Omniviolence Is Coming And The World Isn’t Ready

This article raises interesting concerns about the ability of violence to be projected from anywhere in the world toward any target. Psychopaths of the future will use technology to disrupt the functioning of the nation-state.

Technocrats build because they can, not because there is a need to do so. Ethics and morality are not a consideration. ⁃ TN Editor


IThe Future of Violence, Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum discuss a disturbing hypothetical scenario. A lone actor in Nigeria, “home to a great deal of spamming and online fraud activity,” tricks women and teenage girls into downloading malware that enables him to monitor and record their activity, for the purposes of blackmail.

The real story involved a California man who the FBI eventually caught and sent to prison for six years, but if he had been elsewhere in the world he might have gotten away with it. Many countries, as Wittes and Blum note, “have neither the will nor the means to monitor cybercrime, prosecute offenders, or extradite suspects to the United States.” 

Technology is, in other words, enabling criminals to target anyone anywhere and, due to democratization, increasingly at scale. Emerging bio-, nano-, and cyber-technologies are becoming more and more accessible. The political scientist Daniel Deudney has a word for what can result: “omniviolence.”

The ratio of killers to killed, or “K/K ratio,” is falling. For example, computer scientist Stuart Russell has vividly described how a small group of malicious agents might engage in omniviolence: “A very, very small quadcopter, one inch in diameter can carry a one-or two-gram shaped charge,” he says. “You can order them from a drone manufacturer in China. You can program the code to say: ‘Here are thousands of photographs of the kinds of things I want to target.’ A one-gram shaped charge can punch a hole in nine millimeters of steel, so presumably you can also punch a hole in someone’s head.

You can fit about three million of those in a semi-tractor-trailer. You can drive up I-95 with three trucks and have 10 million weapons attacking New York City. They don’t have to be very effective, only 5 or 10% of them have to find the target.” Manufacturers will be producing millions of these drones, available for purchase just as with guns now, Russell points out, “except millions of guns don’t matter unless you have a million soldiers. You need only three guys to write the program and launch.” In this scenario, the K/K ratio could be perhaps 3/1,000,000, assuming a 10-percent accuracy and only a single one-gram shaped charge per drone. 

Warning: This video is dramatized and has not happened!

That’s completely—and horrifyingly—unprecedented. The terrorist or psychopath of the future, however, will have not just the Internet or drones—called “slaughterbots” in this video from the Future of Life Institute—but also synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and advanced AI systems at their disposal. These tools make wreaking havoc across international borders trivial, which raises the question: Will emerging technologies make the state system obsolete?

It’s hard to see why not. What justifies the existence of the state, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued, is a “social contract.” People give up certain freedoms in exchange for state-provided security, whereby the state acts as a neutral “referee” that can intervene when people get into disputes, punish people who steal and murder, and enforce contracts signed by parties with competing interests. 

The trouble is that if anyone anywhere can attack anyone anywhere else, then states will become—and are becoming—unable to satisfy their primary duty as referee. It’s a trend toward anarchy, “the war of all against all,” as Hobbes put it—in other words a condition of everyone living in constant fear of being harmed by their neighbors. Indeed, in a recent paper, “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis,” published in Global Policy, the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom argues that the only way to defend against a global catastrophe is to employ a universal and invasive surveillance system, what he calls a “High-tech Panopticon.”

Sound dystopian? It sure does to me. “Creating and operating the High-tech Panopticon would require substantial investment,” Bostrom writes, “but thanks to the falling price of cameras, data transmission, storage, and computing, and the rapid advances in AI-enabled content analysis, it may soon become both technologically feasible and affordable.” Bostrom is well-aware of the downsides—corrupt actors in a state could exploit this surveillance for totalitarian ends, or hackers could blackmail unsuspecting victims. Yet the fact is that it may still be a better option than suffering one global catastrophe after another. 

How can societies counterattack omniviolence? One strategy could be a superintelligent machine—essentially, an extremely powerful algorithm—that’s specifically designed to govern fairly. We could then put the algorithm in political charge and, insofar as it governs as something like a “Philosopher King,” not worry constantly about the data collected being misused or abused. Of course, this is a fantastical proposal. Even the real-world use of AI in the justice system is fraught with problems. But at this point, do we have a better idea for preventing the collapse of the state system under the weight of widespread technological empowerment?

