The Hill: It’s Time To Take Our Privacy Back From Tech Companies

Game on. More and more people are realizing that ‘Big Tech’ is totally committed to destroying privacy for every citizen, and that something must be done to stop them before it’s too late. They are not going to give up easily, however, because Technocrats hate politicians. ⁃ TN Editor

Your personal information is being collected, organized, purchased and sold on a global market. Polls consistently show that most people are concerned they have lost control of their own personal data. No one is immune from the pervasive information grab by governments, companies, and hackers. This is happening to pretty much anyone alive (or dead) who has ever used the internet, a credit card, gone to school, subscribed to cable television or used a cell phone. There is no escaping this new reality.

However, we can change the rules that govern the way your information is collected and used.

Absolute control of your information is no longer possible, but you can and should have a say in the matter. Think of your data or information as personal property. Companies and governments can use eminent domain or other seizure processes to take that property, but the sting eases when you realize they must afford due process and justly compensate the owner for the property taken.

The biggest difference between your digital property and other personalty is that your every action online creates new digital items of value. Especially your online actions that involve monetary transactions, such as what kind of movies you watch, food you eat or places you visit. This data goes into a profile that increases the value of your information to a marketing company.

Today, internet service providers, social media and search engines develop and sell your profile. Sometimes these marketing companies develop or buy popular apps so they can directly collect information. Your digital property is making money for everyone involved in the process — except you.

My question is, if we are creating something of value, shouldn’t we get compensated for it? We shouldn’t view all data mining as negative. Make no mistake, some of it can get creepy, but most of it is designed to put products I like in my wallet’s sight line. The part that’s disconcerting is that it’s usually done without my knowledge or consent. This is especially troubling when it comes to my children’s information, as kids are now more in touch with electronics than any generation before them. One university study revealed that by age two, 90 percent of kids have a moderate ability to use digital devices.

What’s even worse is when this invasion of privacy is used as a way to extort money. It wasn’t that long ago AT&T actually charged customers $30 a month to not be spied on. It was also just this past summer that AT&T talked about rolling out regular internet service that would come with ads based on their data mining. They would allow customers to opt out of their information grabbing ad-crammed service, but for an additional cost of $500 to $800 annually. AT&T has done something important here: admit how much your digital property is worth.

There are, however, a few places that have seen the light. Switzerland, for instance, with their long established respect for personal privacy. Under Article 13 of the country’s constitutional right to privacy, authorities are not allowed access to anyone’s personal data without their notification and a thorough and transparent data request process. Another example is Australia, where new legislation would allow consumers to own their data. This policy would force government agencies and companies to get explicit permission from users before transferring or selling their data to third parties. Compare that to the United States’ current consideration of Section 702, and the unforgivable lack of media coverage over how much of your information law enforcement is allowed to collect and sift through without notice, or even much cause to then use it for whatever purpose they want.

Our actions create new digital property with every click of the mouse, and the result has monetary value. Companies like AT&T shouldn’t be allowed to loot our information, then profit from it. We pay them for a service, nothing more. If they want my data, they should have to compensate me. Facebook allows me to use their platform to connect with others for this privilege, and I consider it fair enough to stay on the platform. It’s my right to leave that platform, and remove their rights to my digital property when I do.

Read full story here…




Resistance: Chinese Citizens Shun Snitching Apps On Neighbors

Resistance against surveillance is rising among Chinese citizens, including avoidance of apps designed to snitch on their neighbors. China is a Technocracy with very autocratic control over citizens, so we will be watching to see if the trend to resist will grow or get squashed. ⁃ TN Editor

Mao Zedong once hailed Fengqiao in eastern China as a model for “mobilizing the masses” to galvanize Communist Party rule. Under President Xi Jinping, there is an app for that.

Launched in Zhejiang province last year, it offers citizens rewards for information as part of a new government effort to meld old-school totalitarian techniques with 21st century e-commerce, big data and digital surveillance.

There’s just one problem: Many people are wary of using the new technology platform.

The “Safe Zhejiang” app enables users to notify authorities of problems ranging from leaky drains and domestic disputes to traffic violations and illegal publications, in text or photographic form, as long as the informants reveal their location and identity.

In exchange, they get perks including discounts at upmarket coffee shops and coupons for taxi-hailing and music-streaming services, as well as for the Alipay online-payment system, run by the financial affiliate of local tech giant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.

Fengqiao, a township of some 80,000 people in Zhejiang, is being hailed nationwide as a showcase for the platform. Resistance so far has been stiff, principally from citizens who resent being forced to use a surveillance tool, or fear official retribution for voicing their concerns. For some, it smacks of the Mao era, when the party gathered detailed files on citizens and incentivized them to inform on each other.

