Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein Showcases The Mind Of A Technocrat

Epstein may represent the end result of science for science’ sake but without morality and ethics. His scientistic worldview is proven to be thoroughly bankrupt, and is but a signpost to the collapse of western civilization. ⁃ TN Editor

With the slew of reporting on Jeffrey Epstein’s recent arrest on federal charges for sex trafficking of minors, many sordid details of the money manager’s wrongdoings have been revealed. However, few reports have focused on the fact that Epstein has funded some of the most famous scientists in the world. If we look closely at his role as a science philanthropist, Epstein’s more pernicious political significance becomes clear and gives us all reason to reflect on the values of the Western civilization in crisis that his worldview represents.

Epstein’s Science Philanthropy Empire

The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation was established in 2000 with the stated mission of “supporting innovation in science and education.” In 2003, the Foundation pledged a $30 million donation to establish the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University, where Epstein had already been a “long-time, low-profile” donor. This graduate department studies the “fundamental mathematical principles that guide evolution” and, according to Epstein’s website, also investigates topics such as “population structure, prelife, eusociality, [and] evolutionary economics.”

Despite pressure to return the gift after Epstein’s initial charges for soliciting sex from prostitutes in 2006, Harvard refused to do so. Former president Derek C. Bok weighed in, questioning why “Harvard should have an obligation to investigate each donor and impose detailed moral standards.” After orchestrating a plea deal in 2008 with the help of Harvard law professor and well-known apologistfor Israel’s war crimes, Alan Dershowitz, Epstein maintained his friendly relationship with Harvard, where he continued to sit on the board of the Harvard Society of Mind, Brain, and Behavior. As of 2014, he was also “actively involved” in the Santa Fe Institute, the Theoretical Biology Initiative at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and the Quantum Gravity Program at the University of Pennsylvania.

Besides his Ivy League connections in the United States, Epstein has recently poured money into Artificial Intelligence research abroad, namely the OpenCog research group in Hong Kong and MicroPsi Project 2 in Berlin. Forbes reported in 2013 that this AI research was targeted at the development of “radical emotional software.”

In addition to these larger projects, Epstein has funded a laundry list of the world’s most famous scientists including Stephen Hawking, Marvin Minsky, Eric Lander, Stephen Kosslyn, Martin Nowak, George Church, and Nobel laureate physicists Gerard ’t Hooft, David Gross, and Frank Wilczek. The full extent of his donations is not known since the Foundation avoided making its financial details public despite pressure from the New York Attorney General’s Office in 2015. In addition to his much publicized interactions with politicians, Epstein has taken a personal interest in many of these scientists, prompting one leading Harvard researcher to proclaim that Epstein “changed my life.”

Indeed, New York Magazine reported in 2002 that Epstein “brings a trophy-hunter’s zeal to his collection of scientists.” He flew Hawking to his personal island for a conference with 20 more of the world’s top physicists, spoke with Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Martin Nowak, once a week on the phone and flew him around the country for lectures, and went personally to Harvard psychologist Stephen Kosslyn’s lab to observe experiments conducted on Tibetan monks, the latter whom Epstein reportedly described as “so stupid.”

The Reactionary Politics of Scientism

Epstein’s diverse science philanthropy credentials may seem arbitrary to highlight, but, upon closer scrutiny, it is clear that his donations served a consistent purpose of upholding Western political and scientific dominance over the world.

Epstein subscribes to a scientistic worldview, which sees not politics, economics, or religion as a driving force of history but, rather, evolution. He spoke fondly of E.O. Wilson’s famous evolutionary determinist theory of “sociobiology” in 2002 and founded the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics the following year. What is the cause of Epstein’s attraction to evolutionary thinking about human social development? In a word: money.

Epstein stated, “If we can figure out how termites come together, then we may be able to better understand the underlying principles of market behavior – and make big money.” For Epstein, markets are not the product of human creation but, instead, evolutionally hard-wired systems that can be understood in terms of biology. This is all, of course, malarkey, but demonstrates that financial capitalists like Epstein see science not as a way of expanding human knowledge for the good of all; rather, it is, at best, an outlet for bogus theorizing about the so-called natural laws of the economy and, at worst, an unabashed intellectual justification for the wealth of key market players like himself.

This brings us to Epstein’s generous funding of top AI research scientists, with whom he has enjoyed close personal relationships. In 2013, he was reported to fund “the first humanoids” and “first free thinking robots,” which are designed to move beyond robots as “clunky machines that relied on deterministic algorithmic pathways” toward emotional human-like creatures with “responsive facial expressions, synthesized rubber skin, called frubber and delicate features.”

These are reminders that scientific research and technological development are not separate from politics. Indeed, Epstein has not only served on the boards of numerous science institutes, but also on those of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 to advance US foreign policy interests in the wake of World War I and the Russian Revolution. Later on, the Council’s study groups developed the Cold War doctrine of “containment” and laid the foundations for NATO.

The Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller in 1973 to advance the interests of North America, Western Europe, and Japan. In the words of a 1975 document produced for the Commission, it was concerned about a lapse in “the indoctrination of the young” and called for “more moderation in democracy” in the wake of the revolutionary social movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

Read full story here…

Catherine Austin Fitts Interviews Patrick Wood On Technocracy

This is a transcript from an extensive and wide-ranging interview with Catherine Austin Fitts on June 13, 2019. We covered Opportunity Zones, Smart Cities and Technocracy. It is a must-read for everyone wanting to understand the economic side of Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

C. Austin Fitts: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s an absolute pleasure to welcome back to The Solari Report Patrick Wood, who recently joined us for an interview on technocracy. If you reviewed ‘The Best Books’ for the last several years, you will see one of his books on technocracy.

He is the editor and publisher of Technocracy News & Trends at I recommend it strongly to you. There is a great deal of information about technocracy. If you haven’t listened to our first interview, you absolutely have to do it. You have to check out his website and I strongly recommend his books on technocracy. I think that it will help you to see the way that AI software and systems are being used to micromanage and replace markets and democracy in a trend that we don’t want to let continue.

