Trifecta: DARPA, IARPA And Now HARPA To Complete ‘Digital Dictatorship’

Technocrats are merging “Health security” and “national security” to create the ultimate digital dictatorship. Three Technocrat-laced government agencies will operate in a lawless James Bond-esque fashion to sidestep all regulations.

This is a must-read article. Note that former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, is right in the middle of HARPA (actually, the acronym is ARPA-H but “HARPA” is more easily pronounceable.) Also note that the HARPA initiative started under the Trump administration but is being implemented by Biden.

HARPA is the Holy Grail of massive, ubiquitous surveillance seen by Technocrats as necessary to control society according to their “science of social engineering.” What if you don’t want to be scientifically engineered? Read on… ⁃ TN Editor

A “new” proposal by the Biden administration to create a health-focused federal agency modeled after DARPA is not what it appears to be. Promoted as a way to “end cancer,” this resuscitated “health DARPA” conceals a dangerous agenda.

Last Wednesday, President Biden was widely praised in mainstream and health-care–focused media for his call to create a “new biomedical research agency” modeled after the US military’s “high-risk, high-reward” Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. As touted by the president, the agency would seek to develop “innovative” and “breakthrough” treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and diabetes, with a call to “end cancer as we know it.”

Far from “ending cancer” in the way most Americans might envision it, the proposed agency would merge “national security” with “health security” in such as way as to use both physical and mental health “warning signs” to prevent outbreaks of disease or violence before they occur. Such a system is a recipe for a technocratic “pre-crime” organization with the potential to criminalize both mental and physical illness as well as “wrongthink.”

The Biden administration has asked Congress for $6.5 billion to fund the agency, which would be largely guided by Biden’s recently confirmed top science adviser, Eric Lander. Lander, formerly the head of the Silicon Valley–dominated Broad Institute, has been controversial for his ties to eugenicist and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his relatively recent praise for James Watson, an overtly racist eugenicist. Despite that, Lander is set to be confirmed by the Senate and Congress and is reportedly significantly enthusiastic about the proposed new “health DARPA.”

This new agency, set to be called ARPA-H or HARPA, would be housed within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and would raise the NIH budget to over $51 billion. Unlike other agencies at NIH, ARPA-H would differ in that the projects it funds would not be peer reviewed prior to approval; instead hand-picked program managers would make all funding decisions. Funding would also take the form of milestone-driven payments instead of the more traditional multiyear grants.

ARPA-H will likely heavily fund and promote mRNA vaccines as one of the “breakthroughs” that will cure cancer. Some of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers that have produced some of the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines, such as the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, stated just last month that “cancer is the next problem to tackle with mRNA tech” post-COVID. BioNTech has been developing mRNA gene therapies for cancer for years and is collaborating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create mRNA-based treatments for tuberculosis and HIV.

Other “innovative” technologies that will be a focus of this agency are less well known to the public and arguably more concerning.

The Long Road to ARPA-H

ARPA-H is not a new and exclusive Biden administration idea; there was a previous attempt to create a “health DARPA” during the Trump administration in late 2019. Biden began to promote the idea during his presidential campaign as early as June 2019, albeit using a very different justification for the agency than what had been pitched by its advocates to Trump. In 2019, the same foundation and individuals currently backing Biden’s ARPA-H had urged then president Trump to create “HARPA,” not for the main purpose of researching treatments for cancer and Alzheimer’s, but to stop mass shootings before they happen through the monitoring of Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs.

For the last few years, one man has been the driving force behind HARPA—former vice chair of General Electric and former president of NBCUniversal, Robert Wright. Through the Suzanne Wright Foundation (named for his late wife), Wright has spent years lobbying for an agency that “would develop biomedical capabilities—detection tools, treatments, medical devices, cures, etc.—for the millions of Americans who are not benefitting from the current system.” While he, like Biden, has cloaked the agency’s actual purpose by claiming it will be mainly focused on treating cancer, Wright’s 2019 proposal to his personal friend Donald Trump revealed its underlying ambitions.

As first proposed by Wright in 2019, the flagship program of HARPA would be SAFE HOME, short for Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes. SAFE HOME would suck up masses of private data from “Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo, and Google Home” and other consumer electronic devices, as well as information from health-care providers to determine if an individual might be likely to commit a crime. The data would be analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms “for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence.”

The Department of Justice’s pre-crime approach known as DEEP was activated just months before Trump left office; it was also justified as a way to “stop mass shootings before they happen.” Soon after Biden’s inauguration, the new administration began using information from social media to make pre-crime arrests as part of its approach toward combatting “domestic terror.” Given the history of Silicon Valley companies collaborating with the government on matters of warrantless surveillance, it appears that aspects of SAFE HOME may already be covertly active under Biden, only waiting for the formalization of ARPA-H/HARPA to be legitimized as public policy.

The national-security applications of Robert Wright’s HARPA are also illustrated by the man who was its lead scientific adviser—former head of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office Geoffrey Ling. Not only is Ling the main scientific adviser of HARPA, but the original proposal by Wright would have Ling both personally design HARPA and lead it once it was established. Ling’s work at DARPA can be summarized by BTO’s stated mission, which is to work toward merging “biology, engineering, and computer science to harness the power of natural systems for national security.” BTO-favored technologies are also poised to be the mainstays of HARPA, which plans to specifically use “advancements in biotechnology, supercomputing, big data, and artificial intelligence” to accomplish its goals.

The direct DARPA connection to HARPA underscores that the agenda behind this coming agency dates back to the failed Bio-Surveillance project of DARPA’s Total Information Awareness program, which was launched after the events of September 11, 2001. TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project sought to develop the “necessary information technologies and resulting prototype capable of detecting the covert release of a biological pathogen automatically, and significantly earlier than traditional approaches,” accomplishing this “by monitoring non-traditional data sources” including “pre-diagnostic medical data” and “behavioral indicators.”

