Technology is Disrupting Western Monopolies

November 15, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - At first glance the Danish toy company Lego doesn't seem to have much to do with paradigm shifts in technology. Yet a recent incident illustrates the march forward of modern technology and the threat it poses to not only well-established but inflexible companies like Lego, but to entire industries and their collective impact on global economics.

Clinging to Antiquated Business Models

Lego has recently mounted an intellectual property (IP) crusade against 3D designers sharing Lego-style creations on free online 3D model libraries. People download these designs and 3D print them out. It should be pointed out that many of these designs are highly unique and are not merely replicas of products Lego sells.

Some online 3D model libraries immediately capitulated to Lego's legal notices to take down the various designs.

One online 3D model library, MyMiniFactory, not only initially ignored the take-down notices, it created a contest challenging designers to come up with an alternative modular building block system (like Legos) that would  be open source and free for others to download or base new designs off of. The alternatives developed will also be free from Lego's aggressive IP crusade.

ALL3DP, a 3D printing news website, reported in a recent article that:

The "OGEL" beyond the brick competition is a playful dig at Lego, which recently sent infringement notices to popular maker hubs like Cults and MyMiniFactory.

Lego will most certainly survive the OGEL competition but the fact it pursued an aggressive legal campaign alienating enthusiastic fans of its products suggests 3D printing technology may have been at least perceived as eating into Lego's profits or impeding future growth.

Without doubt technology like 3D printing, especially as it improves and is more widely adopted, will pose as a growing problem for companies like Lego who produce relatively easy products to replicate. Lego's instinct to attack rather than adapt is a mistake repeated by many companies who refuse to accept waves of change.

Technology Transforms Industry Dynamics  

Before 3D printing, the Internet and file sharing transformed the media industry.

Movie studios and recording companies still claim to be making large profits after waging their own very aggressive legal wars and undergoing a painful, awkward transformation to adapt, but the fact is the Internet and file sharing has forever changed markets, consumer behavior, and the respective market shares of once prominent and uncontested media titans.

Yes, big-media is still making profits but the percentage of those profits versus the vastly expanded media market the Internet made possible is relatively smaller. It is a market where individuals can just as easily promote themselves and reach millions as any large studio. Big-media still has a large piece of pie, but the whole pie itself is much larger with many more people getting their own piece.

For-Profit vs. For-Purpose 

As technology transforms different industries, large companies will have to accept that profitability and market share will shrink and the notion of perpetual growth for the sake of growth is no longer feasible. Profits are obviously important for a business but a business model that places purpose first will thrive as long as it is achieving that purpose and is profitable.

Such reformation will (and does) attract investors. These are investors who believe in the purpose of the company rather than see the company merely as a target to be strip mined until exhausted, discarded and moved on from.

Western corporations, having enjoyed supremacy in both profitability and market share, now face a growing number of similar businesses within their industries springing up not only in China but in virtually every developing nation as well. They face shrinking market shares, stagnant profits and stalled growth and because these three metrics define their purpose, they are panicking.

American auto companies, for example, who exist to maximize profits for their investors and just so happen to make cars as a means of doing this, should probably have been out of business years ago. Government bailouts have kept them alive artificially. But as nations around the globe begin making their own cars, the goal of perpetually expanding profits and market shares will no longer be feasible (and some can easily argue for Detroit, it already isn't).

Newcomers leveraging the latest in manufacturing technology will not only shrink incumbents' market shares, they will also outcompete them in a variety of ways.

A car company like Elon Musk's Tesla has a purpose; to make affordable electric vehicles and to spur the adoption of EV's worldwide. The company needs to make profits to survive and thrive, but Tesla's purpose has been put first. Tesla can and does brag about profitability when it reaches various milestones, but it demonstrably doesn't seek to achieve these metrics for expansion's and profit's sake, and especially so at the expense of Tesla's purpose.

Each Tesla car model released is the result of groundbreaking research and development and a leap ahead of previous models, unlike Detroit which basically sells the same model of car for years at a time with mainly cosmetic changes made annually for marketing purposes.


Tesla  may not achieve spectacular results in terms of growth and profits, but it is a more sustainable business because of its approach. Tesla is a business that attracts much healthier investment, investment that believes in the company's purpose. As long as that purpose is being met, investors continue investing. Tesla also enjoys an almost fanatical consumer base because of these factors.

SpaceX, which is also headed by Elon Musk, is likewise a newcomer to an industry monopolized by deeply entrenched incumbents. The aerospace company went from going nearly bankrupt after struggling to get its first rocket into space to overtaking all industry competitors in annual launches.

SpaceX has not only outcompeted its competitors, it has developed innovations its competitors had declared "impossible." This includes innovations allowing for the recovery and reuse of SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage rocket, a process that has become almost routine now and a process its competitors have so far failed to match.

SpaceX is not nearly as massive as competitors like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, both members of United Launch Alliance. Despite this, SpaceX is fulfilling its purpose, transforming the aerospace industry at a break-neck pace, reducing the cost of accessing space and is still profitable.