Patrick, welcome to The Solari Report. We are here to talk about Opportunity Zones, something I very much have wanted to talk about on The Solari Report. When I found out that you were deep diving Opportunity Zones, I said, “This is fantastic!”

Patrick Wood: Thank you, Catherine, for that. I want to say how much I appreciate the area that you are coming from because my background – going back for 45 years – is economics and business. I wrote extensively about economic issues over the years. Quite frankly, for most people, it’s a boring thing to write about. The economy – who needs it?

This has been my specialty since I started writing, even when we wrote Trilaterals over Washington back in the 1970’s. That was primarily a book about the economic takeover of our country. So, today very few people recognize or give assent to the economic aspect of technocracy, but this is the only reason I am interested in the first place. It’s about the economy. It’s about trying to transform the economy out of free enterprise and capitalism into this new ‘Green New Deal’ type of economy that cannot possibly work; not in 10,000 years will it ever work.

Fitts: It’s total control by micromanagement through AI and software. The thing that makes it go are the Federal regulations and the Federal credit to subsidize it, but it is phenomenally wasteful. It’s unbelievably profitable for the top people.

Wood: It is. The very, very top will accumulate wealth and concentrate wealth like never before in history. It’s already happening and has been happening for a long time.

Fitts: Yes, but there is much more to go and that is part of what you’ve nailed.

Wood: There are a few resources out there yet that they don’t have control of, but they are going for them right now.

Fitts: It’s hard for people to fathom the extent to which they think that they can harvest everything.

I was at the Aspen Institute two years ago, and sat on a panel. Ed Griffin was there, and it was wonderful. I dealt with a billionaire venture capitalist on the panel. I tried to engage with him afterward, and he looked at me with these stoned eyes. He was a software developer. He said, “Look, I can automate every job in America, and that is exactly what we are going to do, and there is nothing that you can do to stop us.”

He had that look on his face as if, “I’ve been up in the UFO, honey, and I’m telling you how it is.”

Basically, he was saying that we can insert ourselves with software and AI into every process in the country and harvest 100%.

Wood: That’s right, and that is the technocrat mindset, by the way. You ‘hit the nail on the head’. This is the technocrat mindset: Technology has a solution for every conceivable problem that mankind has.

Fitts: Right, and they can automate every conceivable thing. Part of this is the transhumanism. They think that they can insert digital technology into humans and integrate digital systems with biological systems.

So, tell us about Opportunity Zones. I am anxious!

Wood: I probably would not have taken a second look at Opportunity Zones except that I ‘smelled a rat’. Don’t you just love Patrick Henry? He was the person who coined the phrase, “I smell a rat!” He’s my favorite founding father.

Fitts: This is a big rat – a big, stinking rat.

Wood: I started to look into it, and at first, as you look at the Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 – which was supposed to be the big windfall tax cut for Americans across the board, especially the middle class who desperately need it – I never really examined that act. I didn’t get it and read it because I’m not a tax person. Frankly, that thing drives me crazy. But when I saw that on December 12 of 2018, the President had executed an executive order called the Executive Order on Establishing the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council, I thought, “What is that? What is this all about?”

I read the EO, and it’s all about Opportunity Zones. I thought, “That is strange. Congressed the Tax Act. Why do we need an executive order to support or somehow streamline that process?”

It wasn’t streamlining anything to do with you and me. I don’t know where you are in the socioeconomic status, but it certainly doesn’t address me. As I studied this, the President has pulled out all the Federal stops to allow these Opportunity Zones to flourish. What the tax law actually did – the Tax Cuts and Job Act – is create a system called Opportunity Zones where the Governors of each state would designate areas in their state-up to 25% of their low-income areas in the state-to qualify. It’s all self-certified and there is no checking anywhere. They just send the zone designations to the Treasury, the Treasury rubber stamps them, and that is basically it.

Fitts: I’m going to mention that in the Subscriber links. You will find a link to the government website that will give you a list by census tract of the Opportunity Zones and will map them, so you can look at the map. I should point out that in my county in Tennessee, the biggest portion of our county seat is mapped as an Opportunity Zone.

Wood: The idea behind the Opportunity Zone is that somebody who has locked down capital gains, such as they bought an asset 30 years ago or they inherited something that has an extremely low-cost base, and they want to sell it. Many people are put off by selling assets like this because it plays horrible games with your income tax. If you have a really large capital gains, it can push you into the maximum tax bracket, and you will end up paying a large amount of money to unlock that asset that was in stocks or real estate.

Fitts: I would like to mention one thing? One of the problems with that tax is that when you dig in and look at a lot of their increase, it’s really only inflation and currency debasement. So, if they are going to get a real return and stay ahead of inflation and beat inflation – which is part of staying in the top one percent – they need to come up with a return that beats inflation. That means avoiding the tax.

Wood: That is exactly right and, of course, they get it. They have the ability to lobby Congress to do things that you and I simply can’t do. But when I discovered that this was a tax dodge and people with income that are worried about paying income tax on or have a huge capital gains tax staring them in the face, what better way to solve everybody’s problem than to just simply sell their asset, take the proceeds, and invest it anywhere in these Opportunity Zones. The taxes that would normally be due are deferred at least for six years, and in some cases permanently. I thought that was a sweet little deal.

Then I started looking into where this idea came from. Somebody had to come up with it. Was it a Congressman? A Senator? Who was it?

It led me back on the trail to an organization called the Economic Innovation Group (EIG). That is a boring name – Economic Innovation Group. What’s that?

I found out that this is the organization that originally came up with the whole idea. They readily admit it.

Fitts: I’m going to take it back longer because, if you read my online book, Dillon Read and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits, you can take it back to the person who came up with place-based development of this kind – at least defining the capital gains opportunity – and it was me.

I had a company, that was doing the financial advisory work for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I identified, and did all the prototyping and took the numbers, and worked with OMB and the Brookings Institution to prove that the number one capital gains opportunity in America was swinging in new technology into places and reengineering how the government reinvestment worked.