There also has been pushback from some local officials eager to control the flow of information, lest it be used against them by rival bureaucrats and superiors.

“It’s a process,” says Zhou Yuchi, an official in charge of the project in Fengqiao. “We can get people to download it. Whether they are using it or not is another question.”

Chinese people generally appear less concerned about data privacy than most Westerners. The lukewarm reception to the apps, however, suggests there are limits to how far they will willingly submit to China’s expanding surveillance state, and that many aren’t prepared to volunteer information to the government.

That puts Beijing in a bind. It wants to preserve party rule with the help of technology that allows it to keep closer tabs on citizens, while also appearing responsive to their needs. If experiments such as the apps fail, the party might rely more on the kind of intrusive surveillance technology it has pioneered in its Muslim northwest, where residents run a gantlet of checkpoints, cameras and scanners checking ID cards, faces and eyeballs.

China already is building one of the world’s most sophisticated systems for monitoring its citizens covertly using facial-recognition cameras, customer data from big technology companies and a nascent “social credit” system that rates online and real world behavior.

Read full story here…




The Lunatic Technocracy to Introduce Truth Algorithms for Us

This article stresses what I have stated many times, “The inmates have taken over the asylum” while the staff was locked up in the inmate cells and treated as the crazy ones. Big Tech is truly out of control and exercises undue influence over all facets of society.  TN Editor

The lunatics are set loose. Nobody is watching the asylum. And soon the sanitarium gates will burst open into the world population. Yes, I am talking about America the lunatic pen. Google, the disorderly orderly of the digital wing of the nut house, now has free reign. Read to the end, and the disjointed chaos caused when natural selection goes wrong.

When I read the news Google’s Eric Schmidt had announced the Mountain View company would “create” algorithm to de-rank Russia’s RT and Sputnik, I instantly thought, “Here we go into the last phased of Orwell’s 1984.” First, there is no algorithm to create to take RT and Sputnik out of the public view. Google execs just make everything sound technical to appease weak minds. And they love to be able to blame things on “the machine” if things go wrong. For the novice in how Google really works it is probably best to just consider worst cases of corporate monopolization. If you ever saw the film “The Devil’s Advocate”, then understanding how people get roped into the Mountain View, California manipulation machine will be easier. But that’s a story for the former Editor in Chief of Search Engine Journal (me) to tell. For now, let’s return to the Google search machine and Eric Schmidt.

Sure, Google uses math to propagate intelligent search. And the last couple of years have seen millions of media outlets, bloggers, and companies virtually destroyed by algorithm updates; Caffeine, Panda and Penguin. But Google’s most devastating weapon against publishers is the ability and inclination to manually reduce the ranking of any site. Interestingly, this “manual” aspect of Google was hidden by the company when the Penguin anti-SPAM algorithm came under heavy scrutiny. You can read here where Google finally came and created procedures for the millions they destroyed, but it took some doing to get Schmidt’s company to come clean about taking out people’s sites. My company lost a half a million-dollar bid to buy our Everything PR News when t
https://journal-neo.org/2017/12/01/the-lunatic-technocracy-to-introduce-truth-algorithms-for-us/
he site was de-ranked over a corporate complaint because of our investigative reporting. Caught in the fervor of the “Panda” moment, fate shined the light onto former Google evangelists. We learned that manipulative ranking was the company’s goal all along. And now two big platforms for independent voices have fallen prey to Big Brother. Make no mistake, those of us who have been presented on RT and Sputnik found a listening post that will now be silenced.

What the none of the readers of this report will know, is that the Google and its dark SEO community underneath, collaborated to rule and monetize everything you see, read, and hear on the internet years ago. Don’t freak out when you learn (recent RT story) Eric Schmidt is in bed with the deep state, the NSA, the Pentagon, Barack Obama the Clintons or whoever. Please freak out when you learn how truly evil the people behind Google really are. They will stop at nothing, as the saying goes.

[the_ad id=”11018″]

Since Schmidt’s comments before the Halifax International Security Forum Google has backtracked slightly in reaction to Russian communications agency Roskomnadzor suggesting there may be recriminations against Google should RT and Sputnik be unranked nefariously. However, no matter which way Google’s politics, PR, and lobbying go, the company’s march onward toward an Orwellian finale continues. In this CNBC article the former software engineer transformed into billionaire (magically) tries to convince readers Google is Israel’s King Solomon, an entity which needs to decide for users either A or B ideology is better. If you read between the lines you can detect the arrogance and insane intentions of these people. THEY WANT TO DECIDE FOR US. Get it? Read from the story in reference to Schmidt’s “algorithmic” adjudication of the truth:

“Let’s say that this group believes Fact A and this group believes Fact B and you passionately disagree with each other and you are all publishing and writing about it and so forth and so on. It is very difficult for us to understand truth.”