Again, because of SpaceX's revolutionary approach, it has attracted massive public support, something competitors have attempted to do, but by emulating superficial aspects of SpaceX's public relations strategy rather than adopting the for-purpose fundamentals determining SpaceX's overall direction.  Just as in the auto industry, aerospace incumbents who faced no competition and driven only by profit see the notion of investing heavily in innovation as a needless expenditure.

Complacency vs. Competition 

As technology continues to advance, and the pace of advancement itself increases exponentially, antiquated approaches like hording intellectual property or placing profits ahead of purpose and innovation will increasingly threaten not only industries that continue to do so, but the local and national economies they reside in.

America's long-established auto manufacturers, aerospace industry, IT sector and many more are facing growing challenges both from local newcomers and emerging competitors abroad specifically because of this. Since many of these companies also exert significant influence over US foreign and domestic policy, the undermining and erosion of their businesses will ultimately transform the nature of their influence and US policy at home and abroad in profound ways.

The few US firms taking up the challenge, like Tesla and SpaceX, prove America is still capable of incredible things, but will continue to suffer until companies like Tesla and SpaceX become the rule rather than extraordinary exceptions.

Developing nations abroad have a unique opportunity to take advantage of emerging technology and the feet-dragging of old monopolies in nations like America and level the playing field globally. Whether it is something as mundane as plastic building blocks or something as cutting edge as rockets and electric cars, significantly disrupting even the largest most established monopolies on earth is now a possibility.

Much of the tangible change we have seen from unipolarism to multipolarism is owed to nations doing just that.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Technology Turns the Tables on Global Hegemons

May 25, 2018 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Centuries ago, technology like sailing ships, guns, and steel armor enabled Europeans to appear on South American shores and appear godlike to the natives. Through a combination of spreading disease and wielding military, organizational, economic and of course technological superiority, Europeans subjugated the native populations and conquered an entire continent.

European and eventually American technological superiority granted each and every subsequent century to the West. As military and manufacturing technology began to proliferate more freely and more rapidly following the World Wars, nations found themselves finally armed, economically independent and organized enough to throw off Western colonization.

It is a process that is still ongoing, with brief instances of technological advances in the West providing an economic or military edge before quickly being mitigated by that technology's proliferation globally.

This decrease in lag time between Western technological breakthroughs and global catching up has put Western hegemony itself in danger. It is a danger Western policymakers have been spending greater amounts of time considering, and because of that, so should policymakers the world over on how to protect and even enhance the global balance of power this reduction in lag is creating.

RAND Fears the Future

In a recent paper published by the RAND Corporation, a US policy think tank funded by, and working for the largest military and economic interests in the Western Hemisphere, fears of how technology may further erode the West's technological and thus economic and military edge over a world it seeks hegemony over are explained.

RAND published an article titled, "Four Ways 3D Printing May Threaten Security," which focuses specifically on computer-controlled manufacturing and in particular, 3D printing.

The article begins by claiming:

3D printers already produce everything from prosthetic hands and engine parts to basketball shoes and fancy chocolates. But as with any technological advance, new possibilities come with new perils.​​​​​​​

The 4 ways include:

1. Hackers Could Use Printers to Cause Real-World Damage;
2. Printers Could Enable New Criminal and Security Threats;
3. Printed Guns Are Not the Biggest Risk and;
4. New Manufacturing Capabilities Could Endanger Jobs.

While some of the concerns RAND covers are legitimate, particularly the danger of computer code being altered to produce sabotaged parts, these are fears that already exist across existing manufacturing industries worldwide with strategies already developed to test manufactured parts before their use for critical applications. 

3D Printed Firearms are Not a Real Threat 

RAND cites the 3D printing of firearms by "terrorist groups," however as the ongoing gun control debate in the US and terrorist attacks across the world prove, determined terrorist groups often carry out attacks using explosives or hijacked vehicles that kill far more people than single or even coordinated gun attacks. And despite firearms being so ubiquitous in nations like the United States, homicide rates appear to be more affected by socioeconomic factors than merely access to firearms. 

A person with access to a 3D printer who is not a murderer will not suddenly be compelled to murder because they can now "print" a firearm.

Unemployment is also Not a Real Threat

The RAND report also waves the prospect of employment in front of potential readers to ratchet up fears. However while 3D printing will most certainly spell the end of factories in the intermediate to more distant future, what they have already proven is that localized manufacturing simply decentralizes manufacturing and the jobs that go along with manufacturing, as well as the profits.

To RAND's credit, they recommend training and education to prepare people to assume jobs in additive manufacturing (3D printing). 

The real fear, however, is that networks of local manufacturers will replace industrial monopolies, like those that fund RAND's activities. These localized manufacturers will benefit from equally decentralized and localized profits. Power will shift from large corporations to local communities and individual entrepreneurs, enhancing the balance of socioeconomic power on a global, national and local level.

The End of Sanctions and Western-Dominated Globalization 

Thus it is what RAND considers economic threats that reveal the true context of fears among RAND and special interests regarding newer, more accessible and more localized manufacturing technology.

RAND's article claims:

Economic sanctions and trade embargoes would become far less effective if rogue states could simply print what they need. Isolated regimes or extremist groups could also use printers to manufacture weapons that previously required industrial expertise. 