I didn’t know about the ability to dramatically lower the energy price, but that is one thing that I want to talk with you about because I think that is part of it. I had built relational databases that allowed you to simulate what could be done economically, and the capital gains opportunity was the number one capital gains opportunity in America. It was particularly strong in the low-income areas.

It was basically new technology plus reengineering the government money, and I took it to the pension funds. They said to me, “Oh my God! We can save America and make the pension fund targets.” That was the summer of 1997 at Safeguard Scientifics.

That year, the Department of Justice seized our offices, stole all our software tools that would allow us to look at Federal investment by county and congressional district and by place. It took me six years in court to get those databases back. When I finally got them, the most valuable pieces were gone forever.

So, they have been looking at the real estate capital gains opportunity in these neighborhoods for a long, long time. They have known it’s there.

Wood: I actually talked to my CPA about the tax laws surrounding this, and the very first thing that she came up with – which is very common in the agricultural industry where I came from – is the exchange program where you can exchange assets without having capital gains being incurred.

It was very common when buying and selling farmland that you would seek to find an exchange rather than just selling property outright, and then buying another piece of property so that you could avoid paying capital gains tax.

You are absolutely right. This is something where the concept has been floating around for a long time.

Fitts: They know that all the farmers are hitting retirement age and need to liquefy their estates, so there is a big push to capture the farmland. One of my questions to you is going to be: To what extent are they placing these Opportunity Zones in places where they want to pick up big pieces of farmland?

Wood: That is a good point. There are a lot of rural areas that have been defined within the Opportunity Zone map, and you mentioned the interactive map that is on the Treasury website. That is a great place to find them. There are many of them out there.

Grilling down into it, we find a paper that was generated by this EIG Group back in 2015. It was called ‘Unlocking Private Capital to Facilitate Economic Growth in Distressed Areas’. That says nothing in the title. Then when you read it, it doesn’t really say much other than what we’ve been talking about already. But what happened as a result of this article is that two bills were introduced: One in the House, and one in the Senate. The ones that were introduced in the Senate were cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican.

The first Democrat sponsor was Senator Cory Booker-Mr. Green New Deal. I thought, “That’s a warning sign. Why would he be interested in this?”

It was called The Investing and Opportunity Act, and it failed. It got stuck in committee, and it stayed there.

Then came the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, and lo and behold, they were able to lift that text out and throw it right into the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and it survived. It found its way into law, and the President signed it.

If you go in and look at the legislation and what it actually says, it says very clearly what the intent is of Opportunity Zones. But here is the kicker: The people who founded EIG – and this always interests me – was none other than Sean Parker. People don’t recognize Sean Parker very quickly. That’s not Peter Parker of Spiderman. It’s not his father or anything like that either.

Sean Parker was the cofounder of Facebook.

Fitts: Sean Parker got famous because he said, “I’m going to live to be 145.” He essentially said, “I built something that was designed to addict your children, and I’m going to live to 145 because I’m a billionaire as a result.”

Many people connected it to what was going on in Silicon Valley about buying children’s blood. It was a very gruesome moment that put Sean Parker on the map.

Wood: I’ll say good luck to him on that account. I don’t think he’s going to live that long. In the meantime, just so people understand who Sean Parker is, this is the man who cofounded Napster before 2000.

Read full story here…


Google: None Dare Call It Sedition

Google has now flatly stated its intent to influence and control public perception so as to manipulate and determine national political election outcomes. It does this by using AI algorithms to skew search results, presenting only their political views, and suppressing dissenting or alternative views.

However, this is not a free speech issue. Google is not a news organization. It does not hire journalists nor does it create original content. Rather, Google is an information utility that simply indexes existing and new journalistic content.

Google’s all-powerful and pervasive Internet crawler is able to discover virtually 100% of everything published in the world, on an hour-by-hour or minute-by-minute basis. In other words, Google knows everything there is to know. The question is, will it tell all that it knows or only part of it?

Google is very much a public utility that resembles a telephone company. When your local telephone company publishes a phone book, it simply indexes people by last name and puts their number next to it. It is easy for one person to find another and then pick up the phone and make a call.

What would happen if the phone company started making decisions about who could have a listing in their master directory? What if they simply dropped out people who were discovered to be Republicans or Democrats? What if they deleted people because they had a certain skin color? Or national origin? Or religion?

While on one hand, the phone company was willing to connect and charge for service in everybody’s home, those suppressed individuals would only be able to make outbound calls and they would seldom receive any inbound calls.

Would America ever tolerate this? Of course not. In fact, it would spark a national uproar of epic proportions.

So, can anyone explain why Google is getting a free pass on hiding the particulars of its indexing algorithms from public consumers of information?

It would be bad enough if Google simply dropped out certain pieces of information, but they have gone way beyond this by rearranging the results it chooses to release and presenting them in such a manner to show an alternate reality that purposely misleads the public.

This is what is called “weaponizing data” to actively and intentionally lead people to false conclusions in order to modify their behavior. To say this is wrong is an understatement. To say it is illegal is complicated, but it is certainly possible.

Has Google unleashed Project Dragonfly?

On August 1, 2018, the left-leaning journal called The Intercept originally broke the story that Google was creating a censored version of its search engine for China. The secret project was named Dragonfly.

The U.K. journalist, Ryan Gallagher, created an international uproar with the first report, but has since written 23 additional investigative articles that fully expose Google’s activities in China.

Gallagher wrote,

Documents seen by The Intercept, marked “Google confidential,” say that Google’s Chinese search app will automatically identify and filter websites blocked by the Great Firewall. When a person carries out a search, banned websites will be removed from the first page of results… The search app will also “blacklist sensitive queries” so that “no results will be shown” at all when people enter certain words or phrases, the documents state. The censorship will apply across the platform: Google’s image search, automatic spell check and suggested search features will incorporate the blacklists, meaning that they will not recommend people information or photographs the government has banned.