Google and the other technocrat controlled worlds are becoming more and more like Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system. If you think America has been dumbed down educationally, inundated with ultra-consumerist ideals, and brainwashed with ongoing morality advertising, then the pinpoint of light being beamed in by RT and other independent media being shut off will be a significant milestone. I cannot get over MSNBC’s headline on Schmidt: “Alphabet’s Eric Schmidt: It can be ‘very difficult’ for Google’s search algorithm to understand truth.” It’s as if they are introducing “the machine” that is to rule us.

Somehow, in some fantastical metamorphosis and cosmic realignment of neutrons, software engineers (Schmidt), former Wall Street wannabees (Bezos), and programmers turned entrepreneur (Gates) riding the genius of people like Tim Paterson end up advising the world on everything including truth. It is in the traits and personalities of these “technocrats” that we find the seed that has become our collective insanity in almost everything. A good example of what I mean is what I call the “geek” mentality, which is better described as a “gamer” point of view. The people who now advise presidents, parliaments, the military, and academia have a real “hacker” mentality. Anyone who has dabbled in coding and the geek culture knows what I am talking about. The Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (rest his narcissist soul) type personality is smartass – winner takes all – and anything goes to core. In this hacker world underneath Google and the other tech entities, there is no such thing as cheating. A lie to these people is something funny, if it gets past its target that is. Hard core geeks, when all is said and done, are the nastiest bunch of sociopaths you can imagine. Look at how Gates stabbed Apple’s Jobs in the back. And at how Jobs and Gates pirated former colleagues. Stealing to this generation of pencil neck brats is just part of a big digital board game. You know I am telling the truth, every time one of them laughs in your face. Sneaky, nasty, and bursting with their physical frailty. Connivers.

Eric Schmidt is a poster boy for screwed up natural selection processes that took a detour when Rome fell. Many of my colleagues are asking; “Just who in hell made these people experts on truth or geopolitics?” We have to face the fact that influence of any kind bears more weight than truth. Look at Lady Gaga, Madonna, Meryl Streep and Eric Schmidt cited as authorities on how we should X, Y, or Z? We are in this mess of censorship for one reason – we allowed them to go too far. They’re empowered by our inaction just like the schoolyard bullies who beat them up back when. This is what geek culture taught. It taught the Eric Schmidt’s of the world to get back at us all incrementally, one inch at a time, like those bad boys back in grade school. The sum of their vast intellectual gift is to become what they hated. Winners by the definition of a nasty trollism world in which they live. The moves against Russia and RT are not just an instance of Russophobic overreaction – these people want to know the limits of your apathy.

Some readers will scoff at my vociferous opposition to this billionaire geeks, but I know of that which I speak. When an old friend, founder of Search Engine Journal, made me editor in chief of his media site back in 2012 I had every intention of leveling the SEO playing field and search. Baker knew my intentions at transparency and a return to search engine parity from the onset, only he had no idea how far Google’s under culture was prepared to go to destroy anybody speaking of such. That story is a subject for a future report, but suffice it to say I have the goods on how Google came to dominance. The instant I introduced alternative voices to Google culture at SEJ, the dogs of hell were unleashed to destroy me and my business. Like I said, you have no idea how nasty these people are. You have no inkling how far they will take this game once the information bubble is fully domed over you. The end reality is something out of a Hollywood apocalyptic vision. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether RT and Sputnik are 50% or 100% truth. This Google move is about selling you a 100% lie.

Read full story here…




Breitbart: The Liberal Astroturfers Behind The Global Warming Scare

Finally, journalists are getting closer to discovering the specific sources of global warming hysteria, including funding, linkages and associations. Technocrats have cleverly disguised their network to avoid discovery, but those days may be over soon. ⁃ TN Editor

In order to drain the swamp, President Trump must first destroy the Green Blob.

This is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from a series of data leaks and Freedom of Information (FOI) revelations exposing the relationship between left wing campaigners and the great climate change scam.

Global warming, it becomes clear, is primarily a left-wing political issue, not a scientific one. Green is the new red.

These leaks show how rich liberal backers—left-wing institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation, eco hedge-fund billionaires like Tom Steyer, and the various socialistic Geek Emperors of Silicon Valley—are funneling millions of dollars into sock-puppet environmental organizations both to undermine Trump’s economic agenda and to finance his political opponents both in the Democratic Party and the GOP.

U.S. Climate Alliance

This poses as “a bi-partisan coalition of states is committed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” Or so the website says. But anyone can set up a website.