"Perversely," the RAND researchers wrote, "(3D printing) might indirectly support the survival and rise of such states as North Korea, which would no longer suffer the same costs of withdrawing from the international community."

Here RAND lays down its cards. With localized advanced manufacturing technology, attempts to cut nations off from the US-European dominated international order will become increasingly ineffective. In fact many forms of more traditional manufacturing technology have already become cheaper and more accessible because of advances in technology, to nations once wholly dependent on Western corporations for technical expertise. 

RAND also discusses fears over the end of globalization, claiming:

At the same time, the trade ties that have held together nations—incentivizing cooperation over conflict—could fray. A car company, for example, might print and assemble the parts it needs on site, rather than making the parts in one country, shipping them to another for assembly, and selling the final product in a third. A recent report by trade analysts at ING predicted that 3D printing could wipe out almost a quarter of cross-border trade by 2060. Those trade ties and supply chains, the RAND researchers noted, have contributed to a dramatic decrease in interstate war since World War II.

While it is true that these trade ties have "held together nations," it is important to note that they are being held together to the primary benefit of a small handful of US and European corporations, industrialists and financial institutions who dominate and direct modern globalization. 

Such ties have not provided an incentive to avoid conflict in favor of cooperation, as RAND suggests. Instead, globalization, when viewed as a modern version of British colonial mercantilism, represents a system of monopoly and control, interconnecting nations that are beholden to the entire system, and of course, an entire system dominated, directed and which serves the US and Europe.

Sanctions wielded by the US and Europe provide a perfect illustration of how this system really works and what its true purpose is. Nations that do not accommodate US-European interests are penalized and unable to conduct business or maintain the economic health of their nations. 

Multipolar Manufacturing for a Multipolar World 

3D printing and other forms of advanced, localized manufacturing technology will undoubtedly reverse globalization and revitalize nationalism and localism. However, the prospects of wars erupting in this age of new localized abundance will be less likely than it is today. This is because as socioeconomic and technological disparity decreases between the world's most powerful nations and its weakest, so too will military disparity. 

The risk of initiating a war against a much weaker nation versus the benefits a nation will receive is what currently drives US and European military aggression around the globe.

As nations become increasingly independent of globalization and as they acquire or develop military technology that improves military parity with the West, the smaller the list of potential targets for Western military aggression becomes. 

Expanding socioeconomic and military parity is the true fear of US and European policymakers employed by large corporations whose power and domination stems from global disparity. 

The emergence of decentralized, advanced manufacturing is inevitable. Nations with realistic plans to usher in an orderly transition from traditional economics to a more localized future will reap the most benefits. Those who squander resources attempting to impede or even roll back the tide of technological change will be swept away by it. 

For those determined to establish and maintain a truly multipolar world where national sovereignty holds primacy over international hegemons, creating a likewise multipolar industrial and economic foundation will be key. Additive manufacturing like 3D printing will be one of the pillars upon that foundation. 

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

What's Really Behind Assault on Tesla Factory "Safety?"

Fronts representing big-oil and big-auto are spearheading a widening PR campaign targeting electric car manufacturer and alternative energy company Tesla. 

May 26, 2017 (LocalOrg) - Alternative energy company Tesla which includes US-based electric car development and production, battery production, and now also includes residential solar panel and battery systems previously under SolarCity, represents a simultaneous threat to several cornerstones of Western corporate-financier monopolies.

Openly seeking to replace big-oil and big-auto, it was only a matter of time before Tesla's co-founder, CEO, and product architect Elon Musk attracted the negative attention of both of these deeply rooted and corrupt industries.

The genuine enthusiasm for Tesla and its products versus the paid-for media campaign to obstruct or even reverse Tesla's influence on energy and transportation has been a see-sawing battle unfolding just beneath the surface.

More recently, attempts to further complicate Tesla's US-based manufacturing facility in California have been spearheaded by the United Automobile Workers (UAW), an organization that attempts to pass itself off as a labor union.

Part of this campaign has included several "investigations" carried out by both the corporate media and various organizations like Worksafe - an opaque organization claiming to advocate workplace safety - which recently published a report regarding worker safety at Tesla's California factory. The report was widely promoted across the corporate media in what appears to be a concerted attempt to single out and undermine Tesla.

Attempts to ascertain Worksafe's affiliations and funding yielded only an ambiguous disclosure on its website stating:

Worksafe is allied with a advocacy groups, scientists and academic experts, unions and labor activists, diverse working communities, like nail salon technicians and car wash workers, environmentalists, legal aid programs - and you.

That UAW featured Worksafe's report prominently on the front of its website gives us clues to just which "unions" Worksafe is "allied with." It appears to be part of a wider campaign by UAW to create a "union" at Tesla, described in a Bloomberg article titled, "Tesla Workers' Union Push Gets UAW Support at California Plant," which states:

The United Auto Workers has sent organizers to help employees organize Tesla Inc.’s electric-car plant, a move that -- if successful -- would give the union the presence it’s long sought beyond legacy U.S. automakers’ factories. 

