Part 2

By Chris Hedges

In Robert E. Gamer's book "The Developing Nations" is a chapter called "Why Men Do Not Revolt." In it Gamer notes that although the oppressed often do revolt, the object of their hostility is misplaced. They vent their fury on a political puppet, someone who masks colonial power, a despised racial or ethnic group or an apostate within their own political class. The useless battles serve as an effective mask for what Gamer calls the "patron-client" networks that are responsible for the continuity of colonial oppression. The squabbles among the oppressed, the political campaigns between candidates who each are servants of colonial power, Gamer writes, absolve the actual centers of power from addressing the conditions that cause the frustrations of the people. Inequities, political disenfranchisement and injustices are never seriously addressed. "The government merely does the minimum necessary to prevent those few who are prone toward political action from organizing into politically effective groups," he writes.

Gamer and many others who study the nature of colonial rule offer the best insights into the functioning of our corporate state. We have been, like nations on the periphery of empire, colonized. We are controlled by tiny corporate entities that have no loyalty to the nation and indeed in the language of traditional patriotism are traitors. They strip us of our resources, keep us politically passive and enrich themselves at our expense. The mechanisms of control are familiar to those whom the Martinique-born French psychiatrist and writer Frantz Fanon called "the wretched of the earth," including African-Americans. The colonized are denied job security. Incomes are reduced to subsistence level. The poor are plunged into desperation. Mass movements, such as labor unions, are dismantled. The school system is degraded so only the elites have access to a superior education. Laws are written to legalize corporate plunder and abuse, as well as criminalize dissent. And the ensuing fear and instability--keenly felt this past weekend by the more than 200,000 Americans who lost their unemployment benefits--ensure political passivity by diverting all personal energy toward survival. It is an old, old game.

A change of power does not require the election of a Mitt Romney or a Barack Obama or a Democratic majority in Congress, or an attempt to reform the system or electing progressive candidates, but rather a destruction of corporate domination of the political process--Gamer's "patron-client" networks. It requires the establishment of new mechanisms of governance to distribute wealth and protect resources, to curtail corporate power, to cope with the destruction of the ecosystem and to foster the common good. But we must first recognize ourselves as colonial subjects. We must accept that we have no effective voice in the way we are governed. We must accept the hollowness of electoral politics, the futility of our political theater, and we must destroy the corporate structure itself.

The danger the corporate state faces does not come from the poor. The poor, those Karl Marx dismissed as the Lumpenproletariat, do not mount revolutions, although they join them and often become cannon fodder. The real danger to the elite comes from déclassé intellectuals, those educated middle-class men and women who are barred by a calcified system from advancement. Artists without studios or theaters, teachers without classrooms, lawyers without clients, doctors without patients and journalists without newspapers descend economically. They become, as they mingle with the underclass, a bridge between the worlds of the elite and the oppressed. And they are the dynamite that triggers revolt.

This is why the Occupy movement frightens the corporate elite. What fosters revolution is not misery, but the gap between what people expect from their lives and what is offered. This is especially acute among the educated and the talented. They feel, with much justification, that they have been denied what they deserve. They set out to rectify this injustice. And the longer the injustice festers, the more radical they become.

We can use a mosquito's own instincts against her. At TEDxMaastricht speaker Bart Knols demos the imaginative solutions his team is developing to fight malaria -- including limburger cheese and a deadly pill.

Bart Knowles is a doctor committed to killing mosquitoes and ending malaria.

There are people who can quickly memorize lists of thousands of numbers, the order of all the cards in a deck (or ten!), and much more. Science writer Joshua Foer describes the technique -- called the memory palace -- and shows off its most remarkable feature: anyone can learn how to use it, including him.

By William Deresiewicz

There is an ongoing debate in this country about the rich: who they are, what their social role may be, whether they are good or bad. Well, consider the following. A recent study found that 10 percent of people who work on Wall Street are "clinical psychopaths," exhibiting a lack of interest in and empathy for others and an "unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation." (The proportion at large is 1 percent.) Another study concluded that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and break the law.

The only thing that puzzles me about these claims is that anyone would find them surprising. Wall Street is capitalism in its purest form, and capitalism is predicated on bad behavior. This should hardly be news. The English writer Bernard Mandeville asserted nearly as much three centuries ago in a satirical-poem-cum-philosophical-treatise called "The Fable of the Bees."