Read full story here…

Digital Slavery: When China Gets Inside Your Head

Some call it Surveillance Capitalism, others Green Economy or Sustainable Development. Until Technocracy is recognized for what it is, no one will fully understand what we are facing or what to do about it. ⁃ TN Editor

After reading the John Lanchester review of two new books on China’s surveillance totalitarianism (I wrote about the Lanchester book here, in connection with the NBA scandal), I bought one of the titles: We Have Been Harmonised: Life In China’s Surveillance State, by Kai Strittmatter. As regular readers know, I am forced by my new book project to limit my readings to subjects related to totalitarianism. From Lanchester’s review, I sussed that what’s going on in China today is exactly what I fear is coming here, regarding “soft totalitarianism.” Mind you, there is nothing “soft” about what is being done to the Uighurs of Xinjiang by that bloody regime in Beijing. But overall, the iron fist is very much in a velvet glove in communist China, thanks to technology.

I stayed up till after midnight last night reading Strittmatter’s book. It’s stunning stuff. The future I’ve been imagining all year, as I’ve worked on this project, already exists in China.

Excerpts from the book by Strittmatter, a German journalist who lived and worked in China:

The China we once knew no longer exists. The China that was with us for forty years – the China of ‘reform and opening up’ – is making way for something new. It’s time for us to start paying attention. Something is happening in China that the world has never seen before. A new country and a new regime are being born. And it’s also time for us to take a look at ourselves. Are we ready? Because one thing is becoming increasingly clear: over the coming decades, the greatest challenge for our democracies and for Europe won’t be Russia, it will be China. Within its borders, China is working to create the perfect surveillance state, and its engineers of the soul are again trying to craft the ‘new man’ of whom Lenin, Stalin and Mao once dreamed. And this China wants to shape the rest of the world in its own image.

Emphasis mine. More:

The Party believes it can use big data and artificial intelligence (AI) to create steering mechanisms that will catapult its economy into the future and make its apparatus crisis-proof. At the same time, it intends to use this technology to create the most perfect surveillance state the world has ever seen. Ideally, one where you can’t even see the surveillance, because the state has planted it inside the heads of its subjects. This new China won’t be a giant parade ground characterised by asceticism and discipline, as it was under Mao, but an outwardly colourful mix of George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where people devote themselves to commerce and pleasure and in so doing submit to surveillance of their own accord. Still, for the vast majority of subjects, the potential threat of state terror will remain ever-present, the background radiation in this Party universe.

Something close to James Poulos’s concept of the Pink Police State.


It’s time for the democracies of the West to recognise China as the challenge that it is. A confident, increasingly authoritarian China, that is changing the rules of the game every day. This is not the China that the optimists once dreamed of: a country that might go down the same route as South Korea or Taiwan and, having reached a similar stage of economic development, set out along the path to democracy. It is a Leninist dictatorship with a powerful economy and a clear vision for the future: this China wishes to reshape the world order according to its own ideas, to be a model for others, to export its norms and values. And make no mistake: these norms and values are not ‘Chinese’ – they are the norms and values of a Leninist dictatorship. China is creating global networks, increasing its influence. And the liberal democracies are being confronted with this new China just when the West is showing signs of weakness, and the world order it has constructed over the past few decades is sliding into crisis.

Finally, this passage:

The gulf between official and non-official language is wider in authoritarian societies than in others. But because the private sphere is deprived of oxygen in totalitarian systems, people who live under them have official language forced on them at every turn. As a result, they develop split personalities – all the more so when the language of propaganda is the language of lies – and end up adopting what George Orwell perceptively called Doublethink and Doublespeak in 1984: ‘To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy’. Each subject acts a part, to his neighbours, his colleagues, the political apparatus – and as long as he is aware of this, he can still laugh or sigh about it in secret. For most people, though, the part they act quickly becomes flesh and blood, and because it is impossible to keep the two spheres perfectly separate, the language of the political apparatus always winds up corrupting the language of the people.

This state of living is hard to imagine in the US. But not as hard as it ought to be. Almost every day I hear from readers — some in corporate America, some in academia — who tell me stories about how they walk on eggshells in their workplace, out of fear of saying something that offends against political correctness. This almost always has to do with homosexuality or transgenderism.

One lawyer told me recently that in his white-shoe law firm, everyone during Pride month was expected to take one of the firm-provided rainbow flags and display it at their desk as a sign of solidarity. He declined to do it. He said not one word about LGBT, but his Bartleby-the-Scrivener-like withholding of assent was the only one like it in the entire firm. He is sure that it was noticed, and that this is going to have consequences at some point.