The truth, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has discovered through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)-requested email correspondence, is that U.S. Climate Alliance is just a front. Its real purpose is to enable the richly funded green lobby to buy up Democrat governors—and one, token, squishy Republican governor: Gov. Charlie Baker (MA)—by effectively bribing them with free office, research and staffing facilities which they can run off books.

There is nothing actually illegal in any of this. But to appreciate how ethically dubious it is, just consider how the liberal media would respond if the roles were reversed and it were conservative politicians being provided with all these off-books services by, say, the fossil fuel industry.

Chris Horner, who initiated the FOIA for the CEI, put it like this in the Washington Times:

Mr. Horner asked how the media would react if, for example, the Koch brothers provide staffing on behalf of a Republican governor.

“This would unleash a tsunami of Pulitzers and hysteria if the political parties or priorities were changed,” said Mr. Horner. “Here is a real test for ‘good government’ activists—is this all right if the ‘right’ politicians and donors pushing the approved agenda outsource government?”

What the emails show is the intimate relationship between the liberal donors, green sock puppet organizations and Democrat politics.

Energy in Depth Climate reports here on some of the details:

Climate activist groups, most notably Climate Nexus—a sponsored project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors—act as the press arm for these governors’ offices at no charge. They also operate as a “shadow staff”to support climate change communications efforts, and supplied research later promoted by these state governors as their own. This includes at least one for-profit contractor, raising the question who its actual paying client is.

The three main Democrat governors fronting the U.S. Climate Alliance are Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, California Gov. Jerry Brown and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

But the people actually running it are green lobbyists and activists, doing the bidding of their wealthy anonymous donors in liberal strongholds like Silicon Valley, as well as the usual liberal suspects such as the Rockefeller and Hewlett Foundations. One prominent figure is Jeff Nesbit, Executive Director of a green organization called Climate Nexus. In the emails he is revealed in close discussion with Sam Ricketts, director of Jay Inslee’s Washington DC office.

According to the Washington Times:

“How come governors aren’t even listed on the website?” Mr. Ricketts asked in a June 5 email.

Mr. Nesbit replied: “They will be! I promise. It’s controlled by WWF [apparently referring to the World Wildlife Fund]. They’re melting down over there. I’ll make sure the 9 governors are listed ASAP.”

Mr. Nesbit also wore the hat of press secretary, saying he needed to send a joint statement from Mr. Inslee, Mr. Brown and Mr. Cuomo to The New York Times.

“Do you have it? Is it approved? Is Inslee available to talk to the NYT and others today before Trump does his Rose Garden ceremony at the WH?” Mr. Nesbit asked in the June 1 email.

According to Mr. Nesbit, Climate Nexus, a sponsored project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, provided its services free of charge and without a contract.

What becomes clear from the emails is the extent of sock puppetry—which the Green Blob uses to give the impression of representing many disparate groups, when in fact they are all just a small group of the same people wearing different hats. There is no shortage of money to support this scam.

Read full story here…




Parents And Students Standing Up To Forced Gender Ideology In Schools

The UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include Gender Equality (#5), which it equates with human rights. In 2016, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution clarifying Gender Equality: “Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and gender identity.” As these policies have charged into American schools, parents and students are fed up and pushing back. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Progressive activists are forcing public schools to teach and practice gender ideology in the name of civil rights, but more American students and their parents are saying “no” to the demands made on behalf of a minority who claim to be the opposite sex.

In Portland, Oregon, parents of high school students have filed a federal lawsuit over the school district’s policy that allows a biological female student who claims to be male to use the boys’ locker room and bathroom.

The lawsuit is similar to one filed in Palatine, Illinois last year where, as the Chicago Tribune reported in October 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert ruled that high school students “do not have a constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs.”

The Portland lawsuit claims the Dallas School District’s policy to allow a 16-year-old female – Elliot Yoder – to use the boys’ facilities violates the civil rights of the majority of the students who are not gender-confused, the Associated Press observes.

The Oregon chapter of the ACLU argues the parents’ lawsuit is “senseless and cruel” and “targets transgender youth for simply existing and seeking an education.”

[the_ad id=”11018″]

However, Herb Grey, the parents’ attorney, says boys who use the facilities at the school are embarrassed to get undressed in front of a biological female.

“The key to this whole thing is not just the privacy and the rights of just one student,” Grey explains. “It’s the rights of all the students and their parents and you can’t interpret federal law and state law and impose it on everyone else and say you’re accommodating everyone — because you’re not accommodating everyone.”

Yoder reportedly asked to use the boys’ facilities for changing before gym class because the gender-neutral bathroom is on another floor and other students noticed when she left to change.

Two years ago, when the Dallas school district first informed parents it would be accommodating a biological female who claimed to be male by allowing her to use the boys’ facilities, the enraged parents came together to protest at a school board meeting.