"Private Vices, Publick Benefits" read the book's subtitle. A Machiavelli of the economic realm -- a man who showed us as we are, not as we like to think we are -- Mandeville argued that commercial society creates prosperity by harnessing our natural impulses: fraud, luxury and pride. By "pride" Mandeville meant vanity; by "luxury" he meant the desire for sensuous indulgence. These create demand, as every ad man knows. On the supply side, as we'd say, was fraud: "All Trades and Places knew some Cheat, / No Calling was without Deceit."

In other words, Enron, BP, Goldman, Philip Morris, G.E., Merck, etc., etc. Accounting fraud, tax evasion, toxic dumping, product safety violations, bid rigging, overbilling, perjury. The Walmart bribery scandal, the News Corp. hacking scandal -- just open up the business section on an average day. Shafting your workers, hurting your customers, destroying the land. Leaving the public to pick up the tab. These aren't anomalies; this is how the system works: you get away with what you can and try to weasel out when you get caught.

I always found the notion of a business school amusing. What kinds of courses do they offer? Robbing Widows and Orphans? Grinding the Faces of the Poor? Having It Both Ways? Feeding at the Public Trough? There was a documentary several years ago called "The Corporation" that accepted the premise that corporations are persons and then asked what kind of people they are. The answer was, precisely, psychopaths: indifferent to others, incapable of guilt, exclusively devoted to their own interests.

There are ethical corporations, yes, and ethical businesspeople, but ethics in capitalism is purely optional, purely extrinsic. To expect morality in the market is to commit a category error. Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.) Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it's every man for himself.

There's been a lot of talk lately about "job creators," a phrase begotten by Frank Luntz, the right-wing propaganda guru, on the ghost of Ayn Rand. The rich deserve our gratitude as well as everything they have, in other words, and all the rest is envy.

First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs -- the excess productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes to corporate profits. It's neither party's goal to benefit the other, but that's what happens nonetheless.

Also, entrepreneurs and the rich are different and only partly overlapping categories. Most of the rich are not entrepreneurs; they are executives of established corporations, institutional managers of other kinds, the wealthiest doctors and lawyers, the most successful entertainers and athletes, people who simply inherited their money or, yes, people who work on Wall Street.

MOST important, neither entrepreneurs nor the rich have a monopoly on brains, sweat or risk. There are scientists -- and artists and scholars -- who are just as smart as any entrepreneur, only they are interested in different rewards. A single mother holding down a job and putting herself through community college works just as hard as any hedge fund manager. A person who takes out a mortgage -- or a student loan, or who conceives a child -- on the strength of a job she knows she could lose at any moment (thanks, perhaps, to one of those job creators) assumes as much risk as someone who starts a business.

Enormous matters of policy depend on these perceptions: what we're going to tax, and how much; what we're going to spend, and on whom. But while "job creators" may be a new term, the adulation it expresses -- and the contempt that it so clearly signals -- are not. "Poor Americans are urged to hate themselves," Kurt Vonnegut wrote in "Slaughterhouse-Five." And so, "they mock themselves and glorify their betters." Our most destructive lie, he added, "is that it is very easy for any American to make money." The lie goes on. The poor are lazy, stupid and evil. The rich are brilliant, courageous and good. They shower their beneficence upon the rest of us.

Mandeville believed the individual pursuit of self-interest could redound to public benefit, but unlike Adam Smith, he didn't think it did so on its own. Smith's "hand" was "invisible" -- the automatic operation of the market. Mandeville's involved "the dextrous Management of a skilful Politician" -- in modern terms, legislation, regulation and taxation. Or as he versified it, "Vice is beneficial found, / When it's by Justice lopt, and bound."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The FBI took -- and mysteriously replaced -- their server.

Here's their story:

By Bob Sullivan

Ever wonder what it's like to have FBI agents knock on your door? Or to have them walk into your business unannounced and walk away with your computer? Jamie McClelland and Alfredo Lopez can tell you.

Their recent run-in with the men in black - the result of a spate of email bomb threats to the University of Pittsburgh -- offers a rare glimpse into the collision between free speech rights and the benefits of anonymity on one side with the needs of law enforcement to act quickly in the face of real threats on the other.