While nominally focused on “bioterrorist attacks,” TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project also sought to acquire early detection capabilities for “normal” disease outbreaks. Bio-Surveillance and related DARPA projects at the time, such as LifeLog, sought to harvest data through the mass use of some sort of wearable or handheld technology. These DARPA programs were ultimately shut down due to the controversy over claims they would be used to profile domestic dissidents and eliminate privacy for all Americans in the US.

That DARPA’s past total surveillance dragnet is coming back to life under a supposedly separate health-focused agency, and one that emulates its organizational model no less, confirms that many TIA-related programs were merely distanced from the Department of Defense when officially shut down. By separating the military from the public image of such technologies and programs, it made them more palatable to the masses, despite the military remaining heavily involved behind the scenes. As Unlimited Hangout has recently reported, major aspects of TIA were merely privatized, giving rise to companies such as Facebook and Palantir, which resulted in such DARPA projects being widely used and accepted. Now, under the guise of the proposed ARPA-H, DARPA’s original TIA would essentially be making a comeback for all intents and purposes as its own spin-off.

Silicon Valley, the Military and the Wearable “Revolution” 

This most recent effort to create ARPA-H/HARPA combines well with the coordinated push of Silicon Valley companies into the field of health care, specifically Silicon Valley companies that double as contractors to US intelligence and/or the military (e.g., Microsoft, Google, and Amazon). During the COVID-19 crisis, this trend toward Silicon Valley dominance of the health-care sector has accelerated considerably due to a top-down push toward digitalization with telemedicine, remote monitoring, and the like.

One interesting example is Amazon, which launched a wearable last year that purports to not only use biometrics to monitor people’s physical health and fitness but to track their emotional state as well. The previous year, Amazon acquired the online pharmacy PillPack, and it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which data from Amazon’s Halo wellness band is used to offer treatment recommendations that are then supplied by Amazon-owned PillPack.

Companies such as Amazon, Palantir, and Google are set to be intimately involved in ARPA-H’s activities. In particular, Google, which launched numerous health-tech initiatives in 2020, is set to have a major role in this new agency due to its long-standing ties to the Obama administration when Biden was vice president and to President Biden’s top science adviser, Eric Lander.

As mentioned, Lander is poised to play a major role in ARPA-H/HARPA if and when it materializes. Before becoming the top scientist in the country, Lander was president and founding director of the Broad Institute. While advertised as a partnership between MIT and Harvard, the Broad Institute is heavily influenced by Silicon Valley, with two former Google executives on its board, a partner of Silicon Valley venture capital firm Greylock Partners, and the former CEO of IBM, as well as some of its top endowments coming from prominent tech executives.

The Broad Institute, Source:

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who was intimately involved with Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and who is close to the Democratic Party in general, chairs the Broad Institute as of this April. In March, Schmidt gave the institute $150 million to “connect biology and machine learning for understanding programs of life.” During his time on the Broad Institute board, Schmidt also chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, a group of mostly Silicon Valley, intelligence, and military operatives who have now charted the direction of the US government’s policies on emerging tech and AI. Schmidt was also pitched as potential head of a tech-industry task force by the Biden administration.

Earlier, in January, the Broad Institute announced that its health-research platform, Terra, which was built with Google subsidiary Verily, would partner with Microsoft. As a result, Terra now allows Google and Microsoft to access a vast trove of genomic data that is poured into the platform by academics and research institutions from around the world.

In addition, last September, Google teamed up with the Department of Defense as part of a new AI-driven “predictive health” program that also has links to the US intelligence community. While initially focused on predicting cancer cases, this initiative clearly plans to expand to predicting the onset of other diseases before symptoms appear, including COVID-19. As noted by Unlimited Hangout at the time, one of the ulterior motives for the program, from Google’s perspective, was for Google to gain access to “the largest repository of disease- and cancer-related medical data in the world,” which is held by the Defense Health Agency. Having exclusive access to this data is a huge boon for Google in its effort to develop and expand its growing suite of AI health-care products.

The military is currently being used to pilot COVID-19–related biometric wearables for “returning to work safely.” Last December, it was announced that Hill Air Force Base in Utah would make biometric wearables a mandatory part of the uniform for some squadrons. For example, the airmen of the Air Force’s 649th Munitions Squadron must now wear a smart watch made by Garmin and a smart ring made by Oura as part of their uniform.

According to the Air Force, these devices detect biometric indicators that are then analyzed for 165 different biomarkers by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency/Philips Healthcare AI algorithm that “attempts to recognize an infection or virus around 48 hours before the onset of symptoms.” The development of that algorithm began well before the COVID-19 crisis and is a recent iteration of a series of military research projects that appear to have begun under the 2007 DARPA Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) project.

While of interest to the military, these wearables are primarily intended for mass use—a big step toward the infrastructure needed for the resurrection of a bio-surveillance program to be run by the national-security state. Starting first with the military makes sense from the national-security apparatus’s perspective, as the ability to monitor biometric data, including emotions, has obvious appeal for those managing the recently expanded “insider threat” programs in the military and the Department of Homeland Security.

One indicator of the push for mass use is that the same Oura smart ring being used by the Air Force was also recently utilized by the NBA to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks among basketball players. Prior to COVID-19, it was promoted for consumer use by members of the British Royal family and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for improving sleep. As recently as last Monday, Oura’s CEO, Harpeet Rai, said that the entire future of wearable health tech will soon be “proactive rather than reactive” because it will focus on predicting disease based on biometric data obtained from wearables in real time.

Another wearable tied to the military that is creeping into mass use is the BioButton and its predecessor the BioSticker. Produced by the company BioIntelliSense, the sleek new BioButton is advertised as a wearable system that is “a scalable and cost-effective solution for COVID-19 symptom monitoring at school, home and work.” BioIntelliSense received $2.8 million from the Pentagon last December to develop the BioButton and BioSticker wearables for COVID-19.

BioIntelliSense CEO James Mault poses with the company’s BioSticker wearable. Source:

BioIntelliSense, cofounded and led by former Microsoft HealthVault developer James Mault, now has its wearable sensors being rolled out for widespread use on some college campuses and at some US hospitals. In some of those instances, the company’s wearables are being used to specifically monitor the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as opposed to symptoms of COVID-19 itself. BioIntelliSense is currently running a study, partnered with Philips Healthcare and the University of Colorado, on the use of its wearables for early COVID-19 detection, which is entirely funded by the US military.