A group of Tesla workers have contacted the union to seek assistance organizing, and the UAW is in discussion with them, Dennis Williams, the union’s president, told reporters during a roundtable Thursday in Detroit. He said union organizers have received complaints about long hours and potentially unsafe conditions at Tesla’s plant in Fremont, California. 

UAW is a Wall Street Trojan Horse Disguised as a Labor Rights Advocate 

While UAW poses as a labor union, in reality, UAW is nothing of the sort.

It is an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) affiliate, with AFL-CIO representing perhaps the most successful Wall Street-devised attempt to date to infiltrate, co-opt, and commandeer legitimate labor unions and movements not only in the United States, but through funding and association with the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED), all across the entire planet.

A more in-depth example of this can be examined via Democracy Now's 2005 report, "Unholy Alliance? The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela," and specific mention of the UAW within NED programs can be found on NED's own webpages for Russia and Asia.


The National Endowment for Democracy represents some of the largest, deepest entrenched corporate financier interests on Earth, including big-oil and big-auto. The conflict of interest - even at face value - should be prominently featured in any and all news regarding UAW's growing  row with Tesla. Yet it is not.

Image: Big-oil and big-auto are both well represented by NED's corporate sponsors and chairpersons. That its affiliates through the AFL-CIO and UAW are applying pressure on up and coming competitor Tesla is precisely why NED and its network of faux rights and labor advocacy fronts were created for. 

The UAW specifically is listed throughout the NED's various international programs as being in direct cooperation with NED in supplanting and dominating foreign labor movements.

Just as NED exploits and abuses human rights advocacy to advance US special interests across the globe, it uses AFL-CIO and faux-unions like UAW to exploit and abuse labor issues to hide its self-serving agenda behind. Key to the success of such schemes is complicity across the corporate media - which goes far in explaining why obvious conflicts of interests regarding UAW and entrenched big-auto corporations are never mentioned in corporate media reports.

Undermining a relatively independent, disruptive company like Tesla by leveraging alleged labor concerns is par for the course regarding AFL-CIO and UAW - and is in fact why fronts like NED, AFL-CIO, and UAW were created for in the first place.

While labor issues are a legitimate concern upon every factory floor on Earth, attempts to address them must be done in a transparent and honest manner via legitimate and independent third parties. The AFL-CIO and UAW attempting to push labor issues regarding Telsa, and even attempts by both to create a "labor union" at Tesla are neither legitimate nor independent.

The UAW - a faux-labor union created by and for the very special interests organized labor is supposed to serve as a check against - would be comparable to Elon Musk creating a labor union at a General Motors or a Ford factory. Wider public awareness of both this current attempt to target Tesla, and the wider corruption, exploitation, and abuse of labor advocacy by AFL-CIO and UAW will help remove this insidious tool from the hands of special interests and place labor advocacy back into the hands of the workers where it belongs. 

We Already Live in a Free Market - Here's Why It's No Utopia (Yet)

April 30, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The fundamental problem with free market proponents is that many fail to realize we already have an absolutely, 100% free market. Within that free market, a clique of incredibly wealthy, well connected, and well organized individuals have decided to use their freedom to create "governments" they influence, media they control, police who impose by force their will upon populations, a military to either protect their racket or project it beyond their current areas of operation, and all else we associate with "statism."

The fact is, should we be able to push a button and suddenly render Earth a government-free planet, the first order of business wealthy, well-connected, well-organized individuals will do is band together to create gangs, then mafias, then governments, then supranational blocs, until they then move on to pursue global hegemony as they chaff against competing factions doing likewise - entrapping the rest of us within their self-serving struggle.

This of course does not render void the ideology of agorism or anarchy. Neither does it negate the positive, practical aspects of the modern nation-state. What it does is illustrate a matter of practicality versus principles and the necessity to balance them realistically.

Might Makes Right 

The above scenario unfolds the way it demonstrably does on a daily basis and since the beginning of time because wealthy, well-connected, well-organized individuals are able to successfully hone and wield the tools of physical force better than any of their competitors.

Imagining again the scenario where the world is suddenly rendered government-free, these individuals would simply eliminate by force those attempting to impose upon them limitations preventing them from imposing their will involuntarily upon others.

Without a sufficient means of deterrence, gangs, mafias, governments, and supranational blocs will run roughshod over any and all who stand between them and greater wealth and influence.

Balance of Power 

To prevent a gang, mafia, government, or supranational bloc from expanding further, it requires an equal but opposed center of organized power arrayed against it.

Imagining the scenario where the world is suddenly rendered government-free, in order to prevent wealthy, well-connected, well-organized individuals from imposing their will upon others, an equitable balance of power would need to be established.

This could entail various means of decentralization where individuals were able to possess equal but opposed means of self-defense, monetary exchange, manufacturing, communication, energy production, and all other essentials currently monopolized by the world's existing centers of power.


Decentralization is Already Happening 

In many ways this is already happening. Decentralization is unfolding on various levels. On a global level, competing centers of power are multiplying.

The United States is no longer the sole global hegemon as it was after the end of the Cold War.