What is so interesting to me about this is that people are not simply afraid of saying the “wrong” thing; they are afraid of failing to say the “right” thing. Political correctness lives in their heads, because it has, or can have, real-world consequences for them. Nobody is going to a gulag because they refuse to use the politically correct pronoun, but doing that sets one apart as politically unreliable — a “bigot” who contributes to a “hostile work environment” that makes LGBT people feel “unsafe” — and paves the way for a future dismissal.

Now, an employee may know that when he refers to the man in the dress in the workplace as “she,” that he is following a professional convention, and that the language does not reflect biological reality. Perhaps he feels safe in recognizing that he only has to lie in that way in the office. But consider that more and more of us will be going into private spaces — our homes, the homes of our friends — that are monitored by smart speakers. We know that these things monitor, and even record, our conversations, and that in some cases these conversations are stored. People love smart speakers: “Alexa, play some John Coltrane.” They are becoming accustomed to living with that technology, because it makes life more convenient and pleasant.

In this way, they are becoming accustomed to being monitored. If the government installed a smart speaker in your house, you would scream bloody murder. But if you order one from Amazon and use it to fulfill your consumer needs, you welcome surveillance technology into your living space.

This is how it’s going to happen in America. This is how it is happening in America. We’re going to swallow the bitter pill of technocratic tyranny because it is covered with the honeyed narcotic of consumer convenience.

Now, Edward Snowden has revealed that the US government has the technological capacity to spy on anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world, in real time. The NSA can activate the camera and microphone in your laptop or your smartphone, without you knowing it. Snowden writes in his new book about how the NSA has built the capacity to capture and store all digital communications (he quotes a public speech that the CIA’s top tech guy gave, in which he revealed this). It is impossible to monitor all of it, but they don’t have to. Voice recognition software, and facial recognition software, does this automatically, and flags for agents things that are potentially problematic, from the agency’s point of view.

Read full story here…

Goals Become Clear As Trilateral Commission Linked Think-Tank Bashes Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro

The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) released a new policy brief, The Amazon Is a Carbon Bomb: How Can Brazil and the World Work Together to Avoid Setting It Off? The paper demonizes newly elected President Jair Bolsonaro for being the cause of the destruction of the Amazon, which it considers a part of the “Global Commons.” The first paragraph sets the tone: 

Global warming is widely and correctly blamed for wildfires around the world. But the Amazon fires in Brazil represent a specific government policy failure over many years, especially recently, as Brazilian public agencies that are supposed to curb man-made fires have been deliberately weakened. Fires are set by farmers, cattle owners, and others every year to clear land, but they have risen in number and severity in 2019—since President Jair Bolsonaro took office on January 1 and set about fulfilling his campaign pledge to ease environmental, land use, and health regulations.

PIIE was founded by the late Peter G. Peterson (1926-2018), also a founding member of the elitist Trilateral Commission in 1973, along with David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Today, PIIE’s board of directors includes a swarm of current and former members of the Commission, including C. Fred Bergsten, Lawrence Summers, Richard Cooper, Stanley Fischer, Robert Zoellick, Alan Greenspan, Carla A. Hills, George Schultz, Paul Volcker, among others. In short, PIIE is run by the cream of the global elite. 

The Trilateral Commission set out in 1973 to create a New International Economic Order. After reforming the systems of global trade and finance by capturing the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, Trilateral Gro Harlem Brundtland provided the intellectual fodder for the creation of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 that was adopted by the United Nations in 1992 in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. 

Although it is easy to look at the United Nations as the source of demonization of populist leaders like Brazil’s Bolsonaro and America’s Donald Trump, few people see the real puppet masters behind the UN. 

PIIE has played its Trilateral hand, however, pushing the exact same policies that it pushed onto the UN in the first place: “The fires in Brazil are a classic case of what sociologists call the ‘tragedy of the commons,’ what happens when shared resources are exploited by users pursuing their own livelihoods at the expense of the common good.”

The concept of ‘global commons’ means that the Amazon rainforest does not really belong to Brazil, but rather to the whole world. Thus, Brazil is not free to manage its own resources like other nations, but rather must submit to management by the global elite. No matter that the rainforest represents 60 percent of Brazil’s total land mass. 

Laying out the problem in true hysterical form, PIIE states, “Scientists, NGOs, and environmental activists oppose Bolsonaro’s policies, warning that they could set the stage for disaster.” The immediate answer provides that “Societies know how to deal with this problem: through collective action and government regulation.”

After thoroughly bashing Bolsonaro, PIIE’s paper patronizingly concludes, 

Although the Amazon fires should be condemned, it is time for the international community to leave aside its justified grievances with the Bolsonaro administration and cooperate on a strategy to provide the resources to conserve and develop the planet’s largest continuous rainforest.