This is exactly what Google is now doing to the United States, except that it is acting on its own accord and not under the orders of a national government.

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt, a member of the elitist Trilateral Commission, was recently interviewed by BBC Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis and stated,

“The world is a very interconnected place. There are many, many benefits interacting, among other things, with China… I believed they would be better to stay in China, and help change China to be more open.”

Apparently, what is good for China’s censorship is good for the U.S. as well.

Will The Intercept call out Google for doing to the U.S. what it intended to do for China? Will the American public be as outraged over domestic censorship as they were about the possibility of China’s censorship?

Google’s clear agenda

When Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai stated,

Again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again?

What does Google want to prevent from happening again? According to Gennai, it is “preventing the next Trump situation.”

Social justice warriors like Gennai have obviously discovered the power of Google’s Internet machine to practice social engineering according to their exclusive world view, while excluding all other views.

While some lawmakers are already investigating anti-trust measures against Google, they might be missing the more pertinent issue: Sedition.

According to one legal source,

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

Whether they realize it or not, Google is deep into the process of meddling with the election process to create insurrection in order to cause the overthrow of our lawful national government established according to the U.S. Constitution. In short, it is the citizens of our nation who decide national, state and local leadership and not Google!

Virtually every public servant in the United States is required to take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. It’s time to hold some feet to the fire.


Google Has Become Orwell’s “Ministry Of Truth”

Forget ‘fake news’. Google IS fake news. It is re-writing history, the present and the future. It is using its enormous control over the ‘news feed’ to control how people think, react and act. Worse, it is working beyond their wildest imagination.

We can thank Project Veritas for breaking this story, and I expect there will be additional Google insiders who come out as whistleblowers to reveal more sordid details.

In short, Google is weaponizing its AI programs to decimate all conservative voice in America, and to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected in 2020.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) had the opportunity to grill Maggie Stanphill, Director of Google User Experience, on the undercover video of another Google executive and leaked internal documents. Here is a partial transcript:

CRUZ: Are you familiar with the report that was released yesterday from Veritas, that included a whistleblower from within Google that included videos from a senior executive at Google, and it included documents that are reportedly internal powerpoint documents from google.

GOOGLE: Yes I heard about that report in news.

CRUZ: Have you seen the report?

GOOGLE: No I did not.

CRUZ: So you didn’t review the report to prepare fr this meeting?

GOOGLE: It’s been a busy day and I have a day job which is Digital Well-being at Google so I’m trying to make sure…

CRUZ: Well I’m sorry that this meeting is impinging on your day job.

GOOGLE: It’s a great opportunity thank you.

CRUZ: One of the things in that report and I would recommend people interested in political bias at Google watch the entire report and judge for themselves, there’s a video from a woman Jen Gennai, it’s a secret video that was recorded, Jen Gennai as I understand is the head of responsible innovation for google. Are you familiar with Miss Gennai?

GOOGLE:  I work in user experience and I believe that AI group is somebody is somebody that works on AI principles. But it’s a big company and I don’t work directly with Jen.

CRUZ: Do you know her or no?

GOOGLE: I do not know Jen.

CRUZ: As I understand that she is shown in the video saying, and this is a quote, “Elizabeth warren is saying that we should break up google. And like I love her, but she is very misguided. Like that will not make it better. It  will make it worse. Because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do, will be charged with preventing the next trump situation. It’s like a small company cannot do that.” Do you think its Google’s job to quote, “prevent the next trump situation?”

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I don’t agree with that. No sir.

CRUZ: So a different individual, a whistleblower identified simply as an insider at Google with knowledge of the algorithm, was quoted on the same report as saying, google is quote “bent on never letting someone like Donald Trump come to power again.” You think its google’s job to make sure quote “somebody like Donald Trump never comes to power again?”

GOOGLE: No sir I don’t think that is Google’s job and we build for everyone including every single religious belief, every single demographic, every single region, and certain every single political affiliation.

CRUZ: Well I have to say that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case. Of the senior executives at Google, do you know a single one that voted for Donald Trump?

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I’m a user experience director and I work on google digital well-being, I can tell you we have diverse use…

CRUZ: Did you know of anyone that voted for Trump.

GOOGLE: I definitely know of people that voted for Trump.

CRUZ: Of the senior executives at Google.

GOOGLE: I don’t talk politics with my workmates.

CRUZ: Is that a no?

GOOGLE: Sorry is that a no to what?

CRUZ: DO you know any senior executives, even a single senior executive at the company that voted for Donald Trump?

GOOGLE: as the digital well-being expert I don’t think this is in my purview to comment… I definitely don’t know…

CRUZ: Let’s talk about one of the PowerPoints that was leaked. The Veritas report has Google internally saying “I propose we make machine learning intentionally human centered and intervene for fairness.” Is this document accurate?

GOOGLE: Thank you sir, I don’t know about this document so I don’t know.

CRUZ: Okay I’m going to ask you to respond to the committee in writing afterwards as to whether this PowerPoint and the other documents are included in the veritas report, whether  those are  accurate. And I recognize that your lawyers may want to write explanation, you’re welcome to write all the explanation that you want but I also want a simple clear answer is this an accurate document that was generated by google. Do you agree with the sentiment expressed in this document?

GOOGLE: No sir I do not.

CRUZ: Going to read you another, also in this report, it indicates that Google according this whistleblower, deliberately makes recommendations if someone is searching for conservative commentators, deliberately shifts the recommendations so instead of recommending other conservative commentators it recommends organizations like CNN or MSNBC or left leaning political outlets. Is that occurring?

GOOGLE: Thank you sir, I can’t comment I can’t comment on search algorithms or recommendations given my purview as Digital Well-being lead. I can take that back to my team though.

CRUZ: So is it part of Digital Well-being for search recommendations to reflect the where user wants to go than deliberately shifting where they want to go?

GOOGLE: As a user experience professional, we focus on delivering on user goals. So we try to get out of the way and on the task at hand.