Russia has reemerged, China is rising, the other nations of BRICS are increasingly competing across a broad spectrum of socioeconomic, military, and geopolitical areas. Developing nations are individually and collectively asserting national and regional sovereignty not enjoyed since before the Age of Empires.

Technology has made it possible for these nations to create their own alternatives to monopolies only the largest global superpowers had the resources to possess. This includes aircraft manufacturing, aerospace engineering, energy production, monetary exchange, medicine, and all other aspects of modern civilization.



Within any given nation, large economic monopolies are facing greater, more diverse, and distributed competition from individuals and small start-ups also leveraging technology to do today what it took armies of workers and mountains of capital to do decades ago.

The alternative media is one example of this. The organic food industry taking on established agricultural monopolies is another.

Don't Let Ideology Obstruct Necessary Transitions 

Before you can have an agorist or anarchist utopia, global hegemony must transform into global competition. Competing supranational blocs must give way to competing independent nation-states, and independent nation-states must give way to decentralized states and eventually increasing levels of localization and individualism.

None of it can be done overnight, and none of it can be done without the necessary prerequisites being fulfilled beforehand.

This does not mean that one must support a government in principle. It means, however, that for practical purposes, we must support what blocs, governments, and various special interests represent in terms of creating an equitable balance of power and fulfilling the prerequisites needed to make this transition.

For example, a military-led government took power in the Southeast Asian state of Thailand. The government it replaced was a client regime organized and installed into power with US support. The United States had expanded its hegemony nearly to the other side of the planet. The military-led government - however unappealing it is in principle - in practice has pushed back a global hegemony at the cost of becoming a national hegemony.

In Thailand, however, the government lacks the ability to dominate society in the same scope and to the same degree as the US-backed client regime had. Within Thailand, the ability to decentralize is not only possible and being pursued, it is actually encouraged in many ways by many within the current government and the special interests within Thailand that the current government represents.

In other aspects, because of opposing special interests within Thailand itself, centralization is being encouraged. Preventing the return of a US client regime is essential, and so is contesting those favoring centralization. It is a delicate balance that must be struck - with principles as a guide, but practicality as a priority.

Unequivocally opposing the current Thai government simply undermines its ability to obstruct supranational interests from reasserting themselves. However, the current government does not require unequivocal support - it simply needs support for the few aspects it is actually providing a benefit to in terms of making the transition from globalization to localization and individualism.

Ideological Purists are Still Needed 

During a transition, it is not impossible for those who believe in an agorist or anarchist future to find themselves overly invested in "practicality" at the cost of principles.

For agorism in particular, where free market solutions are seen as a vector toward a better tomorrow, it is easy for an individual who has accrued wealth, power, and influence to become part of the problem rather than the solution. Ideological purists help pull these individuals out of their ruts and back toward their original, ideological destination.

Take SpaceX and Tesla's Elon Musk who has often said that virtually every problem we face as a civilization has a free market solution. Musk's popularity and prominence is owed to his ability to put purpose before profits - but still make profits. However, in theory, it would not be difficult for him to forsake purpose for profits and find himself the head of companies blindly chasing quarterly earnings for shareholders rather than accomplishing his original, nobler goals.

Ideological purists - and not simply those who are critics, bloggers, and commentators - but the very customers and investors involved in his companies encourage Musk to continue prioritizing purpose before profits. Should at any time Musk fail to do this, these ideological purists will open the door of opportunity for the "next Musk," the "next SpaceX," and the "next Tesla."

There already is a free market - and those who currently dominate human civilization used that freedom to accrue for themselves unwarranted power and influence at the cost of the majority.

We must understand that while the "state" is a human construct, it is backed up by very real physical force, economic monopolies, financial domination, and industrial might. The only way to secure our own place within the existing free market, is to diminish these advantages through establishing an incremental balance of power between blocs, states, within states, and eventually between individuals.

Do this by creating alternatives to the current monopolies of money and industry, redistributing the current concentration of power, wealth, and influence through localized entrepreneurship.

The cost in the free market for organized individuals to impose their will upon others is not only minimal, it is profitable. Remove the profit and increase the cost, and this involuntary imposition of will becomes nearly impossible. 

Exposing the Real Deep State

March 13, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Many both within and beyond America's borders labor under the delusion that US policy is determined by the nation's elected representatives amid a careful balancing act between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. In reality, the inner workings of US policy resemble nothing of the sort.

In reality, an unelected deep state controls the United States, its resources, government, and people. However, the term "deep state" has been overused and intentionally abused, particularly since the election of US President Donald Trump in an effort to continue concealing the real deep state and divert public attention away from what is becoming an increasingly obvious continuity of agenda from one presidency to the next.

Uncovering and understanding the nature of the real deep state is in fact elementary, but essential in understanding the genesis and perpetuation of US policy. It is also essential in formulating solutions aimed at reining in the unwarranted power and influence wielded by this seemingly nebulous entity.

Identifying the Real Deep State is Easy

Despite the myth of "democracy," real power is held by those who control the essentials of any given state, province, district, or community. Essentials include control over monetary instruments, essential infrastructure such as water, power, communication, and transportation, control over manufacturing, healthcare, and basic public services, as well as more obvious forms of power such as control over police and military forces.