In other words, the international community should ignore Bolsonaro and pile on Brazil to deprive it of 60 percent of its sovereign landmass. 

If the intent of PIIE and the Trilateral Commission is not yet apparent to the reader, let me be clear. The object of the New International Economic Order is and always was to sequester all significant resources of the world into a ‘global commons’ managed by them under the banner of the ‘common good.’ 

As Trilateral Brundtland defined Sustainable Development in Our Common Future, it “is the kind of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” 

They have convinced the citizens of the world that they are the only benevolent and qualified people to protect us from our supposed selfishness and irresponsibility. Oh, and by the way, they will be sure to save some resources for your children and grandchildren as well. 

In any other age of history, this would be called what it is: a scam. 


Battleground: Without Encryption, Technocracy Rules

Governments are being prompted to destroy encryption, permanently destroying privacy and handing all data in the world over to Technocrat social engineers. If successful, this will catapult the world into Scientific Dictatorship, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

In every country of the world, the security of computers keeps the lights on, the shelves stocked, the dams closed, and transportation running. For more than half a decade, the vulnerability of our computers and computer networks has been ranked the number one risk in the US Intelligence Community’s Worldwide Threat Assessment – that’s higher than terrorism, higher than war. Your bank balance, the local hospital’s equipment, and the 2020 US presidential election, among many, many other things, all depend on computer safety.

And yet, in the midst of the greatest computer security crisis in history, the US government, along with the governments of the UK and Australia, is attempting to undermine the only method that currently exists for reliably protecting the world’s information: encryption. Should they succeed in their quest to undermine encryption, our public infrastructure and private lives will be rendered permanently unsafe.

In the simplest terms, encryption is a method of protecting information, the primary way to keep digital communications safe. Every email you write, every keyword you type into a search box – every embarrassing thing you do online – is transmitted across an increasingly hostile internet. Earlier this month the US, alongside the UK and Australia, called on Facebook to create a “backdoor”, or fatal flaw, into its encrypted messaging apps, which would allow anyone with the key to that backdoor unlimited access to private communications. So far, Facebook has resisted this.

If internet traffic is unencrypted, any government, company, or criminal that happens to notice it can – and, in fact, does – steal a copy of it, secretly recording your information for ever. If, however, you encrypt this traffic, your information cannot be read: only those who have a special decryption key can unlock it.

I know a little about this, because for a time I operated part of the US National Security Agency’s global system of mass surveillance. In June 2013 I worked with journalists to reveal that system to a scandalised world. Without encryption I could not have written the story of how it all happened – my book Permanent Record – and got the manuscript safely across borders that I myself can’t cross. More importantly, encryption helps everyone from reporters, dissidents, activists, NGO workers and whistleblowers, to doctors, lawyers and politicians, to do their work – not just in the world’s most dangerous and repressive countries, but in every single country.

When I came forward in 2013, the US government wasn’t just passively surveilling internet traffic as it crossed the network, but had also found ways to co-opt and, at times, infiltrate the internal networks of major American tech companies. At the time, only a small fraction of web traffic was encrypted: six years later, Facebook, Google and Apple have made encryption-by-default a central part of their products, with the result that today close to 80% of web traffic is encrypted. Even the former director of US national intelligence, James Clapper, credits the revelation of mass surveillance with significantly advancing the commercial adoption of encryption. The internet is more secure as a result. Too secure, in the opinion of some governments.

Donald Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, who authorised one of the earliest mass surveillance programmes without reviewing whether it was legal, is now signalling an intention to halt – or even roll back – the progress of the last six years. WhatsApp, the messaging service owned by Facebook, already uses end-to-end encryption (E2EE): in March the company announced its intention to incorporate E2EE into its other messaging apps – Facebook Messenger and Instagram – as well. Now Barr is launching a public campaign to prevent Facebook from climbing this next rung on the ladder of digital security. This began with an open letter co-signed by Barr, UK home secretary Priti Patel, Australia’s minister for home affairs and the US secretary of homeland security, demanding Facebook abandon its encryption proposals.

Read full story here…

Behavioral Science Used To Get Citizens To Dump Their Cars

Public ownership of automobiles has been disparaged since the 1930s when Technocracy proposed a national ride-sharing system of public ownership. The UN’s Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda follow in lock-step.  ⁃ TN Editor

The mayor of Durham, NC isn’t afraid to get dirty — literally. Steve Schewel has taken a hands-on approach to smart city leadership, which has included riding along with trash and recycling crews.