CRUZ: So a final question, one of these documents that was leaked explains what Google is doing and it has a series of stamps, training data, collected and classified, algorithms are programmed, media are filtered ranked and aggregated, and that ends with, people, parenthesis, like us, are programmed. Does Google view its job as programming people with search results?

GOOGLE: Thank you senator. I can’t speak for the whole entire company, but I can tell you that we make sure that we put our users first in design.

CRUZ: Well I think these questions, these documents raise very serious questions about political bias.

As Google scrambles to perform damage control, you can expect it to issue unending, inane public statements that contradict the clear evidence before the world. This is how things are done at the “Ministry of Truth.”

The Technocrat coup is in full swing now, and we should have no illusions that there are “good people” somewhere in the midst of this. The battle lines have been drawn, but the war has barely begun.

If you are hot to conquer censorship, go immediately to Citizens For Free Speech (CFFS) and join the battle. CFFS defends and promotes the First Amendment that gives us the right to speak up. If we lose this right, it’s “game over.”

Elon Musk

Elon Musk: “Starship Development To Build The Martian Technocracy”

Elon Musk fully understands Technocracy and is a Technocrat of the highest order: after all, his Canadian grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was the head of Canada’s Technocracy, Inc. party in the 1930s. Now, Musk intends to build a Martian Technocracy.

See – Shock: Elon Musk’s Grandfather Was Head Of Canada’s Technocracy Movement  ⁃ TN Editor

While Buzz Lightyear goes to infinity and beyond, Elon Musk will have to settle for Mars for now.

The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla posted a series of cryptic tweets hinting at his plans to someday colonize the red planet.

“Accelerating Starship development to build the Martian Technocracy,” Musk tweeted on Sunday.

Shortly after, he followed up with a meme with the text, “OCCUPY MARS” and an image of the planet.

For anyone else, the tweets would be seemingly nonsensical.

But for Musk, there’s some applicable context. After all, his SpaceX is set to conduct its first nighttime launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket from Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral Monday night.

The 230-foot-tall rocket will carry 24 satellites for key customers, including the Department of Defense and NASA.

Musk has long described the Falcon Heavy as a critical step in his long-running bid to send rockets and people to Mars someday.

He has even famously said that he wants to die on Mars after establishing a self-sustaining colony of humans and changing the planet’s climate.

Read full story here…


Totalitarianism In China: Technocracy or Communism?

This is a thoughtful article, but it attributes China’s totalitarianism to Communism instead of Technocracy, which is a common misconception. China prizes Technocracy’s “science of social engineering” more than anything else and is creating a Scientific Dictatorship. ⁃ TN Editor

The 30th anniversary on June 4 of the Chinese regime’s 1989 massacre of pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square served to highlight the extreme censorship in China under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and President Xi Jinping.

The Tiananmen anniversary is referred to euphemistically in mainland China, as ‘the June Fourth Incident’. The regime there evidently fears that any talk, let alone public commemoration, of that historical event will stir up anti-regime unrest, which could endanger the Chinese Communist Party’s absolute power.

The internet in China is under control of the Chinese Communist Party, especially through the rigorous censorship practiced by the party’s top internet censor, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), established in 2014. In May 2017, according to a Reuters report, the CAC introduced strict guidelines requiring all internet platforms that produce or distribute news “to be managed by party-sanctioned editorial staff” who have been “approved by the national or local government internet and information offices, while their workers must get training and reporting credentials from the central government”.

Freedom House, in “Freedom on the Net 2018,” its 2018 assessment of freedom on the internet in 65 countries, placed China dead last. Reporters without Borders, in its 2019 worldwide index of press freedom, ranked China 177 out of 180 countries, surpassed only by Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at the time of its 2018 prison census, counted at least 47 journalists jailed in China, but according to the CPJ, the number could be much higher: “authorities are deliberately preventing information from getting out”. In March 2019, the CPJ was investigating at least a dozen additional cases, including the arrests in December 2018 of 45 contributors to the human rights and religious-liberty magazine, Bitter Winter, which China targets as a “foreign hostile website“.

On ‘sensitive’ occasions such as the Tiananmen anniversary, entire websites are blocked. Since April, ahead of the Tiananmen anniversary, Wikipedia had been blocked in all languages. Wikipedia’s Chinese-language site has been blocked by China since 2015. Websites such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other websites have also long been blocked in China.

Search terms are also blocked on such ‘sensitive’ occasions. In the past, even common, innocuous words such as ‘today’ or ‘tomorrow’ have been blocked.

For the anniversary of Tiananmen, the Chinese Communist Party reportedlybegan its crackdown in January 2019: On January 3, the Cyberspace Administration of China announced on its website that it had launched a new campaign against “negative and harmful information” on the internet. The campaign was to last for six months — coinciding with Tiananmen’s June 4 anniversary. The definition of “negative and harmful information” was all-inclusive: Any content that was “pornographic, vulgar, violent, horrific, fraudulent, superstitious, abusive, threatening, inflammatory, rumor, and sensational,” or related to “gambling,” or spreading “bad lifestyles and bad culture” had to be removed from every conceivable internet platform. The CAC added, “Those who let illegal behavior go free will not be tolerated but be severely punished”.

In China, censorship, now largely automated, has reached “unprecedented levels of accuracy, aided by machine learning and voice and image recognition”, according to a recent Reuters report. It quotes Chinese censors as commenting:

“We sometimes say that the artificial intelligence is a scalpel, and a human is a machete… When I first began this kind of work four years ago there was opportunity to remove the images of Tiananmen, but now the artificial intelligence is very accurate”.

China’s severe censorship runs parallel to its severe suppression of religious freedom. The President of the Religious Freedom Institute, Thomas F. Farr, at a November 2018 hearing at the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, described China’s religious suppression as “the most systematic and brutal attempt to control Chinese religious communities since the Cultural Revolution”. As in other Communist regimes, such as that of the former Soviet Union, the Communist ideology does not tolerate any competing narratives.