In May 2016, students at Green Mountain Union High School in Chester, Vermont also pushed back against the school’s transgender policy that was allowing a female student who claims to be male to use the boys’ facilities.

As Breitbart News reported, the students argued it is unfair to make the majority of students feel uncomfortable to satisfy the demands of a small minority.

Read full story here…




Europe: Climate Dictatorship Proposed To Solve Global Warming

Technocracy is sinking its iron teeth into existing political systems, seeking to transform the entire world into a resource-based scientific dictatorship. This view from Europe should be a wake-up call for Americans! This is a must-read article.  TN Editor

Prominent environmentalist proposes a climate dictatorship because democracy is just not willing to do his policies.

The gall of this argument is staggering. It is even more staggering that the Swedish newspaper bringing this large interview today does not clearly mark the viewpoint as extreme and unreasonable. Instead, they seriously have their political analyst muse about whether a climate dictatorship is really necessary, and ending with a conclusion of ‘yeah, possibly.’

The claim comes from Jørgen Randers, professor of climate strategy at BI Norwegian Business School. His main claim to fame is as co-author of the 1972 Limits to Growth book, which scared a generation to believe we would run out of all resources and kill humanity with suffocating air pollution. Time magazine headlined their 1972 story on the book: “The Worst Is Yet to Be?” and it began: “The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips, backyards and outlying fields, hoping to raise a subsistence crop.

London’s offices are dark, its docks deserted. In the farm lands of the Ukraine, abandoned tractors litter the fields: there is no fuel for them. The waters of the Rhine, Nile and Yellow rivers reek with pollutants. Fantastic? No, only grim inevitability if society continues its present dedication to growth and “progress.””

Of course, their scare scenarios were almost entirely wrong. You can read more in my Foreign Affairs article and my short summary in Project Syndicate below.

[the_ad id=”11018″]

Now Professor Randers — correctly – tells us that democracy is unwilling and unable to pay the exorbitant amounts that he and many other environmentalists are asking us to pay. Surveys of willingness to pay for climate policies show most people in the US are willing to pay $180 per household or $70 per person. In China, the average willingness to pay is $30 per person per year. (They would all rather use it on education, health, poverty alleviation etc.)

Yet, the current Paris promises will cost each American $500 per year, each European $600 and each Chinese $170. Of course, most Americans and Europeans are unlikely to elect leaders that will actually incur a much larger cost than most people are willing to pay.

Moreover, these promises will not *solve* global warming – indeed, they will together achieve almost nothing: By the UN’s own estimate, the Paris Treaty will reduce emissions by less than 1% of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C and yet cost $1-2 trillion per year by 2030, mostly in reduced GDP growth. So Paris will deliver far less than what most people expect, yet will cost much more than most people are willing to pay.

Of course, most smart people would be against paying lots for achieving little or nothing. If anything, this suggests that democracy works just fine.

But Randers instead takes this unwillingness to spend fortunes on little benefits as an argument for ending democracy. ‘if people don’t want my preferred solution, then people are stupid, shouldn’t be allowed to decide their fate, and we should install a climate dictatorship instead.’ The argument literally seems to be: If I can’t have my way in a democracy, I want my way with a dictatorship.

That is hardly a good argument. It is also phenomenally expensive: Look at the costs to achieve the sort of climate policies that Randers and many others are advocating. If the EU fulfils its promise of cutting emissions by 80% in 2050 (which is the most ambitious climate policy in the world today), the average of the best peer-reviewed models show that the cost would run to at least $3 trillion per year, and more likely double that – meaning $6,000 for each EU citizen per year. Of course, few will vote for that.

Moreover, asking for a dictatorship neglects one of the main reasons for democracy: *how do you ensure that the dictator does what is good for you?* Throughout history, many have asked for dictatorships, but when they got it, it turned out that the dictator didn’t do what they hoped – and then how do you change your leader?

Look at China, which unfortunately is held up by many environmentalists as a green ideal. It gets 86% of its total primary energy demand from fossil fuels (International Energy Agency data, latest from 2014, extrapolated to 2017). How is that ultra-green? It gets just 12% from renewables (the last 2% from nuclear). Even in 2040 with all its Paris goals fulfilled, the IEA estimate that China will get 16% of its total energy from renewables (and most of this will still be hydro and biomass, with just 4.2% from wind and solar PV). How is this seen as ultra-green? Remember, China got a higher share of its total energy from renewables (mostly because it was incredibly poor) *every year of the last century* than it will in 2040.

But the most depressing fact is that instead of focusing on these incredibly ineffective policies that will cost a fortune but do little to fix climate, there are many other ways that would do much more good.

First, we should increase spending on green R&D – if we can innovate the price of future green and reliable energy down below fossil fuels, everyone will switch.