In addition to prioritizing the city’s waste issues, Schewel has turned to behavioral economics to entice residents out of their cars and onto bikes or buses. Those methods have even included a weekly $163 lottery for residents who choose to ride the bus. 

Smart Cities Dive caught up with Schewel, who is up for reelection on Nov. 5., to learn more about his campaign platforms and how he’s used social science to implement “smart” initiatives throughout the city. 

The following interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

SMART CITIES DIVE: The UN Climate Action Summit happened [recently], and the U.S. lacked a leadership role in those conversations. As mayor, what kind of pressure do you feel to take action on climate change in lieu of strong federal leadership?

STEVE SCHEWEL​: I feel a lot of responsibility to take action on climate change. The inaction of the federal government has only strengthened our resolve here in Durham to take action. 

Do you think that local leadership at the city level will be enough to help the U.S. meet the Paris agreement goals without strong federal leadership?

SCHEWEL​: No, I don’t think that will be enough. It’s critical that cities take a leadership role, but if the federal policy doesn’t change, we will not be able to get the job done. Cities can’t set national emission standards. Cities cant override lousy federal energy subsidies… Cities can’t override drilling for fossil fuels in places where we shouldn’t be drilling for fossil fuels. Cities can’t redirect government support away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources like solar and wind.

Cities have a role to play, but we’re not going to be able to get this job done on climate unless we have a change in federal policy.

Would you say a lack of federal leadership is one of the biggest barriers for Durham and other cities to meet their climate goals?

SCHEWEL​: Yes, I would say that’s one of the biggest barriers for sure. For example, if we’re going to meet our climate goals, we’re going to have to have a lot more installed solar technologies. And if the federal government was giving the support to those technologies instead of fossil fuels, we would be able to do a better job of meeting our local goals.

I read that you’re using behavioral science to get people to stop driving their cars alone to the city center. Why did you choose to use behavioral science methods to change residents’ driving habits? 

SCHEWEL​: We are very fortunate in Durham to have the Duke Center for Advanced Hindsight, which is a fabulous name for a center. It is a real wonderful research and practice center for advancing the insights of behavioral science into public policy.

We have been working with the Center for Advanced Hindsight to try to change the mobility habits of folks coming downtown here in Durham. We want to reduce the number of people driving individual cars into the city center and encourage people to come on buses, to walk or bike. The behavioral economic insights that we’re using so far have…had good success.

What behavioral science techniques did you use?

SCHEWEL​: They were very simple. We competed for this through the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge and we are very grateful to have been awarded the million dollars to do this over three years. In the pilot phase … there was a control group and an experimental group. And with the experimental group, we gave everyone simply a map of how they could get downtown [by] walking, biking or on the nearest bus. [We] gave them information about how long it would take to make that commute and [we] gave them information about how many calories they would burn and how much money they would save from gasoline. In the experimental group, there was quite an increase in the number of people who were not driving their cars downtown.

Another [method] was [also with] an experimental group and control group. And in the experimental group, anyone that rode the bus, we offered the chance to enter a weekly lottery to win $163. That significantly increased the number of people taking the bus even though the chances of them winning the lottery weren’t that high…  Our goal is to decrease the number of trips in individual cars coming downtown by 5% because we want to stop building parking garages. We want to have a positive affect on our climate. That’s just the beginning, but that’s our initial goal.

Read full story here…

Algorithms Set To Displace The Constitution

Satire shockingly makes the point that society is increasingly run by algorithms instead of by the rule of law and citizen rights under the Constitution. Citizens must stop this before it is totally embedded into our society. ⁃ TN Editor

Comment from Aldous Huxley

For those too ignorant or too full of cognitive dissonance here is a short understanding for ya..

It is Saturday morning and I like to wake up early so I had set my iPhone alarm to wake me at 5am. (Apple now knows what time i woke). I grab my iPhone and head to the kitchen and turn the coffee maker on (it wirelessly informs several other kitchen appliances, Alexa and my iPhone denotes this too). I open the fridge (it sends a signal to other kitchen appliances and my iPhone) and to grab a few items. Yogurt, orange juice, some blueberries. When I shut the fridge door the RFID signal on the packages I took out were read by the fridge so it knows what was removed and at what time. Now apple and others know, with near certainty who was up, rummaging in the fridge and what they took out. (Ok I think you get the point of “breakfast in the new age” so let’s move on. )

I go to my closet and grab blue jeans a button down shoes belt. Each has an RFID from the retail location I purchased as does my cleaners who placed a very small RFID barcode on each garment for tracking purposes. Both these signals are tracked by my iPhone, wifi signals, kitchen appliances etc. The kitchen appliances are still snooping on me so they can sell my activity tracking information to other retailers. Seems if you purchased a microwave for hundreds of dollars you should get a huge discount if they informed you they were going to spy on you and sell your activity or at least offer a choice of no spying. Seems every single thing I buy, with MY hard earned money, is now making money OFF ME. But I digress.