Read full story here…

Foreign Policy Mag: Sec’y Of Treasury Janet Yellen Labeled As Technocrat

Globalist publication Foreign Policy has squarely pegged Janet Yellen as a Technocrat, along the lines of Prime Minister Mario Draghi in Italy. Draghi has formed a Technocrat government in Italy and is an enthusiastic supporter of the WEF’s Great Reset. ⁃ TN Editor

In recent years, the world has been regaled with stories about the crisis of expertise. The era of the liberal technocrat was over, we were told, killed off by the financial crisis and populism. But if democracies find it hard to live with expertise, it seems they can’t live without it either.

At the start of 2021, two of the most contentious capitalist democracies in the world, Italy and the United States, turned to familiar experts to chart a way out of novel political situations. If there is such a thing as a technocrat, Janet Yellen, the new U.S. treasury secretary, and Mario Draghi, Italy’s new prime minister, are it.

For the last 30 years, both Yellen and Draghi have held positions of high authority, culminating in the period between 2014 and 2018 when they overlapped as the heads of the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank (ECB), respectively, the two most powerful central banks in the world. They were chosen to wield power based on their expertise and judgment but also because they aligned with the prevailing brand of centrist politics—Yellen more on the left, Draghi more on the center-right. They have now been called back to the ramparts, at an age that would normally suggest retirement, to take on roles that are more political than ever.

Yellen, the first woman to lead the U.S. Treasury Department, is set to preside over the most audacious round of stimulus of any democracy in peacetime. Draghi, as prime minister, faces the challenge of returning Italy to growth with the help of an unprecedented allocation of 209 billion euros ($254 billion) from the European Union’s new Next Generation EU fund that was bargained at the outset of the pandemic.

Those are extreme tasks, demanded by the extreme situation the United States and Europe find themselves in. On both sides of the Atlantic, disappointed expectations and fears about the future are helping to stoke disruptive nationalist and right-wing politics. If broad-based growth cannot be restarted, the implications are alarming.

Of course, it would be absurd to blame either Draghi or Yellen personally for the sequence of shifts and shocks that has destabilized capitalist democracies since the 1990s or the crisis of confidence these have triggered among centrist liberals. But as people of huge influence and as representatives of a class of experts who have ruled the roost for the last 30 years, they can hardly plead innocence either. It was on their watch that growth slowed, inequality between social classes and regions became ever deeper, and the risk of inflation tipped into that of deflation. It was on their watch that the financial system was allowed to become a flywheel of mass destruction. It was on their watch that the risks of climate change and pandemic threats went unaddressed.

Whereas the market revolutionaries of the 1970s and ’80s were radicals, squashing the last bastions of the old left and bulldozing organized labor out of the way, Draghi and Yellen came to the fore in the 1990s as managers of what is now known as the Great Moderation. That is not to say they idolized the status quo. As Yellen once remarked: “Will capitalist economies operate at full employment in the absence of routine intervention? Certainly not. Do policymakers have the knowledge and ability to improve macroeconomic outcomes rather than make matters worse? Yes.” But their idea of policy intervention took the existing institutional horizon as given. Not for nothing they came into their own as independent central bankers—the political position perhaps least accountable to democratic politics and the quintessential policy lever of the neoliberal era.

Inheritors of the market revolution, committed to managing and improving the status quo, Draghi’s and Yellen’s march through the institutions has been glorious, but their careers have also been defined by constant adjustment to political and economic shocks that they did not foresee and could not control. These shocks have driven Yellen and Draghi to explore the political and economic boundaries of technocratic power.

Read full story here…

View From Cyprus: The Road To Totalitarian Technocracy

However imperfect their view might be, it is noteworthy that journalists and economists around the world are writing about Technocracy, its dangers and its outcome. It is totalitarian, dystopian and in the end, it is nothing short of global slavery. ⁃ TN Editor

There’s something pretty rum about the events of the past year, rendering it well beyond a global health story. Besides its impact in terms of individual human tragedies, the pandemic has unmistakably led to some draconian, authoritarian behaviour among Western governments that wouldn’t be out of place in dystopian imaginings of futuristic state power and enforcement. Not least in the UK, a land still widely regarded as a bastion of freedom and democracy, and with supposedly a libertarian prime minister.

Politically, economically and socially, our lives have been thrown off track by lockdown policy, whatever the view of its necessity or otherwise in containing the coronavirus. Many have registered how slow the British government has been to release the shackles, the suspicion being that laws and regulations suddenly applied for command and control have gone to the heads of much of the political class, our society softened into stupor by unprecedented, unbacked budgetary largesse buying our complicity, not to mention complacence.

It might just be a short-term phenomenon, of course, given our imminent ushering into the light again, and the promise of economic rebound with it, thanks to remarkable efforts of vaccine development, procurement and rollout. Normality of sorts might conceivably be recreated.

It might, though, be an interlude that aids the long-range objective of those insistent types who want to add Covid collectivism to the policy tropes of social egalitarianism and climate change that dominate the airwaves these days.

The politics behind environmentalism and so-called equality are plain enough to those paying attention, unmissable as an agenda. The economics, though, are subtler, except in the accumulation of huge government debts, yet to impede everyday living standards in most (but definitely not all) cases. All you might say that people have generally noticed is that interest rates on savings are laughable, while world financial markets appear reliant on the authorities’ gushing geysers of funny money.

Some will certainly entertain the notion that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to keep fuelling this bubble. Others might reckon there’s a reasoning behind it all, albeit mad.

In fact, the strategy does make sense, if what you want to do is destroy, and yet blame, capitalism, a not uncommon purpose these days, you may have noticed.