“Religion is a source of authority, and an object of fidelity, that is greater than the state,” Farr wrote. “This characteristic of religion has always been anathema to history’s totalitarian despots, such as Stalin, Hitler, and Mao…”

The brutal religious and cultural oppression of Tibetans in China has been ongoing for nearly 70 years, but China has not only sought to destroy the Tibetan religion. Christianity, for instance, was seen from the beginning as a threat to the People’s Republic of China when it was established in 1949. “This was especially true at the height of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), when places of worship were demolished, closed, or reappropriated and religious practices were banned”, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Some Christian clerics have been imprisoned for nearly 30 years. In recent years, oppression of Christians in China has apparently surged. Since the late 1990s, the Chinese regime has also targeted the Falun Gong.

China has been shutting down churches and removing crosses. They have been replaced with the national flag, and images of Jesus have been replaced with pictures of President Xi Jinping. Children, future bearers of the Communist ideology, have been banned from attending church. In September 2018, China shut down one of the largest underground churches, Beijing’s Zion Church. In December 2018, the pastor of the underground Early Rain Church, Wang Yi, and his wife were arrested and charged with ‘inciting subversion’, a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Along with the pastor and his wife, more than 100 church members were also arrested. In April 2019, Chinese authorities forcibly took away an underground Catholic priest, Father Peter Zhang Guangjun, just after he celebrated Palm Sunday Mass. He was reportedly the third Catholic priest to be taken by the authorities in one month.

According to a confidential document obtained by Bitter Winter, China is currently also getting ready for a clampdown on Christian churches with ties with foreign religious communities.

Read full story here…


Amazon’s Bezos: Space Exploration Is Necessary To ‘Save The Earth’

Apparently, AOC’s Green New Deal isn’t enough to save the earth; Jeff Bezos now says we must also send humanity into space. The logical end of Technocracy, which is based on Scientism, is always lunacy.  ⁃ TN Editor

Bezos said, “Predictions on a ten year-time frame are hard to make and often wrong. The only good thing is nobody goes and checks.” But then he offered a few broad predictions anyway.

He said he believes robots will soon be able to grasp objects as well as humans within a decade, including in commercial settings. And he said he expects great advances in machine learning, artificial intelligence and biotech over the next decade.

But Bezos added:

“I do get asked, quite frequently ‘What’s gonna change in the next 10 years?’ I’m rarely get asked, and it’s probably more important — and I encourage you to think about this — is the question what’s not going to change? The answer to that question can allow you to organize your activities. You can work on those things with the confidence to know that all the energy you put into them today is still going to pay dividends in the years to come.”

As an example, he said in Amazon’s e-commerce business, in a decade people will still want low prices, fast shipping and a big selection. “Nobody’s going to say Jeff, I love Amazon I just wish you’d deliver a little more slowly. I love Amazon, I just wish your prices were a little higher,” the CEO quipped.

Freshwater asked Bezos why Blue Origin is focused on lunar exploration. The company is building a lunar lander, and aims to help return astronauts to the moon.

Bezos said, “The reason we go to space in my view is to save the Earth.” He said while he doesn’t expect this to happen in his lifetime, he believes that in future generations, humankind needs to move heavy industry off Earth, and leave Earth as our residence.

Read full story here…


Technocracy Operates Outside Of Left Or Right

Technocracy cannot be rejected until it is recognized for what it is, and that is a problem. Right-wing republicans and Green New Deal leftists are all “useful idiots” of Technocrats, and have no clue they are being manipulated. ⁃ TN Editor

In 1969, when Theodore Roszak wrote The Making of a Counter Culture, it was at least as difficult to be an optimist as it is half a century later. The United States had spent most of the Sixties locked in a bloody, pointless war. At home, its cities had suffered the biggest spike in violent crime since the Great Depression.

In the face of all this, Roszak, then aged 37, conducted a survey of populism among younger generations that was critical in places but recklessly hopeful at its core. “It is the young”, he wrote, “arriving with eyes that can see the obvious, who must remake the lethal culture of their elders, and who must remake it in desperate haste”.

Today, inured to a very different set of stereotypes about the young, one reads passages like this with envy for Roszak’s optimism. In hindsight, few prominent public intellectuals of his generation were so wrong about so many things. Even fewer were so right on the main points.

Roszak is hardly remembered as a great thinker. When he died in 2011, obituaries described him as the wonk whose greatest achievement was to coin the term “counter culture” to describe the liberal anti-institutionalism of Sixties radicals.

In 1969, there were hundreds of radical or quasi-radical groups with vaguely overlapping sensibilities: Krishnas, Black Panthers, doves, stoners, acidheads, hippies, Yippies, Weathermen. Recognising, as many did, that these groups had something in common was much simpler than spelling out where their commonality lay.

By Roszak’s reckoning, the one thing these groups shared was an enemy. What hippies called the Man or the System or the Establishment, he called “technocracy”: the scientific managerial approach that sustained a hyper-organised industrial society. For many of Roszak’s generation, the consummate technocrat was Lyndon Johnson’s defense secretary Robert McNamara, former president of the Ford Motor Company. Mcnamara had tried to run the Vietnam War effort in much the same bloodless manner he’d brought to the factory lines at Ford, with disastrous results.

Technocracy was not left wing (McNamara himself was a Republican), but it wasn’t right wing, either. It was, to be sure, a political ideology—the elevation of bureaucracy above freedom and dignity—but voting Democratic or Republican wouldn’t defeat it.  Nor, Roszak argued, would the tactics that the left had been using for the last few decades:

“If the melancholy history of revolution over the past half-century teaches us anything, it is the futility of a politics which concentrates itself single-mindedly on the overthrowing of governments, or ruling classes, or economic systems. This brand of politics finishes with merely redesigning the turrets and towers of the technocratic citadel.”

Yet despite its flaws, Roszak’s analysis of technocracy is still illuminating. The 50 years since the publication of The Making of a Counter Culture have been good for technocrats and bad for everyone else, particularly the young. The major hardships people under 40 now face are nightmarish versions of those Roszak identified: wandering aimlessly in a technocratic economy, subjected to algorithmic surveillance and dependent for food, recreation and pretty much everything else on corporations that view people as data points.