Second, we should focus on cheap and effective adaptation, which in the long run will avoid most of the extra damages of climate impacts at very low costs.

Third, we should recognize that the main vulnerability for climate is poverty: if you’re poor, you will much harder hit by climate change (and, of course, hit harder by pretty much every other challenge, as well). Thus, if we lift people out of poverty, we will likely help them much more against future damages from climate –- and help them much, much more period. It is not surprising, that when the UN asked almost 10 million people around the world what they wanted us to focus on, they asked for education, health, and nutrition. And placed climate at the very bottom of their list of priorities.

Increasing green R&D, adaptation and much more focus on poverty alleviation is something that most people would vote for. It is efficient, morally good and much, much cheaper.

And (although I can’t believe I really have to point it out)

we could keep our democracy.

Sources:

Article (behind paywall): https://www.svd.se/demokratin-maste-pausas-for-att-losa-kli…

My critique of Limits to Growth: https://www.project-syndicate.org/…/economic-growth-and-its…
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/…/environmental-alarmism-the…

Willingness to pay for CO₂ cuts: http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S0301421514000901http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S1674927814500160

Cost of Paris: http://bit.ly/2zfYweU

1% impact of Paris: https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967.168468.146605843967/10156114696208968/?type=3&theater

EU climate costs: http://www.worldscientific.com/…/…/10.1142/S2010007813400010,

UN priorities: http://data.myworld2015.org/

Quote (“The advantage is that once decision is made, everything goes quickly. There is no opposition fighting back”) is representative of Jørgen Randers’ argument, but actually comes from the same article from Anders Wijkman, who’s spokesperson for the Club of Rome, of which Randers is member of their executive committee.

———————

Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish author and visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School as well as President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center

Read full article here…




Physicians Are Waking Up To Maelstrom Of Technocracy’s Twisted Agenda

Having just completed my keynote speech on Technocracy to the annual convention of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), I can say with complete certainty that this particular group of medical professionals is wide awake to the perils of Technocracy.

The AAPS  was founded in 1943 and is the only national organization “consistently supporting the principles of free market in medical practice.” Based in Tucson, Arizona, it also has local chapters in eleven key states, including Texas, California, Florida and Pennsylvania.

Whereas the medical industry used to be medical professionals using technology, it has now become a technology industry that uses medical professionals. With each passing year, the technological behemoth grows larger and the micro-management of physicians becomes more acute. This is a very clear expression of Technocracy’s drive toward Scientific Dictatorship.

Along the way, the traditional doctor/patient relationship has been virtually destroyed. So-called Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) now dictates diagnosis policies, treatment protocols and ‘best practices’ that must be followed to the letter, or else the violators can be punished by withholding payment, censure or even termination from their medical group.

However, my warning was not the first to be received by AAPS. In 2005, the President of Citizen’s Council on Health Care, Twila Brase, wrote a heavily-documented white paper titled How Technocrats Are Taking Over The Practice of Medicine. The 22-page report concludes,

…the EBM initiative involves a technocratic takeover of the practice of medicine through health data collection, guideline creation, intrusive clinical surveillance, pay-for-performance strategies, and centralized medical decision-making.

EBM, which is gaining momentum across the United States, is not patient-friendly. It threatens the integrity of the patient-doctor relationship, the ability of doctors to meet professional and ethical obligations to individual patients, and the patient’s right to personal autonomy.

In fact, the EBM guidelines are not guidelines at all. These so-called “best practices” are poised to become coercive mandates imposed by government agencies and third-party payers with political and financial incentives to ration health care—and the power to do it.

The public should be alarmed. Despite the positive ring of terms like “evidence-based medicine,” “best practices,” and “guidelines,” EBM is aimed at stopping the heart of health care — the compassionate, first-do-no-harm, to-my-own-patient-be-true ethics of medicine.

Fully implemented, EBM will lead to a limited list of approved health care services—“best practices”—as determined by the agendas and values of a small cadre of politically-motivated, personally-biased individuals sitting around a table making treatment decisions somewhere far from the patient’s bedside.

All around the United States, the two people closest to any medical problem—the patient and the doctor—will not be involved in that treatment decision.

There is no time to waste. Americans must become involved and engaged. Without immediate and focused intervention, physicians and doctors—the trained professionals that patients trust to treat them when they are sick, injured or dying—will soon be stripped of medical decision-making authority and professional autonomy. Vulnerable patients will be left to depend on the personal whims, financial agendas, and political biases of people who do not even know their name. [emphasis added]

[the_ad id=”11018″]

Technocracy inevitably and always leads to Scientific Dictatorship, as we now see in the medical profession. However, this purpose was revealed long before. In 1938, The Technocrat magazine stated:

Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.