Anyway, I head out to the basement and every door has a sensor from my home security. It can track every door that opens and infrared movement. It tracks me via door openings going to the basement and the motion sensor follows my every move. I open my safe grab my gun and head to my vehicle. With the fridge, microwave, coffee maker, doors and motion sensors, iPhone, Alexa and numerous other things now tracking me, my car now gets involved. The hands free portion of my entertainment system recognizes me and my voice. The car starts and the little black box, gps, phone system are all on me like a bloodhound. I am tracked to every location I go, every traffic signal camera, and every light I stop at. Every song I listen too whether sad or upbeat is denoted, filed, logged. I pass near businesses and all my data is shared with them and to their own security cameras. Yet, Here I am thinking nobody knows where I am, where I am going, what I am listening to, what I am thinking, or what I am about to do. I was truly enjoying my weekend and looking forward to spending quality time with my wife and kids.

Over the past week, a stressful week at that, I needed some quite relaxing woods time. I had decided to go for aa short hike. I had brought my gun because it was coyote mating season and they can get aggressive. As I was driving down the nearly abandoned country road I see blue lights in my rear view mirror. I pull over. A loud speaker comes on and demands I throw the gun out of the car and step out slowly. I have done nothing wrong and do not understand and certainly do not want to scratch up my $7,500 .22 nearly rusted revolver. I have a permit and am not a threat. So I decided to open the door and the last thing I remember before being shot to death was loud banging.

The ensuing investigation and media narrative was they “knew” I had a stressful week and was planning on hurting, someone, or myself. That I had chosen to “die by cop” instead. Even though the sweet note I had left my wife and kids stating I was going hiking and will bring my revolver just in case because coyotes were in abundance since hunting was outlawed and how much I loved them and looked forward to picking them up in a few hours to go to the local town fair. Well, that was all but ignored and explained away. It did not fit the narrative that guns are evil and people that own them have them or even like them are borderline unstable at a minimum.

What nobody was asking is how did the officer “know” I had a gun? “Why” did the officer feel I was a threat at that time due to a stressful week? Amongst any other questions at all.

It did not matter, I was dead, my family lost, kids life changed forever and my reputation as a gun wielding mad man will forever follow my family and negatively affect them until they die. When others see this example, they will all, like rank and file, stiffen up and toe the line of compliance for surely they do not want a similar situational issue or outcome because they all deep down realize they are being tracked but they ignore it because Clash of Clans is just so addictive and gives you something to do for the 38 seconds you must be alone in public while waiting on friends to park their car.

Welcome to your new life and country controlled by algorithms vs the Constitution. Hope you really get a full mouthful of it, so much in fact it makes you sick. You deserve it all.

Read full story here…


Musk’s Suicide Mission: Send 100 People to Mars

Elon Musk is the consummate modern Technocrat and whose grandfather was head of the Technocracy, Inc. movement in the 1930s and 40s. He is also a member of the elite outer space cult looking to colonize Mars. ⁃ TN Editor

Elon Musk is a Cancer.

If he’d been born a week earlier, on June 21st instead of June 28th, he’d be a Gemini. And that would make much, much more sense. Because, while he isn’t very crabby (Cancers are crabs, and that’s the extent of my astrology knowledge), he certainly is a two-spirited human.

Musk plans on sending as many as 100 people – we’re not sure of the exact number, but his all-new ‘Starship’ seats that many – to Mars by 2024. This plan is ambitious and, in many ways, necessary. According to Musk it’s imperative we do everything in our power to preserve “consciousness,” which he fears could be unique to humans.

What if we’re all alone in the universe and an asteroid destroys Earth? The loss of consciousness would be the greatest loss in the history of, well, everything. Musk’s Starship, according to him, will take humans first to the edges of Earth‘s orbit, then to the Moon, and finally to Mars and beyond. He hopes that we’ll colonize new planets, effectively making us resilient against the single point of failure that is our mono-planetary residency. In other words, Musk wants to get people living on backup planets as quickly as possible.