In rare instances, such vital essentials are controlled by decentralized, grassroots organizations - and in these instances deep states are either weak or virtually nonexistent. However, more often than not, this is not the case - at least not yet.

Ordinarily, regardless of apparent, ongoing political processes, those who actually, truly control these essentials often exist well beyond but not out of reach of politics. They include large corporations and financial institutions. Organizations, lobbyists, media platforms, think tanks, and political parties are set up and controlled by these special interests to then project their power and influence into or entirely driving any given political process.

The concept of a "deep state" is not unique to only the US. Virtually every nation and throughout all of human history, regardless of a nation's alleged political proclivities, has been ruled by wealthy and influential special interests either directly or by proxy.

Ignoring political rhetoric and charades, and focusing on where money, power, and influence truly resides, reveals the real deep state.

Unraveling the "Trump Vs Deep State" Narrative 

A cursory examination of President Trump's administration reveals that he is but one of many extensions of the real deep state. Allegedly "alternative" Breitbart News mogul Stephen Bannon who functions as President Trump's chief strategist is in fact a former Goldman Sachs banker. US Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, is also a former Goldman Sachs banker. Additionally, he managed funds for alleged "Trump archenemy," George Soros, and had invested in the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is a long-time ExxonMobil executive, and the list goes on.

If one were to map the flow of US power and influence globally, tracing it back to its source, they would find themselves on Wall Street and in the boardrooms of financial institutions and corporations like Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil. They would also find, leading out from these boardrooms, proxy news platforms like Breitbart News aimed at manipulating, distracting, and preying on the emotions of the American public.

In other words, in reality, the Trump administration, like those of previous presidencies, is the embodiment of the deep state.


However, a narrative has emerged alleging that President Trump is actually at war with a shadowy "deep state" consisting of everything from the US intelligence community to career bureaucrats "resisting" the Trump administration and "its" policies from within the system.

To explain this contrived narrative to the American public, another one of the real deep state's propaganda functionaries, TIME Magazine, punished an article titled, "President Trump's Allies Keep Talking About the 'Deep State.' What's That?"

In it, it claims:

To allies of Trump in the conservative media and on Capitol Hill, it is an organized resistance within the government, working to subvert his presidency. They blame career bureaucrats, many of whom they see as loyal to former President Barack Obama, for leaking damaging information to the news media.

TIME also cites Freedom House, a US government-funded organization dedicated to regime change worldwide and chaired by the very same special interested centered upon Wall Street - again, the actual, real deep state - in an effort to downplay and dismiss the notion that the United States is actually run by just such an entity.

It claims:

"[The White House] is taking a sexy term that means something very real in an environment in which there has been a lot of violence associated with this term and we’re applying it to stuff that’s pretty normal in terms of a large bureaucracy," said Schenkaan, the Freedom House project director. "These are state employees and they have been implementing their jobs faithfully for a long time."

Back in reality, the American public is beginning to suspect in much larger numbers than ever before, that the US government is simply carrying out a singular agenda - regardless of election results and political affiliations - of  a permanent, deeply rooted conglomeration of special interests that transcend political parties, ideologies, presidential terms, as well as both domestic and international law.

The creation of an attractive, provocative, almost irresistible strategy of tension between various functionaries within the real deep state is intentionally designed to draw in and trap political discourse long before it reaches and reveals the true nature of both the real deep state and the solutions required to dismantle it.

America's Deep State is the World's Problem 

It is beyond obvious that America's real deep state represents not only the usurpation of American sovereignty, but also a threat to global peace and stability. The wielding of America's unwarranted power and influence manifests itself as regional wars, subsequent waves of refugees, socioeconomic exploitation and catastrophe within targeted states and across entire regions, as well as a general global malaise  resulting from a minute handful of special interests abusing and egregiously wasting the planet's human and natural resources for its own petty, self-serving pursuits.

It is not, then, an American problem, because the consequences of America's unchecked deep state stretch out across the entire globe.

Confronting this deep state, and all others like it regardless of size and reach, requires a careful transition pursued by lesser states - and more importantly - by modern, decentralized institutions and alternatives driven by individuals.

Confronting the real deep state at the very source of its power - its corporate and financial activities and the profits reaped from billions of people across the planet paying into them - is fundamental.

The effectiveness of doing so is already evident in such realms as information space where decentralized networks of genuine alternative news platforms have countered and overcome the real deep state's information war capabilities. Adding leverage to this process are competing centers of global power in Eurasia who have created competing media platforms that have further diluted the US deep state's grip on information.

A similar process - enabled by technology - is unfolding across all aspects of manufacturing and infrastructure. The emergence of aerospace industries across the developing world is beginning to challenge the US-European monopoly over both air and space. Chinese corporations building trains and aircraft - on the largest end of the spectrum - are diluting monopolies enjoyed for decades by corporations like Boeing and Airbus.



On the smaller end of the spectrum, localized manufacturing of simpler goods carried out by individuals or small businesses, both within formal and informal economies and markets, are chipping away at centralized manufacturing and retail monopolies.