And there’s the rub. This latest escapade of governmental blowout is arguably the hobby-horse of a rich, powerful, opinionated, elitist sect which leans to yet another foray into the realms of the socialistic Big Idea, as if history did not thoroughly counsel against it. They just can’t help themselves, that controlling instinct irrepressible among the self-appointed do-gooders and fellow-travellers, whose march through the institutions is as advanced as it is impressive.

So here’s the deal.  A ten-point plan to undermine and overthrow Western freedom and markets by stealth, stripped here to its bullet-point essence in a timeline retrospective.

First, back in the 1990s, the US government leans on the banks – as if state agencies not commercial enterprises, utilities in the service of the political class, not businesses – to lend to subprime borrowers, stoking a housing market getting high anyway on easy money administered by the Fed.

Second, despite the undoubted scale of its administrative clout, it fails to regulate the financial sector that repackages the junk as creditworthy investments, leveraging to the hilt until boom turns spectacularly to bust in 2008, the crashing house of cards delivering an almighty hammer blow to the world economy.

Third, in a nutshell, governments internationally spend enormously, if unavoidably, to contain the fallout, while central banks slash interest rates.

Fourth, crucially, emergency monetary settings stay in place well beyond the need, deviating conspicuously from reasonable guiding principles (for example the Taylor rule), inducing further indebtedness on all sides.

Fifth, the central banks flood the system repeatedly with liquidity (quantitative easing, QE), which reliably supports financial and real estate assets. This policy reflex boosts inequality through embracing a so-called trickle-down wealth effect once described as voodoo economics.

Sixth, the authorities double, triple and quadruple down on this lopsided approach, despite low unemployment, the risks to financial stability, and moreover the damage to bank lending and profitability, pension funds and corporate investment, to the point where it is virtually impossible actually to raise interest rates again.

Seventh, upon the global coronavirus shock, such extreme monetary policy is extended yet further, met now by enormous fiscal stimulus (especially in the US), creating fears of inflation.  It is even claimed that inflation helps growth and employment, as if the fabled Phillips Curve trade-off is a policy menu rather than a dated, statistical reflection of the business cycle of the 1960s.

Eighth, round about now, the bond market eventually anticipates the ultimate Keynesian cul-de-sac, with sustained inflation officially welcomed (at investor expense if not avoided).

Ninth, pending today, stock markets shudder too as policy credibility crumbles. Stagflation, which the authorities have dismissed for its demolition of demand management theory and illumination of supply-side concerns, returns to the reckoning.

Tenth, those responsible for this serial, interventionist travesty declare that, far from government failure, it is the free market that has failed. Rejecting capitalism, there needs to be a Great Reset, New Agenda and other portentous gibberish, all in the name of the innocuous-sounding ‘rules-based, international order’ which in truth, frankly, represents Marxist predetermination and globalist statism.

Thus, policymakers seem hell-bent, the plan (if such) reaching fruition.

In the EU and eurozone, meanwhile, a €750bn crisis recovery fund is promised, but mired in a dysfunctional morass of policymaking under stress, ironically restraining the excesses of expansionism in the one place that the cracks of solidarity really invite papering over. The immovable object of northern austerity meets the irresistible need of southern rejuvenation in these parts, but that’s another (perpetual) story.

Elsewhere, there seems no such restraint. So, where next for the US and UK, apparently leaders in Western recovery, yet seemingly flirting with an intellectual vault away from orthodox economics?

Debts to be cancelled, trashing supposedly comfortable creditors in favour of downtrodden debtors? Cash to be abolished, all transactions recorded by the nanny/police/surveillance state, with non-state-designated assets (like cryptocurrencies and gold) attempting to protect against repressive theft either outlawed or confiscated?

Social egalitarianism is already on the verge of becoming established as the informing imperative of the age (‘all in this together’), with people’s ordinary sensibility for self-reliance stultified by lockdown, and redistribution the sotto voce default creed.  The green agenda is moving into overdrive, securing socialising motivations while enriching the clubbable chums of the elite invested in ‘renewables’, at the risk even of jeopardising Western energy security in the headlong rush to achieve net zero carbon emissions, even as Asia critically bucks that trend.

Slogans abound to drum the message home, tellingly cross-border in their repetition. We are ‘building back better’, all ‘stakeholders’ together. The mainstream and dominant social media are all on board, pronouncing ‘liberal values’ and ‘social’ democracy whilst in fact conveying degrees of illiberalism and even quasi-totalitarian methods. Manifestations of ‘cancel culture’ are already prevalent in the halls of academia, even in the realms of science, which properly requires the rigours of scepticism.

Hey presto. Welcome to the brave, new, Orwellian world of Utopian technocratic cronyism.  We’re getting there bit by bit. A pipedream? Perhaps.

Read full story here…

Snap: Microsoft Physicists Think The Universe Is Self-Learning Computer

This is a perfect example of a Technocrat mind gone to the extreme, lost in theory and spinning recklessly out of control. In short, the design of the universe and life in it is a product of spontaneous intelligence and design, while they deny the existence of God as a foolish myth. ⁃ TN Editor

A team of theoretical physicists working with Microsoft today published an amazing pre-print research paper describing the universe as a self-learning system of evolutionary laws.

In other words: We live inside a computer that learns.

The big idea: Bostrom’s Simulation Argument has been a hot topic in science circles lately. We published “What if you’re living in a simulation, but there’s no computer” recently to posit a different theory, but Microsoft’s pulled a cosmic “hold my beer” with this paper.

Dubbed “The Autodidactic Universe,” and published to arXiv today, the paper spans 80 pages and lays out a pretty good surface argument for a novel, nuanced theory of everything.

Here’s my take: Based on my interpretation of this paper, the universe was either going to exist or it wasn’t going to exist. The fact it exists tells us how that worked out. Whatever contrivance (law) caused that to happen set the stage for whatever was going to happen next.

The paper argues that the laws governing the universe are an evolutionary learning system. In other words: the universe is a computer and, rather than exist in a solid state, it perpetuates through a series of laws that change over time.

How’s it work? That’s the tough part. The researchers explain the universe as a learning system by invoking machine learning systems. Just like we can teach machines to perform unfolding functions over time, that is, to learn, the laws of the universe are essentially algorithms that do work in the form of learning operations.