Their tale ends with an odd twist: FBI agents, caught on video, returning the server only four days after it was seized from a co-location facility in New York City. At the moment, no one knows why the FBI would take that unusual step. FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said the agency wouldn't comment on either the seizure or the return of the server.

Federal investigators and local officials in Pittsburgh were scrambling last month as bomb threats targeting the University of Pittsburgh piled up. Within days, 46 such threats were logged, causing massive disruption as students and teachers were continually evacuated from building after building. Parents and school officials pressured law enforcement to solve the case. For some reason, the FBI thought a server in a small facility in New York City might contain a crucial clue.
McClelland and Lopez run a progressive Internet organization called MayFirst/PeopleLink, which helps democracy-seeking groups around the world use the Web to organize. Together with sister organization RiseUp, MayFirst/PeopleLink offers email services, mailing list support and other Web tools. But their services make a promise that's critical to people fighting oppressive regimes: All data is encrypted, guaranteeing total anonymity to those who need it.

McClelland was on a conference call in MayFirst/PeopleLink's Brooklyn office -- which is in the same building where Lopez and his wife live -- on April 11 when he saw two men in suits standing at the door.

"I thought they were Jehovah's Witnesses, but I joked with people on the call that it was the FBI," he said. Moments later, it was no joke.

The agents flashed their badges and asked if they could come in; McClelland refused. They asked if they could step into the vestibule. He refused again.

"I had had some rudimentary training," he said. "It certainly had occurred to us that we might some day get a visit from the FBI given the nature of what we do. But this wasn't what I expected. I was surprised at how easy it was to say 'no' to them...There was no intimidation, none of that. The agent appeared more nervous than me, and I was pretty nervous."

Standing outside, the agents then showed printouts of a few emails with full headers to him, saying they were related to the Pittsburgh bomb threats. At that point, McClelland hadn't heard about the threats, so he said he didn't know anything about them. They asked if he knew anything about ECN.org, a server which appeared in the e-mail headers. Again, he said "no," truthfully.

"I asked if I could have copies of the emails. The agents said "no." But I then asked if I could get pen and paper and write down details of what we were looking at. They let me do that," McClelland said. "I then asked them if they thought our server was compromised. But they couldn't tell me anything. So I asked for their business card and told them we would research it."

The agents left, but McClelland's day had only just begun. What was ECN.org? Why did the agents show up unannounced? And most important, what would happen next? He was sure that wasn't the end of it.

"When you are visited by the FBI, even when it goes relatively easy like it did, your entire life gets put on hold as you deal with all the implications," he said. McClelland called Lopez and other leadership team members, and then called the Electronic Frontier Foundation for legal help.

"There were three hours of calls to run through things and make sure we had everything covered," he said.

Initially, Lopez and McClelland assumed that one of their members had been hacked, and the account used for illegal purposes. Simply patching whatever security hole existed could end the problem. But a visit to ECN.org indicated there was a much more complex issue.

ECN stands for the European Counter Network, an independent Internet service provider in Europe. It shares much the same mission as MayFirst/PeopleLink. On ECN.org, the provider offers anonymous email services through a service called "Mixmaster." Using Mixmaster, email users can achieve nearly undefeatable anonymity -- multiple servers pass messages from one to the other, each time stripping out header information and replacing it with false data, making it nearly impossible for investigators to "trace" the message to the original sender.

ECN had subcontracted space on RiseUp's New York City server; RiseUp had in turn subcontracted that space from MayFirst/PeopleLink. It now appeared that the FBI believed someone connected to the Pittsburgh bomb threats had used ECN's anonymous email capabilities, which led to FBI agents knocking on the door at Alfredo Lopez's home office.

"If you had asked me before this happened if one of our members ran an anonymous remailer, I would have said, 'probably,' " said McClelland. "That's exactly the kind of thing we want to support and we want to protect."

When correctly configured, anonymous remailers leave no trace at all. There are no log files to check, no other server "fingerprints." After making sure the server was running properly, McClelland called the FBI agent on the business card and told him all he knew about ECN, which essentially was nothing.

"We told him we suspected there was an anonymous remailer, there's nothing else we can tell you," he said. "We decided that was our best strategy ... to minimize disruption to our members. We didn't want to risk going to the next level of escalation."

The strategy failed.