Alternative energy such as solar power lends itself well to decentralized power production both for individuals and members of networks known as microgrids. As these microgrids proliferate, energy monopolies will inevitably whither.

And the organic food movement - a mesh network that continues to expand by leaps and bound in both size and capabilities - has challenged and in some instances, entirely replaced centralized agricultural and processing monopolies who also constitute the membership of the US deep state.

Solving the Deep State Problem 

Despite this, the deep state still poses a formidable and dangerous threat to both global and individual peace and prosperity.

The natural human inclination to create alternatives to compete with such a threat - but which simply resemble a mirrored version of the threat - means that a "Chinese" or "Russian" dominated deep state leading any given unipolar global order will simply replace America's immense deep state and continue carrying on the abuses and destructive role Wall Street and Washington currently fulfill.

Talk of a multipolar world order in which nations balance themselves against one another rather than fall under a single, unipolar order dominated by a single deep state and the handful of interests that constitute it, forms a bridge between today's current global order and a decentralized, balanced future.

A multipolar world order in which nations are balanced globally, then leads to an internal process of decentralization and balance, all of which is driven by technology and the opportunities in business and sociopolitical pursuits opened up by it which allow each individual to take a more proportional share of a nation's or community's resources.

While it may seem counterintiutive for nations like Russia, India, or China, or even smaller players like Iran, Thailand, or Brazil to invest in decentralization, national and local self-sufficiency, and even informal economies, currencies, and markets, by doing so, they help chip away at the current, dominate global deep state which through its media and consumerism still reaches into, threatens, and influences virtually every society on Earth.

Ultimately, sidestepping the crass, unsophisticated but highly provocative and alluring strategy of tension created around the Trump administration and the alleged "deep state" it is supposedly fighting, is essential in identifying and confronting the real deep state that is orchestrating both sides of this charade.

Placing stock in political functionaries of the deep state to solve the deep state problem is beyond futile - it is a rouse intentionally engineered to preserve and perpetuate the deep state. By identifying the true source of the real deep state's power and influence - the wealth it derives from its corporate-financier monopolies, its control over national and international infrastructure, and its media - we can begin devising practical alternatives to dilute these monopolies and thus the power and influence they grant those who control them.

It requires a period of transition involving both state and individual efforts pursued by all who stand threatened by the deep state - and all those who are threatened by the deep state consist of anyone who resides outside the boardrooms from within which its agenda is devised and implemented.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”   

What's Really Behind the Rise of the Cashless Economy?

January 29, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LocalOrg) - Geopolitical analyst, journalist, and activist James Corbett of the Corbett Report steps viewers through the real story behind India's recent, massive demonetization efforts - the story untold by prominent news agencies - and untold for a very good reason.

Corbett reveals the US develop agency USAID's role in preparing India for its demonetization campaign, as well as the special interests both within and beyond India's borders driving the efforts. 

India's financial and economic shake up is a warning shot for the world - that the battle of financial technology to either liberate us all through decentralized peer-to-peer blockchain currencies, or render us under a centralized, global financial control grid ruled by a small circle of corporate-financier special interests is coming to a head.

For those to whom cryptocurrencies like BitCoin is a hobby, what has just transpired in India may provide the impetus to expand efforts to perfect and proliferate blockchain technology before cashless payment systems take over and displace all forms of currency, old and new.

For those who have yet to dig into cryptocurrencies or the details behind the emerging cashless global economy, Corbett's latest video is the perfect springboard into both.

LocalOrg seeks to explore local solutions to global problems by empowering people locally with education and technology to not only survive, but to thrive. 

Agorist Challenge: Fixing Flint Michigan's Poisoned Water

January 17, 2017 (Tony Cartlaucci - LocalOrg) - Did you know nearly 100,000 people in Flint Michigan are still drinking poisoned water?

That should be no surprise. The government and institutions charged and trusted to ensure the residents of this Michigan city had safe drinking water already demonstrated criminal levels of negligence and corruption, causing the problem to begin with. Expecting these same people and the system they represent to solve the problem lingers somewhere between the unreasonable and the absurd.

US President Barack Obama declared a federal emergency in Flint over a year ago - meaning that the problem isn't just corrupt, negligent, and criminal politicians in Flint - but that the incompetence and impotence goes all the way to Washington.

A year on and the "solutions" presented have ranged from simply forcing residents to buy bottled water and unsustainable charity providing those bottles, to superficial, even deceptive measures like replacing home faucets instead of the miles of poisoned plumbing running through the city.

As for actually fixing Flint's plumbing, government estimates range from "millions" to "billions" indicating no serious thought has been given to even so much as planning an infrastructure overhaul.

It is most certainly a showcase for the absolute failure of government. But could it be a showcase for something more positive?

A Showcase For Alternatives 

Anarchists and agorists propose that there is virtually no problem that cannot be solved through the market - voluntary exchanges between free citizens contributing to a better future. The few, semi-permanent solutions that have presented themselves in Flint have certainly leaned more toward this direction.


Atmospheric water generator (AWG) company, EcoloBlue, donated 250 of their machines to the residents of Flint. However, at 1,200 dollars a piece, and requiring proprietary filtration systems, it is hardly the right fit for this particular market.  Beyond charity or a large government subsidy, these machines will not reach many more people.