Per the researchers:

For instance, when we see structures that resemble deep learning architectures emerge in simple autodidactic systems might we imagine that the operative matrix architecture in which our universe evolves laws, itself evolved from an autodidactic system that arose from the most minimal possible starting conditions?

It’s poetic, if you think about it. We understand the laws of physics as we observe them, so it makes sense that the original physical law would be incredibly simple, self-perpetuating, and capable of learning and evolving.

Perhaps the universe didn’t begin with a Big Bang, but a simple interaction between particles. The researchers allude to this humble origin by stating “information architectures typically amplify the causal powers of rather small collections of particles.”

What’s it mean? If you ask me, the game is rigged. The scientists describe the ever-evolving laws of the universe as being irreversible:

One implication is that if the evolution of laws is real, it is likely to be unidirectional, for otherwise it would be common for laws to revert to previous states, perhaps even more likely than for them to find a new state. This is because a new state is not random but rather must meet certain constraints, while the immediate past state has already met constraints.

A reversible but evolving system would randomly explore its immediate past frequently. When we see an evolving system that displays periods of stability, it probably evolves unidirectionally.

In illustrating these points, the researchers invoke the image of a forensics expert attempting to recreate how a given program came to a result. In one example, the expert could simply check the magnetic marks left on the hard disk. In that way, the results of the program are reversible: a history of their execution exists.

But if the same expert tried to determine the results of a program by examining the CPU, arguably the entity most responsible for its execution, it’d be much more difficult to do. There’s no intentional, internal record of the operations a CPU runs.

You’d have to examine how every particle that interacted with its logic gates during operations changed in order to begin to paint the historical picture of a computer program through internal observation of its CPU at work.

The consequences: If the universe operates via a set of laws that, while initially simple, are autodidactic (self-learning) and thus capable of evolving over time, it could be impossible for humans to ever unify physics.

According to this paper, the rules that governed concepts such as relativity may have had functionally different operational consequences 13.8 billion years ago than they will 100 trillion years from now. And that means “physics” is a moving target.

Of course, this is all speculation based on theoretical physics. Surely the researchers don’t literally mean the universe is a computer, right?

Per the paper:

We are examining whether the Universe is a learning computer.

Read full story here…

Kissinger Warns Washington: Accept New Global Order Or Else

One of a few remaining founding members of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, Kissinger has pushed the new world order, aka Technocracy, for decades. In reality, he is a pedestrian academic who recites from a single playbook. ⁃ TN Editor

With the White House continually provoking tensions against Russia and China, the doyen of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, dramatically warned Washington last week to either agree to a new international system or continue pushing tensions that are leading to a situation similar to the eve of World War One.

In a Chatham House webinar with former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt last Thursday, 97-year-old Kissinger called on the U.S. to create a balance with existing global forces, adding

“if you imagine that the world commits itself to an endless competition based on the dominance of whoever is superior at the moment, then a breakdown of the order is inevitable. And the consequences of a breakdown would be catastrophic.”

The veteran diplomat urged the U.S. to understand that not every issue has “final solutions” and warned

“if we don’t get to an understanding with China on that point, then we will be in a pre-World War One-type situation in which there are perennial conflicts that get solved on an immediate basis but one of them gets out of control at some point.”

However, the idea that the U.S. should stop imposing its will on everyone else will not be easily accepted in Washington. This is attested by the sharp rhetoric and personal insults that U.S. President Joe Biden continually levels against his Russian and Chinese counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

High-ranking Chinese official Yang Jiechi told U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on March 18 in Alaska that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.” Then, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi boldly said days later on March 22 during their meeting in Beijing that they “jointly safeguard multilateralism, maintain the international system with the UN at its core and the international order based on international law, while firmly opposing unilateral sanctions as well as interference in other countries’ internal affairs.”

Kissinger’s career is washed in blood when we remember his backing of Pakistan during Bangladesh’s War of Independence despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people and mass rape; orchestrated a military coup in Chile to remove democratically elected Allende in favor of the Pinochet dictatorship; tacitly supported Indonesia’s mass killing of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese; and, blessed Turkey’s invasion of northern Cyprus that led to 200,000 Greek refugees without a right of return – among many other things.

Read full story here…

McKinsey & Company: Super-Spreaders Of Technocracy

Global consulting firm McKinsey & Company has three senior members who are also members of the Trilateral Commission, which is prominent in the modern resurgence of Technocracy according to its New International Economic Order.

The Trilateral Commission members are:

  • James Manyika, Chair, McKinsey Global Institute; Senior Partner, McKinsey, San Francisco
  • Ammanuel Zegeye, Partner, McKinsey & Co., San Francisco
  • Vivian Hunt, Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company, London

⁃ TN Editor

One of the many side effects of the pandemic has been the unchecked spread of management consultants. Vast government projects – once the domain of ministers and civil servants – have been outsourced to a swelling parallel state. And while every country has its own homegrown consultants, one company in particular seems to be everywhere.

At the weekend, Mario Draghi, Italy’s unelected, technocratic prime minister, hired consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Its role? To help decide how best to spend Italy’s €209 billion slice of the EU Recovery Fund. This is an extraordinary coup. Draghi is essentially drawing on a consultancy firm to shape the central plank of his domestic policy agenda – securing the post-pandemic recovery, and keeping a tight leash on the use of EU funds, are supposed to be the key justifications for his appointment.

Over in France, a nation known for its strong state and its elite caste of public administrators, the growth of consultancy spending during the pandemic has been a bigger shock to the system than elsewhere. And the lion’s share of Covid consulting contracts went to… McKinsey.

One of the many side effects of the pandemic has been the unchecked spread of management consultants. Vast government projects – once the domain of ministers and civil servants – have been outsourced to a swelling parallel state. And while every country has its own homegrown consultants, one company in particular seems to be everywhere.