This all sounds great, but getting humans to Mars isn’t just a matter of building a big spaceship that goes really fast. It’s not just rocket science. Assuming that psychological complications don’t make the entire endeavor a literal nightmare for those involved, there’s also the currently unsolved problem of how human exposure to space radiation over extended periods is probably lethal.

Astrobiologist Samantha Rolfe from the University of Hertfordshire today published an article on The Conversation explaining how, in her view, Musk‘s endeavor to put people on Mars could have catastrophic results. Not only does she point out that humans could introduce microbiology to the red planet that might kill any living organisms out there – imagine, as NASA is reportedly close to announcing it’s found life on Mars, we up and murder it post-haste – but it’s likely to be too dangerous for humans on such a short time frame.

Rolfe writes:

Deep space is not without its dangers, but at least working in low Earth orbit, on the moon and the International Space Station, the Earth’s magnetic field offers some protection from harmful space radiation.

Mars doesn’t have its own magnetic field and its atmosphere provides little shelter from cosmic radiation. Astronauts would also be exposed to deep space radiation for the minimum six-month journey between planets.

Though plenty of work is being conducted, radiation protection technology is a long way behind other aspects of rocketry. I’m not sure that it is fair or ethical to expect astronauts to be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation that could leave them with considerable health problems – or worse, imminent death.

On the one hand, Musk is the hero who wants to save the very thing that makes us human – our consciousness. He’s willing to sacrifice his time (though, we’re certain he won’t be making the maiden voyage to Mars himself) and massive brainpower to see us to Mars as quickly as his coffers and sketchbooks can get us there.

Read full story here…

Flashback: European Architects Always Intended Technocracy

The EU was largely architected by members of the Trilateral Commission, who intended Technocracy from the very start. The EU formally started with the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, in the same year of the Earth Summit in Rio, Brazil, which created Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

Leafing through the British press over the last week, you can’t but notice the increased sightings of a rare political subspecies: the “technocrat”. Prominent technocrats include the Italian prime minister designate, Mario Monti, and the Greek PM, Lucas Papademos, who have been parachuted into the top job, the papers say, in order to act out diktats of their “paymasters” in Germany and France. In the Telegraph, Christopher Booker has revealed that “EU architects never meant it to be a democracy“: technocracy was always the plan. In the same paper, Charles Moore has proclaimed that “left and right should agree that this is not the time for technocrats and Frankfurters”, but real democrats.

And largely they do. On these pages, there have been a number of comment pieces and editorials pointing out Europe’s “democratic deficit”, questioning whether the “rise of the technocrats” is wise (“economics is not engineering”) or even effective. Even the sober FT has a concerned editorial entitled “Enter the technocrats” – no less than 10 months after proclaiming the “strange death of technocracy“. I counted at least half a dozen articles that saw glaring parallels to European appeasement a la Munich ’38; the Telegraph is already pondering sending Spitfires across the channel.

Well, when the Guardian, the Telegraph and even those arch-contrarians at Spiked Online are in agreement over something, some alarm bells should go off. So let’s at least try to see if there might be another side to the story here.

The word “technocracy” comes from the Greek words “tekhne”, meaning skill, and “kratos” meaning power. Technocrats thus literally promise to be “problem solvers” – politicians who make decisions based on their expertise or specialist knowledge of a particular subject, rather than to please a particular interest group or political party. The term is commonly attributed to the engineer William H Smyth of Berkely, California in 1919, though the idea that a country should be organised and spiritually led not by the church, feudal landowners or the military but by industrial chiefs and men of science, goes back to the early socialist thinker Saint-Simon.

Yes, there’s no harm in saying it: technocracy once used to be a big idea for the international left. In 1930s America, for instance, it wasn’t a term of abuse but the programme for a new social utopia. In the middle of the Great Depression, an emergent technocratic movement led by engineers and dissident economists such as Thorstein Veblen and Howard Scott proposed that populist politicians simply weren’t capable to fix the system: “The maladministration and chaos imposed upon the industrial mechanism by arbitrary rule of extraneous interest has reached such a point that many technicians feel the urgent need of confederating their forces in a program of industrial co-ordination based, not on belief, but exact knowledge,” thundered a pamphlet by the Technical Alliance.

The American technocratic movement was short-lived, not least because the flaws in its thinking were so apparent: their belief that anyone could ever be completely apolitical in their decision-making now strikes us as naive. No one remembers the technocrats’ “Plan of Plenty”, and everybody remembers Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Over the course of the next few decades, technocracy got a dodgy rep. Veneration of industrial progress and unchecked rule by bureaucrats became a trademark of totalitarian regimes in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. George Orwell describes technocracy as a precursor to fascism. What was Adolf Eichmann if not a technocrat?