However, AWGs produce water in precisely the same way a conventional dehumidifier does. It cools down a condenser so that moisture in the air condenses on it, then falls into a collection basin below. AWGs however include an additional filtration stage and a dispensing system. They also feature food-grade materials across all of their surfaces which conventional dehumidifiers may not.

The EcoloBlue units also include features that may not be as necessary and have helped contribute to their relatively steep price. These include hot and cold water dispensing capabilities and a computerized touch-screen monitoring and control system.

Creating a barebones design that both fits the market in Flint and provides reliable, decentralized, and most importantly clean water production for people, should not be a difficult challenge to meet for local entrepreneurs, innovators, and makers - or even EcoloBlue itself.

An opensource design, based on a simple dehumidifier with stainless steel condensers and a widely available, generic water filtration system could easily be developed and fabricated in virtually any machine shop or makerspace in the state. While the costs will need to be low, the market for efficient, simple, and opensource water generators may make up in volume what is lost in big-ticket sales. Small businesses that form around this project could branch out, building a line of products to target different markets and price ranges over time.

Larger units operated by business owners and community centers like churches and clubs, could bottle and dispense/deliver clean water to residents as a stop gap. There is a potential to create water-independence in Flint like some communities have created for food and energy elsewhere.

It is the prefect project for technologically informed anarchists and agorists to prove their principles in practice, facing and overcoming a challenge government has demonstrably failed to meet. It is also a perfect opportunity to gain a foothold in the area of water independence, a crucial but often overlooked aspect of moving from centralization to localization.

Fighting a Forgotten Battle 

Michigan-based Libertarian politician Tiffany Hayden has spent a large amount of time attempting to draw attention to the Flint water crisis - with many people believing - thanks to the corporate media - that the crisis is long over.

She has also attempted to approach local charity organizations, lobby the government, and stir up public support for action - any action - to address the crisis.

She laments that even residents who are literally drinking poisoned water, have been lulled into apathy by handouts, superficial remedies, and an overall lack of awareness and leadership. Because lead poisoning is gradual, residents do not make an instinctive link between the poisoned water they are drinking and the problems it is causing in terms of health - both mental and physical.

While proponents of anarchy and agorism tell Hayden that asking the government to solve a problem of the government's own creation is futile - making a valid point - and "free market" solutions are the alternative - no tangible solutions have actually been proposed, let alone implemented.

Solving the Flint water crisis, however, would go far in validating anarchy and agorism as no longer ideologies, but an actual tool set used to solve real world problems when politics and politicians inevitably fail.

The problem facing free-market proponents attempting to prove their principles work better in practice than the existing system, is how to approach and "sell" clean, opensource, decentralized water independence to the people of Flint and beyond.

And if charity or crowdfunding is employed during the Flint water crisis, it should be focused on permanent solutions that provide permanent water independence - not bottles of water that are literally here today and gone tomorrow and benefiting only corporations like Nestle, Pepsi, and Coke instead of local businesses.

Inspiration

Elon Musk has dedicated himself to two apparent goals - making humanity a multiplanetary species, and creating solar-electric infrastructure. His electric car company, Tesla Motors, approached enthusiastic people first, then with successive models, he made his cars both more appealing to regular people and more accessible.

Throughout the growth of all of his businesses, he carefully balanced market realities against his own ideals. In other words, ideals that ignore market realities will remain intangible ideals. And pursuing market realities without ideals becomes aimless and unsustainable. He has stated that he believes nearly all problems can be solved in the markets.

Luckily for those attempting to move into water independence, the technological hurdles are not quite as steep as launching rockets into space or designing and manufacturing thousands of electric cars. And because Flint is already undergoing a long-term water crisis, those making machines to address the crisis can likely find labs at local universities to help test the water their machines produce to ensure it is not only safer than Flint's poisoned water, but safer than anything available, even in a bottle.

Resources

Below is a list of makerspaces in Michigan that likely have the tools and talent, and perhaps even the business acumen to approach and overcome this crisis. Solving it will not only provide them with viable small businesses, but will also highlight for a wider audience the growing role in their community their makerspaces play as important local institutions.

• GR Makers: (Grand Rapids) https://www.grmakers.com/
• Geek Group: (Grand Rapids) http://thegeekgroup.org/
• Steamworks: (Flint) http://www.flintsteamworks.org/
• Jackson Makerspace: (Jackson) http://jacksonmakerspace.org/wp/
• i3Detroit: (Detroit) https://www.i3detroit.org/
• Omni Corps Detroit: (Detroit) https://omnicorpdetroit.com/blog/
• Maker Works: (Ann Arbor) http://maker-works.com/
• All Hands Active: (Ann Arbor) http://www.allhandsactive.org/
• Tech Shop: (Detroit) http://www.techshop.ws/ts_detroit.html
• Lancing Makers Network: (Lancing) https://www.lansingmakersnetwork.org/

An introduction to atmospheric water generators via Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_water_generator

LocalOrg seeks to explore local solutions to global problems by empowering people locally with education and technology to not only survive, but to thrive.