At the weekend, Mario Draghi, Italy’s unelected, technocratic prime minister, hired consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Its role? To help decide how best to spend Italy’s €209 billion slice of the EU Recovery Fund. This is an extraordinary coup. Draghi is essentially drawing on a consultancy firm to shape the central plank of his domestic policy agenda – securing the post-pandemic recovery, and keeping a tight leash on the use of EU funds, are supposed to be the key justifications for his appointment.

Over in France, a nation known for its strong state and its elite caste of public administrators, the growth of consultancy spending during the pandemic has been a bigger shock to the system than elsewhere. And the lion’s share of Covid consulting contracts went to… McKinsey.

‘Every day at 5pm, top officials from the French health ministry tune in to one of many daily meetings set up to oversee the rollout of vaccinations. What’s different about this Zoom call is that it’s not chaired by a civil servant, but by a consultant from McKinsey & Company’, says an exposé in Politico.

Even before the pandemic, under Emmanuel Macron’s presidency, more and more of the state’s basic functions – including the development of economic and climate policy – have been outsourced to management consultants.

Macron’s experience with McKinsey even goes back to his time as François Hollande’s economy minister. The firm helped develop his ‘new economic opportunities’ bill. The bill was dropped but is widely credited with accelerating his split with the Socialist Party, and inspiring his own neoliberal platform for government.

In the UK, the state’s reliance on management consultants has ballooned to such absurd proportions that the Cabinet Office has even asked management consultants for advice on how to reduce the state’s dependence on management consultants. Most of the Covid spoils have gone to British firms like Deloitte and KPMG. But McKinsey is by far the biggest global consultancy on the government’s books. Ex-McKinseyite Dido Harding was plugged to set up NHS Test and Trace and McKinsey has had some involvement in Covid testing more broadly.

McKinsey’s biggest role in the UK has been in the creation of the National Institute for Health Protection – the agency set to replace the ailing Public Health England. McKinsey consultants earned £14,000 a day from the project. Their tasks included defining the agency’s ‘vision, purpose and narrative’.

This kind of language reveals that consultants are not merely being hired for any specialist or technical expertise, but rather to help shape the direction and purposes of new arms of government – that is, for an explicitly political role.

Read full story here…

Claim: India becoming a ‘technocracy like China’

A prominent entrepreneur from India has pointedly called China a Technocracy and warned that India is at risk of turning into a carbon copy of China. China and India combined represent almost 40 percent of the total population of earth. ⁃ TN Editor

Industrialist Anil Ambani’s eldest son Anmol, who is executive director of Reliance Capital, on Tuesday created a flutter on social media with a string of Twitter posts that not only tore into lockdowns—which he said “destroy the very backbone of our society and economy”—but said they were “about control” and were “part of a much larger and very sinister plan…to control every aspect of your life”.

The 28-year-old Ambani’s posts began at 8.36pm on Monday, hours after Maharashtra announced a partial-to-total lockdown through the week.

The first tweet said: “Professional ‘actors’ can continue shooting their films. Professional ‘cricketers’ can play their sport late into the night. Professional ‘politicians’ can continue their rallies with masses of people. But YOUR business or work is not ESSENTIAL. Still don’t get it?”

It was followed minutes later with another: “What does essential even mean? EACH INDIVIDUALS WORK IS ESSENTIAL TO THEM. #scamdemic.”

Tuesday evening, almost exactly 24 hours later, his Twitter handle showed four more tweets, as images, beginning with: “The lockdowns are key in continuing and enabling greatest wealth transfer in human history. The mistake is that the people think this is simply inefficient governance. It’s not. It’s a coordinated, thought out set of policies designed to enable a new world order to be brought in…It’s no coincidence that the losses of the common man are gains of the wealthiest. That the closure of brick and mortar benefits digital and e-commerce. The farmer and his soil being corporatised and colonised. Data and privacy being harvested and sold to new age empires.”

The third said, “These lockdowns were never about and have nothing to do with health. They destroy the backbone of our society and economy, from the daily wage workers, self employed and SMEs to the restaurants and dhabas, fashion and clothing stores. They completely destroy and diminish our health by closing gyms, sports complexes, playgrounds etc—exercise, sunlight and fresh air being some of the strongest pillars of good health and strong immunity.”

The fourth said, “This is not about health. This is about control, and I would think most of us are unknowingly and unconsciously falling into the trap of a much larger and very sinister plan. To control every aspect of your life—A technocracy exactly like China—A totalitarian bio-surveillance facist (sic) state-controlled from the outside. But I have faith in India and Indian people. That we will resist this global coup d etat and not let our country get colonised even more. All we need to do is wake up to the truth. Stand for love, peace, unity and compassion.”

Read full story here…

Hohmann: Technocracy Will Dehumanize All Humans Into ‘Digital Assets’

The WEF’s Great Reset, aka Technocracy and which is enthusiastically backed by global banks and corporations, intends to turn the citizens of the world into digital assets for the sake of management, control and profit. Instead of being a human,  you will be a blip on the blockchain which will be used to micromanage you.

This is not speculation. It is plainly stated across globalist documents all around the world and in many languages. Once a global ID system is in place, it will be tied to every move and purchase you make, along with every psychographic and physical aspect of your life – cradle to cradle. Why cradle to cradle? Because DNA and genetic engineering will play a central role. ⁃ TN Editor

Few are aware of it but the digitalization of the human race is advancing at break-neck speed.

Don’t look now but the world is racing down a path that has been interlaid with landmines of control and surveillance and yet almost no Western politician of any party seems concerned enough to even talk about the impact this will have on personal privacy. If you’re curious about what the near future holds, listen to technocrats like Bill Gates.

One year ago, in March 2020, as governments were shutting down their economies citing a mysterious virus, Gates did a series of media interviews calling for a globalized “digital certificate” for every human being on the planet.

He said this was the only way to keep up with who has the virus and who has been vaccinated. Note that no vaccine was known to be in the pipeline in March 2020, but Gates talked about the vaccine as if it was just around the corner. He knew.

In a March 18, 2020 “Ask Me Anything” online forum sponsored by Reddit, Gates was asked what changes needed to be made to the way businesses operate to ensure public health without ruining the economy.