Some might say, though, that technocratic ideals and practices never really went away. Henry Elsner’s critical account of the movement floats the idea that the New Deal, with its embracing of social engineering, was more of a synthesis of technocratic and democratic ideals than an alternative.

In many European countries, the word technocrat still has positive connotations. In the 1950s, Jean Monnet envisioned growth as something that required expertise rather than party politics. Smaller democracies, such as Holland, often rely on technocrats as negotiators between unruly coalition governments, or between employers and employees. Belgium, without a government for 17 months and counting, is a technocrat’s paradise and has weathered the crisis fairly well so far. In the former communist states of central and eastern Europe, technocrats played a key role in negotiating the transition from authoritarian regime to democracy.

Read full story here…

Andrew yang

Andrew Yang: Climate Change May Require Elimination of Car Ownership

Presidential candidate Andrew Yang is a Technocrat pushing the ideology of Technocracy: Universal Basic Income and now giving up personal automobiles in favor of shared mobility systems. ⁃ TN Editor

Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said the United States may have to eliminate private car ownership to combat climate change during MSNBC’s climate forum at Georgetown University Thursday morning.

He told MSNBC host Ali Velshi that “we might not own our own cars” by 2050 to wean the United States economy off of fossil fuels, describing private car ownership as “really inefficient and bad for the environment.” Privately owned cars would be replaced by a “constant roving fleet of electric cars.”

A video posted by the GOP War Room shows Velshi asking Yang what measures he sees the world taking to fight climate change by 2050.

“You have this ability to envision the future, right, with your proposals on universal basic income. You’ve played the whole chess game out and you see what it looks like on the other end. Play the chess game out on climate change,” Velshi said. “What does the world look like to you in 2050? What physically do you think we will do differently than we do today that will result in us fighting climate change?”

“Well I mentioned before that we might not own our own cars. Our current car ownership and usage model is really inefficient and bad for the environment,” Yang said.

“You guys all probably agree with this because you’re quite young,” he told the Georgetown University crowd, adding an anecdote about driving a 1985 Honda Accord as a young man.

Yang then proposed an alternative to individuals owning their own cars.

“What we’re really selling is not the car, it’s mobility,” he said. “So if you have mobility that’s then tied into a much more, if you had like, for example, this constant roving fleet of electric cars that you would just order up, then you could diminish the impact of ground transportation on our environment very, very quickly.”

Yang’s climate plan calls for nearly $5 trillion in spending over the next 20 years. His proposal includes embracing the impacts of climate change.

Read full story here…

Asgardias’ Technocracy Space Nation Seeks 15 Million Faithful

It’s not just U.S. Technocrat billionaires who want to colonize outer space. A Russian billionaire’s Asgardia plan is to create the first ‘space nation’ to offer citizenship and passports. ⁃ TN Editor

A Russian billionaire is ramping up plans to save humanity by creating a floating “garden of gods” in the Solar System for 15 million lucky people.

Igor Ashurbeyli is the Azeri-Russian tycoon behind Asgardia, a project launched three years ago to establish “permanent peace in space”. In 2017, the group sent a satellite – Asgardia-1 – into low-Earth orbit and declared sovereignty over the space it occupies. The outlandish ambitions do not cease there, but “Head of Nation” Dr Ashurbeyli has sought to prove this is more than just a sci-fi fantasy.

Earlier this year, Asgardia unveiled plans to build a fleet of “cosmic Noah’s arks” orbiting the Earth, at a cost of roughly £100billion a piece for its micro-nation.

Former Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik was elected as the chairman of the Parliament of Asgardia during its first session in Vienna, Austria.

He is part of a British core involved in the project, that also includes Tory Brexiteer Nigel Evans who chairs the Asgardian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, and Philip Appleby, a former Ministry of Defence official and police officer who has been appointed Minister of Safety and Security.

Mr Opik told iweekend: “Lots people are building rockets, Asgardia is about building the society to go with them.

“At some point in the future, ordinary people are going to have to inhabit space and we are not going to build a social infrastructure from mission control. 

“It has to be built by consent – painstakingly and comprehensively. 

“We have to decide the rules and methods on everything from burials to taxation, from marriage to procreation.

“My political back catalogue tells you that I’m no stranger to dealing with the unexpected, it has never bothered me to be on the far side of convention and target for suspicion of derision.

“We are getting some big names from science and commerce and it creates a virtuous circle – the more people take us seriously, the more serious it will get.”

Read full story here…