And yet nobody on the left seems to be talking about technocracy enough. In the US., the radical left is divided, instead, between Sanders-style socialists and single-issue politicians who can’t decide whether capitalism, race, gender, or some intersectional combination of them all is the proper lens for analysing society. If any public discourse about technocracy exists today, it is the bigoted version proffered by right-wing pitchmen — from Steve Bannon, with his rants about the Deep State, to Michael Gove, smugly confident that Brexiteers are sick of McNamara-ish experts.

Surely one key reason for the left’s sheepishness about technocracy is that, by and large, it was left-wing people working in places like Silicon Valley who reshaped technocracy into the enormous, charming monster it is today. Thanks to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and others, today’s technocrats have mounds of digitally-reaped data at their disposal, which they use to guide their subjects’ thoughts and behaviours more precisely than ever.

Read full story here…

opportunity zones

Opportunity Zones: A Technocrat Deception To Plunder America

How much more financial plundering can Americans endure before America is declared an outright Oligarchy and the middle class declared dead?

The Trump Administration has aggressively teamed up with Big Tech billionaires to diversify their fortunes into “underserved areas” by allowing tax deferment on realized capital gains derived from liquidation of their core investments. This is a massive Public-Private Partnership operation that could push as much as $6 trillion of “unlocked capital” into areas that would be turned upside down, and worse, inundated with Smart City technology designed to create a data extraction extravaganza for years to come.

In short, this is an operation of Big Tech, for Big Tech and by Big Tech, but President Trump has aided and abetted their efforts to manipulate government rules for their own self-interest. Undesired consequences will most certainly follow.


When President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 in December 2017, few read or understood the small print authorizing the creation of Opportunity Zones. One year later on December 12, 2018, Trump created and signed an Executive Order titled, Executive Order on Establishing the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council, which created a highest-level committee that includes the very top leadership of the Administration: the Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy and Education; the Administrators of the EPA and the Small Business Administration; the Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers and the Council on Environmental Quality and a few other assorted big-wigs.

The EO instructs the Council to “work across agencies” to “assess the actions each agency can take under existing authorities to prioritize or focus Federal investments and programs on urban and economically distressed communities, including qualified Opportunity Zones.” The object is to “minimize all regulatory and administrative costs and burdens.” Furthermore, the EO uses the phrase “public and private investment” no less than six times and then stresses that the Council must evaluate,

“whether and how Federal technical assistance, planning, financing tools, and implementation strategies can be coordinated across agencies to assist communities in addressing economic problems, engaging in comprehensive planning, and advancing regional collaboration.”

There are three immediate problems with this Executive Order. First, Public-Private Partnerships have developed over the years as a mainstay of the United Nations to finance Sustainable Development and in particular, infrastructure that supports its Sustainable Development Goals. Second, blanket cross-agency coordination can be a dangerous vehicle to create policies that represent no agency in particular, and that no single agency would ever create by itself. Third, the term collaboration is a buzzword for collaborative governance that brings many types of stakeholders to the table to make binding decisions outside of traditional citizen representation or accountability. Furthermore, regional collaboration adds an additional dimension that promotes regionalism, which is patently unconstitutional. Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Regionalism is not a Republican Form of Government, period.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

Opportunity Zones were created in Section 13823 of this 131 page bill, the summary of which states:

This section authorizes the designation of opportunity zones in low-income communities and provides various tax incentives for investments in the zones. Taxpayers may temporarily defer the recognition of capital gains that are invested in opportunity zones. Investments in opportunity zones or opportunity funds that are held for at least five years are eligible for capital gains tax reductions or exemptions, depending on how long the investment is held.

The governor of each state is given authority to define the Opportunity Zones within their state boundaries, which are then submitted to the Department of the Treasury for automatic certification. Zones are supposed to be low income or under-advantaged communities, but several governors have stretched the definition to include prime development areas as well.

Thus far, over 8,700 of these Zones have been established nationwide. (An interactive map can be seen here and the IRS Q&A page is here.) Obviously, this is no small undertaking. According to Smart Growth America, currently designated OZs represent 10 percent of America’s landmass, containing 30 million people. It adds,

The newly created Opportunity Zones program will likely go down as the largest and most significant federal community development initiative in U.S. history, with trillions of dollars in new private investment about to start flowing into pre-designated low-income communities around the country. 

It is noteworthy that one survey of state Opportunity Zone designation procedures revealed that less than 10 percent of states published their draft selections for public comment and only one-quarter of states formed a citizen advisory panel. Thus, the public has been largely left in the dark.

The IRS issued its first set of rules in early 2018 with little fanfare or public interest. However, when the second set of rules were released in October 2018, the barn doors were thrown open and the free-for-all began. The New Orleans Advocate noted on May 19 that “It’s like the Wild West out there now”. The article elaborated:

It’s not only the last-minute rules-setting that has given the Opportunity Zone scheme a sense of anarchy: Literally anyone can set up a qualifying OZ fund, and there is no formal way yet for the government to track them and determine if they’re directing investment to truly deprived areas as intended.

The Economic Innovation Group

The brains and lobby effort behind the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is now known to be The Economic Innovation Group (EIG), which, by its own admission, was the original creator of the Opportunity Zone concept in a 2015 paper titled Unlocking Private Capital to Facilitate Economic Growth in Distressed Areas. EIG boasts that “the idea has since been championed by a wide-ranging coalition of investors, entrepreneurs, community developers, economists, and other stakeholders.”

Subsequently, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) introduced Senate bill S.293, the Investing in Opportunity Act into the 115th Congress on February 2, 2017. Matching legislation was introduced in the House by Rep. Patrick Tiberi (R-OH). While both bills were stuck in committee, the key provisions were slipped into the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which was passed and then signed into law by President Trump.

Such a skillful, persistent and successful lobbyist effort begs the question, “Who are these people, anyway?” I’m glad you asked.