Gates’ answer to the problem was digital certificates, which clearly drives once-free Western societies into a “show your papers” scenario that pre-COVID would have been considered a Nazi-like taboo [see screenshot below]:

Gates was also known at the time to be investing in the ID2020 initiative, which seeks to connect people’s vaccine history to their purchasing actions.

Instead of taking Gates seriously back in March 2020, the vast majority of folks blew off his comments as the fantasy of the world’s biggest geek.

I was one of the first last year to suggest that Gates ought to be taken seriously and that his ultimate plan was to “update” every person’s genetic code with the latest version of mRNA virus protection, similar to the way his Microsoft Windows operating system automatically updates your computer.

Gates is not just spewing techno fairy tales. He is a big-time mouthpiece for the techno-medical wing of the New World Order [there are also economic, social and religious wings to the NWO]. I believe Gates gets many of his ideas from less widely known individuals associated with the World Economic Forum [see WEF graphic on digital identity], the same folks pushing for the so-called global Great Reset. Gates also likes to work in partnership with the Rockefeller family foundations.

It was David Rockefeller who in 1973 co-founded with Zbigniew Brzezinski the Trilateral Commission, an elitist technocratic organization that promised to promote the creation of a “new international economic order.” Some of the most prominent thought leaders driving the rapid changes in the global economy today are members of the Trilateral Commission, whose current membership roll includes representatives from central banks in Europe, the Americas and Asia.

Multinational corporations, in cooperation with Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Government and globalists connected to the United Nations-World Economic Forum, are using the COVID crisis to transform the way money, goods and services trade hands.

But it doesn’t stop there.

They are using the “opportunity,” presented by the pandemic, says WEF director Klaus Schwab, to transform health care, banking, industrial production, energy production and consumption systems, global land-use, even the way we socialize together as human beings.

Schwab has commented that no industry will be exempt from the Great Reset. And the United Nations states in its Agenda 2030 that no person will be “left behind” by this coming global system. Since no vote was held and none of us were asked if we wanted to sign up for the Great Reset/Agenda 2030, this begs the question: What will be done with dissidents who refuse to go along with this vision for the world?

The answer lies hidden in the coming cashless system.

These elites have wanted to get rid of cash for a long time. This has been a priority item on their to-do list for more than 60 years. Cash is simply too difficult to track [despite various attempts] and the technocratic elites are obsessed with tracking, measuring and monitoring everything in real time.

They want to monetize, put a value on, every human life. To achieve this, they need to be able to track with pinpoint accuracy everyone’s spending and consumption habits.

They now believe they have found the solution: Replacing cash with a new digital currency based on blockchain technology.

What will this new digital currency be backed up by?

There are several theories, none of which are likely to involve precious metals such as gold or silver.

Some believe the new world currency will be backed by the world’s major land masses and the natural resources beneath that land. This could explain why the Chinese and Bill Gates have been going on a land-buying binge which includes farmland in the United States.

Another theory is that this new global currency will be backed up by human capital, meaning the global workforce. This would explain why they need to attribute a monetary value to every human being, based on their age, productivity and other contributions to society minus their carbon footprint. Basically, you become a cog in their globalist wheel, digital asset of the central banks. Of course the important people will be allowed to use up more carbon and fly around the world on jets, as John Kerry has already informed us, while the masses are relegated to bicycles and public transportation.

With the onset of COVID, whether it was accidentally or purposely released by the Chinese Communist Party, the power elites saw their opportunity and seized it. Cash as we know it is being phased out, with more than 60 countries testing new cashless digital currencies.

China is taking the lead in this process and wants to become the world’s first cashless nation. The Chinese Communist Party has rolled out a new digital Yuan, and is testing it in several major cities within China. Unlike bitcoin, which retains the owner’s anonymity and works independent of any governing authority, the digital Yuan will be the world’s first digital money issued by a central bank.

As CBN News reports, the new digital Chinese Yuan will be an international currency, offering a frightening specter of control over Chinese citizens and a “model” for other countries.

David Curry of Open Doors told CBN, “China is building what I think is a blueprint, a road map of persecution for other regimes around the world and they’re doing it with surveillance.”

I believe that’s at least partly why the dollar is being deliberately devalued by the U.S. government, with runaway spending soon to lead to hyper-inflation as the national debt approaches an astonishing $30 trillion. At some point, individuals may be offered a deal in which their share of the debt, along with perhaps their personal debt, gets eliminated in return for joining the new digital system.

It’s no accident that the world’s most repressive regime is driving the world toward a cashless society.

Think of the possibilities.

You step out of line with the dictates of the state, and the central bank immediately shuts down your access to the digital money necessary to put food on your table. You refuse to vaccinate, and they shut down your account. You violate Big Tech’s community standards in your social media accounts, and they shut down your account [this is already happening in China where Facebook works with the one-party state to punish dissidents].

Yes, it’s possible for the FBI to freeze your bank account here in America under the current cash-based system, and that is a tactic they are increasingly using against Trump supporters, but you can always fall back on cash in the current economic system.

Under the new system, you will have no such back up. Your entire livelihood will be left to the whim of big government working with Big Tech and Big Pharma.

I predict that over a period of three to five years, the transition to this new cashless system will be complete. It will start off as voluntary, with various incentives offered to join the system. Over time, those incentives will be replaced with punishments, until those using cash are totally locked out of the system, unable to buy or sell or work a job.

You will not be allowed to board planes, enter hotels, stadiums, concert halls and other large venue events, even retail stores, without showing your proof of vaccination, which will be a card or app on your phone tied into the new digital currency at your bank.

Gradually, they will add more information to the card/app, to the point where it will include all your vital information, what drugs you take, your criminal background, if you have one, your driving record, and your social score as provided by Big Tech detailing how many times you’ve run afoul of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube’s “community standards.” This humongous data bank will be centrally controlled by a commission of some sort, appointed by the government and tagged with an Orwellian name, something like The Commission on Data Security and Privacy.

This beast system will offer the latest in convenience and security using blockchain technology.