It could not be more clear. The ‘scientific operation’ of society seeks to be the exclusive distributor of goods and services to the entire population, and healthcare is one our most important service industries.

Healthcare professionals are feeling the pain wrought by this transformation. The ‘science of social engineering’ has discarded personal relationships in favor of herd management, much like we see in the agricultural industry.

The problem, of course, is that humanity is not a herd of ignorant animals like Technocrats believe. We are individuals who thrive on personal relationships with other humans.

Braze issued her clear warning in 2005, but twelve years later, few Americans outside of AAPS have cared enough to take any form of action to stop these Technocrats from completely dominating the healthcare industry. Today, the situation is worse than ever. Although medical doctors and physicians are strongly resisting the Technocrat takeover, without the help of a fully alarmed and vociferous public, the industry will be permanently transformed and your access to personalized and quality care will be over.

I have already seen the tendency to think that the healthcare service industry is an isolated example of Technocracy’s incursion. This is a foolish understatement of Technocracy’s intent: it is transforming ALL of society. Every industry, every service, every school, and every person. You cannot look at any area of society without seeing the clear markers of Technocrat transformation.

This is not the future we want or asked for, but it is the one we are going to get if we do nothing to stop it.

 

 




Neighbors Revolt Against Tiny Houses Saying They Will Destroy Property Values

Tiny houses are the darlings of New Urban Agenda to provide “affordable housing for all”, but existing neighborhoods want nothing to do with them since they hurt property values. The UN’s agenda of social engineering completely disregards anyone or anything that gets in their way or its anti-freedom programs.  TN Editor

To developer Kelvin Young, his planned “tiny house” community in northwest Charlotte will create an affordable place for first-time home buyers or for people downsizing.

But to neighbors, Young’s Keyo Park West is a threat to their property values. They are asking City Council to stop it.

“We have been hanging out there for 60 years in Coulwood,” said Robert Wilson, who lives a half-mile from Young’s planned tiny house neighborhood off Cathey Road near Paw Creek Elementary. “All of a sudden this little building started coming up and no one knew what it was. Then it started looking like a house.”

Young’s Keyo Park West would have 56 tiny houses if built out, with the smallest homes – 500 square feet – selling for $89,000. The median home price in Charlotte is about $190,000.

Young is piggy-backing on a national trend of people buying tiny houses, which has been popularized by TV shows such as HGTV’s “Tiny House, Big Living.” In many cases, those homes are truly tiny, with as little as 200 square feet. Keyo Park West would have small homes, but Young’s use of “tiny homes” is in part a marketing strategy.

Wilson, who spoke before council members in opposition to the project in September, said Keyo Park West should be regulated like a mobile-home park.

“You specifically designate areas for mobile homes, and this is no different,” he said. “We want this stopped. We aren’t against (zoning that allows three homes per acre). We are just talking about these types. It will greatly diminish our property values.”

The nearby neighborhood was built in the 1950s. Though only 8 miles from uptown, it’s still a mostly rural area. Homes are appraised at between $175,000 and $250,000.

But Young said neighbors don’t understand his project. While TV shows often celebrate tiny homes on wheels, the Keyo Park tiny homes are built on concrete foundations. He said they are no different than a single-family home, only smaller.

The city of Charlotte said that’s correct. Ed McKinney, the interim planning director, said the tiny home that’s been built qualifies as a single-family home. The city doesn’t require that single-family homes be a certain size.

Read full story here…




Debate Escalates As Power Of U.S. Tech Giants Grows

The tech giants (i.e., Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple) are following the same self-destructive path as the NFL, and they will pay a price for it. Governments are realizing the Technocrat threat posed to their existence and are rapidly starting to push back.  TN Editor

With a handful of US technology giants growing more powerful and dominant, debate is intensifying on whether big tech’s growth is healthy or not.

Over the past few years, Apple, Google parent Alphabet, Facebook and Amazon have become among the world’s most valuable companies.

Along with stalwarts like Microsoft and rising stars like Netflix, the tech firms exercise enormous control over what people see and how they live.

Increasingly, policymakers and others have begun to consider breaking up or regulating the biggest technology companies, although imminent action appears unlikely.

While many consumers welcome innovation from the tech sector, critics have complained about the power of “gatekeepers” of information and other content.

Google holds around 90 percent of the internet search market in the United States and Europe. Facebook and Google scoop up some 60 percent of digital ad revenues and are eating up 90 percent of new ad growth in the United States.

Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS power the overwhelming majority of mobile devices. Amazon accounts for nearly half of US online sales and is expanding into new sectors.

Concentration of power

Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute, said three firms — Google, Facebook and Amazon — “have more power than any previous monopolies we’ve dealt with in the past century.”

“We have to be incredibly concerned about the power of Facebook, Google and Amazon,” said Lynn, who launched his research center last month after his team was ousted from the Google-funded New America Foundation.

“They have their hands on the flow of news, the flow of books and they are manipulating that flow in a conscious way to promote their interests.”

Even though the idea of taking on the tech giants appears extreme, the upheaval in US politics over the past year has brought together allies from across the spectrum worried about their concentration of economic power.

The recently formed “New Center” political alliance that includes leaders from the traditional right and left has placed “challenging big tech” on its agenda.

Bill Galston, a former White House advisor under Bill Clinton and co-founder of New Center, argued that tech monopolies are hurting wages, entrepreneurship and could be distorting the political landscape.

“The big tech firms have almost unlimited funds they can throw into lobbying, and they have been ramping this up steeply,” Galston said. “Is that a good thing for democracy?”

Lou Kerner, partner at the investment firm Flight Ventures, said this monopoly power is more concentrated than any in recent history, and expressed concern it will “strangle innovation” and increase income inequality.

But Kerner said he opposes heavy-handed regulation or breakup of the tech giants.

“By their nature regulators move slowly and by the time they address the problems they are no longer problems,” Kerner said.

“Historically the market has been much better at addressing monopoly powers in technology.”

Read full story here…




Pressure Building: All Sides Are Turning Against Silicon Valley

Gene Veith correctly notes that Silicon Valley is angering both conservatives and liberals, but the correct reason is not revealed: Technocrats are apolitical and simply use politicians to further their own agenda. What is that agenda? It hasn’t changed since the 1930s: “Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population…” (The Technocrat, 1938) The bottom line is, nobody likes to be manipulated.  TN Editor

The tech geniuses and entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley have been lauded for their creativity and innovation, held up as models of financial enterprise and economic brilliance.  But lately opinions have been changing.  Now the titans of technology are being regarded more as 19th century robber barons.

According to Ben Smith in There’s Blood In The Water In Silicon Valley and Eric Newcomer in Backlash Against Silicon Valley is Heating Up, both conservatives and liberals–as well as people in between–are reacting against the magnates of the tech industry.

Conservatives are irked at the way the industry supports liberal causes.  Not only by funneling lots of money to Democrats but by firing employees who express politically-incorrect views and tamping down conservative voices in the search engines and social network sites that they rule.

But for all of their social and political liberalism, the technology industrialists have also angered the left.  A recent survey of tech company executives shows what activists have long been complaining about, an extreme hostility to labor unions and government regulation.

Meanwhile, conservatives, liberals, and moderates can all agree in resenting how the tech industry is endangering Americans’ privacy with its automatic information-gathering on consumers in order to target advertising.  In addition to the intentional information-gleaning, the technology that has been developed is easily exploited for government surveillance and identity theft.

The big tech corporations have also come under scrutiny under anti-trust and monopoly laws.  Both liberals and conservatives oppose monopolies, which happen when companies get so big that they buy up or run out of business their competition, so that they can become the sole provider of the service, cornering the market and letting them set prices to whatever they please. Conservatives dislike monopolies because they prevent the free market from functioning; liberals dislike them because of their general aversion to big corporations.

The European Union has slapped a $2.7 billion fine on Google for manipulating search requests to favor its businesses and advertisers.  Then, when a think-tanker praised the EU’s action, Google pressured the foundation to fire him!  (See this editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune.)

And although Silicon Valley says all the politically-correct things about diversity and feminism–and gets rid of employees who dissent–in practice, companies are coming under fire for their own lack of diversity and mistreatment of women!

And all sides complain about the “fake news” that the new technology makes possible, the way the internet can be used to recruit and motivate terrorists and extremists of both the left and the right, and how it all can be exploited politically.

Then there is all of the cultural disruption that the new technology is causing, such as the debasement of human relationships, the bankruptcy of local businesses due to online retail, the cyberbullying and trolling that comes from anonymous communication, etc., etc.  (For an example of a recent case that has sparked the ire of the general public, see this.)

Here is Eric Newcomer’s  list of grievances: 

  • Simmering 99 percenters angry over tech’s growing power
  • Mounting antitrust concerns
  • Animus from ad-dependent media companies
  • Bias charges from right-wingers without a seat at the table in Silicon Valley
  • Complaints, especially from Democrats, about Russian interference in the election, particularly via social media
  • An effort to reckon with gender discrimination and harassment at male dominated engineering companies
  • Accusations of fake news and clickbait all around.

Then again, all of these complaints about the technology companies are typed using word processing technology, posted on internet blogs, and discussed on social media.  The critics might pause to show at least a little gratitude.

Read full story here…