I can hear the advertisements now: Are you tired of all the COVID rules and restrictions? Just sign up to get “the pass” and you can go back to enjoying evenings at the pub, ballgames on sunny Saturday afternoons, concerts, cruises, church services, all the benefits of your previous “normal” life!

Unlike the blockchain used for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, this blockchain will be centrally controlled and anything but private.

Sadly, very few are yet aware of any of this, and if you told them about it, you would be accused of watching too many sci-fi movies.

The truth is, all of this is quietly progressing under the radar of media attention and public scrutiny. By the time it is rolled out for widespread “voluntary” enrollment, it will be too late to turn back the clock.

This was the plan all along, to use COVID to scare the masses into a whole new type of society, where every individual’s personally identifiable information is tied in with a new digital currency.n affiliate of Blue Cross Blue Shield], has issued the Daily Pass QR Health Portal to track the movement of every student in the system.

Read full story here…

Elon Musk: First Sustainable City On Mars Designed With 32 Square Meters Per Person

The Technocrat space cult is rocketing forward to escape earth in order to live a “communal” live on places like Mars, where it is harsh, dangerous and plain ugly. They allocate about 100 square feet per person, less than the smallest tiny house and more like a travel trailer.

Don’t expect Mars to be a Democracy or Constitutional Republic. It will be a Technocracy run by Technocrats, with no government whatsoever. Remember that Musk’s grandfather was the head of Technocracy, Inc. in Canada and that he grew up in that environment.

See also:

⁃ TN Editor

With plans for the first ‘Martian sustainable city’ ready to go, it’s now just a question of time before humans live on Mars.

The new design overall contains five cities – the capital is called Nüwa. The vertical city has homes, offices and green spaces, all built into the side of a cliff to protect inhabitants from atmospheric pressure and radiation.

The oxygen is largely produced by plants, food is 90 per cent plant-based and the energy comes from solar panels.


Mars is half the size of Earth. But how would we get there? Every two years there are a couple of weeks when the planet is the closest to Earth, so the trip would only take six months to get there.

However, the circumstances on the Red Planet are far from friendly. The atmospheric pressure is not suitable for humans and the radiation is lethal on the surface without any shelter.

“We had to do a lot of analysis based on computing and working with the scientists to try to understand what are the circumstances that we will face,” says founder of architecture studio ABIBOO, Alfredo Muñoz, adding “we have to face challenges that are very specific to the conditions of Mars, one of them is gravity, which is only one-third of the gravity on Earth.”

On the other hand, CO2 and water can be obtained on the surface.

“Water is one of the great advantages that Mars offers, it helps to be able to get the proper materials for the construction. Basically, with the water and the Co2, we can generate carbon and with the carbon, we can generate steel,” says Muñoz. The architecture company plans to use exclusively Martian materials for the construction.

The Mars city project is part of scientific work organised by The Mars Society and developed by the SONet network, an international team of scientists and academics. Architecture studio ABIBOO has created the designs based on the latest scientific research.

“The learnings that we are getting by developing a fully sustainable city on Mars brings us so much know-how and ideas and insights, about things that we could do differently on earth,” says Muñoz.


According to the architecture company’s analysis, the construction can start by 2054 and it could be built by 2100 – that is – when the first community could start living there, Muñoz explains.

“We think it is doable from the technical aspects. [What takes time] is more about ensuring that there is enough will and associations in the international community. This has to be something that comes from a private sector, public sector, different locations, different cultures, in order to ensure that there is diversity.”

Click on the video above to learn more about what life is going to be like on Mars in this sustainable city.

Myanmar Deploys AI, Heads To China-Style ‘Digital Dictatorship’

TN has warned for years that China is aggressively exporting its Technocracy to other countries in Asia and beyond. Myanmar, formerly Burma, is being supplied with Chinese technology to crush dissent and establish Scientific Dictatorship. ⁃ TN Editor

Protesters in Myanmar fear they are being tracked with Chinese facial recognition technology, as spiralling violence and street surveillance spark fears of a “digital dictatorship” to replace ousted leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Human rights groups say the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to check on citizens’ movements poses a “serious threat” to their liberty.

More than 200 people have been killed since Nobel peace laureate Suu Kyi was overthrown in a Feb. 1 coup, triggering mass protests that security forces have struggled to suppress with increasingly violent tactics.

Security forces have focused on stamping out dissent in cities including the capital Naypyitaw, Yangon and Mandalay, where hundreds of CCTV cameras had been installed as part of a drive to improve governance and curb crime.

Human Rights Watch has expressed its “heightened concern” over cameras armed with AI technology that can scan faces and vehicle licence plates in public places, and alert authorities to those on a wanted list.

“Even before the protests, the CCTVs were a concern for us, so we would try and avoid them – by taking different routes to go home, for example,” Win Pe Myaing, a protester in Yangon, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“We believe the police and the military are using the system to track demonstrations and protests. It’s like a digital dictatorship – the regime is using technology to track and arrest citizens, and that’s dangerous,” he said.

Myanmar authorities could not be reached for comment.

Most of the equipment used in Safe City, a project to curb crime in big cities, is from Chinese technology firm Huawei, the Myanmar Now publication had reported.

Huawei did not respond to a request for comment.

Huawei told Human Rights Watch it was providing “standard ICT infrastructure equipment” – information and communications technology, and that the facial and licence-plate recognition technology on the cameras was not from Huawei.

There were many vendors, and Huawei “is not involved in any actual operation and data storage or processing,” it said.

Chinese tech firms have come under increased scrutiny for their use of tools to detect, track and monitor minority Uighurs in Xinjiang region, where activists and United Nations experts say at least a million Muslim Uighurs are detained in camps.

China denies abuses and says its camps provide vocational training and are needed to fight extremism.

“Authorities’ ability to identify people on the streets, potentially track their movements and relationships, and intrude into private lives poses a grave risk to anti-coup activists,” said Manny Maung, a researcher at Human Rights Watch.

“It can also be used to single out individuals in discriminatory or arbitrary ways, including for their ethnicity or religion,” she said in a statement.

Read full story here…