The Founder and Executive Chairman of EIG is Sean Parker, a well-known black-hat hacker in his youth who co-founded Napster at age 18 to illegally share copyrighted music for free, without authorization from the creators. At age 25, Parker joined Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 when Facebook was only 5 months old, and became its first President shortly thereafter. Parker is credited with convincing Zuckerberg that Facebook could one day be something “really big”. Forbes Magazine lists Parker as a venture capital investor and philanthropist.

Other members of EIG’s Founders Circle include:

  • Ted Ullyot – General Council of Facebook from 2008 to 2013
  • Ron Conway – Founder of SV Angel and included in 2010’s Vanity Fair 100 most influential people in the Information Age
  • Dan Gilbert – Founder and Chairman of Quicken Loans, Inc. And a leading venture capitalist specializing in technology companies
  • Rebecca Lynn – Ranked #23 out of 100 top tech investors on Forbes 2015 Midas List
  • Joseph Sanberg – Private and public-sector entrepreneur and investor; he is a board member of the Sierra Club Foundation
  • Dana Settle – Former investment banker at Lehman Brothers, she is a leading venture capitalist specializing in high-tech startups.

In short, every one of these people are key players in the Big Tech/venture capital world, especially on the West Coast.

Furthermore, they have close connections with some top economists who are listed on their Economic Advisory Board:

  • Jared Bernstein, PhD – Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, and a member of President Obama’s economic team.
  • Austan Goolsbee – Former chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, cabinet member and chief economist for the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
  • Kenneth Rogoff – Former Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund
  • Matthew Slaughter, PhD – Professor of International Business at Dartmouth, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, advisory committee member of the Export-Import Bank of the United States and advisor to the McKinsey Global Institute.

The EIG Policy Council generally follows the same lines as the Founders Circle but for this discussion, it has one noteworthy member: Chris Camacho of Phoenix, Arizona.

Camacho is President and CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC), which he has used to spearhead a public-private partnership called Smart Region Initiative (SRI). This is a three-way collaboration between Arizona State University, GPEC and the managing partner Arizona Institute for Digital Progress.

Camacho is a hard-nosed business development expert and an unequalled promoter of unconstitutional regionalism. One Phoenix journal reported Camacho as saying,

“No one market across the country has unified multiple jurisdictions. There’s been strategies to do smart cities in various places, but we’re talking about, ‘how do we connect the entire region.’”

Indeed, the Smart Region Initiative is being billed as the very first national attempt to create a regional authority to implement uniform smart city technology across 22 cities and 4.2 million people. National and even global eyes are watching to see what happens next in the Valley of the Sun, and if this regionalism takeover is successful here, it will be used as a model for similar public-private partnerships all across across America and around the world.

While this writer intends to thoroughly cover the Smart Region Initiative movement in a separate report, it is important to see the potential connection between Opportunity Zones and Smart Region Initiatives. Both are full of venture capitalists specializing in Big Tech initiatives like the Internet of Things, Smart City surveillance technology and most importantly, data, which many are calling the “new oil” of the 21st century. Both are new, riddled with Public-Private Partnerships and promote similar unconstitutional practices.

The Counter-Argument

Some will undoubtedly argue that these billionaires and venture capitalists are simply acting as benevolent benefactors who are sharing their wealth with poor communities; or that they are merely seeking to diversify their investments.

This is a logical absurdity and terribly naive. For high-velocity money extracted from Big Tech, there is no return on buying real estate or starting businesses in poor communities. Investors always put their capital into the areas of highest possible returns.

On the other hand, if data collection is the target, which is high-return, then Opportunity Zones fit the bill perfectly.

Who will manage the OZ Funds?

For the most part, every Opportunity Zone Fund will typically have a managing partner that makes all decisions for investment, structuring and accounting. Investors will simply pick a fund or fund manager in which to invest. Who are these fund managers? One needs to look no further than EIG’s Opportunity Zones Coalition page to get the idea: This page lists 49 such would-be managers with names like Reinvestment Fund, Riaz Capital, Newark Venture Partners, Ur Opportunity, KeyBank, Institute for Portfolio Alternatives, Fund for Our Economic Future, Calvert Impact Capital, Bridge Investment Group, etc. Some of these will very likely end up with tens of billions under their direct management.

Case Study: How Erie, PA Uses Opportunity Zones To Fund Its Smart City Makeover

On March 4, 2019, Government Technology reported that Erie, Pa., Wants to Overlay Security Tech into Its Smart City. The article states,

Eight “opportunity zones” throughout the city could soon see new smart city technology equipped with license plate-reading cameras and facial recognition capabilities. Officials say the goal is to boost safety and spur investment.

Additional security cameras, LED lighting and free public Wi-Fi were introduced to downtown Erie in 2018 as part of a pilot program for what’s known as smart city technology.

Mayor Joe Schember’s administration and other local officials want to bring the same technology to local neighborhoods targeted for reinvestment under the federal Opportunity Zone program.

Schember, in an interview last week, said his administration — working with the Erie Innovation District and others — is working to bring “secure smart city” equipment and technology over the next 12 months to the eight Opportunity Zones in the Erie region that have been designated by Gov. Tom Wolf’s office and certified by the U.S. Treasury Department.

According to Schember, that would include security cameras that could read license plates and have facial-recognition capabilities; energy-efficient LED street lights; and free Wi-Fi in public spaces throughout the Opportunity Zone tracts. The intent is to make those areas safer and more attractive for investment.

“It’s kind of an aggressive goal. … But let’s get these areas done and within the next three years, I’d like to see that technology throughout the entire city,” Schember said.

Needless to say, Erie got the message of how Opportunity Zones could best serve its pressing need to get someone else to pay for its Smart City makeover. Once a beachhead is established in a lower-income area, which can hardly protest anything the city does, rolling out to the rest of the city will be a cake-walk. Furthermore, the early city “partners” (tech providers and investors) will have their foot in the door and will be eager participants.

But, why would anyone be eager to pour money into low income or underserved areas? There are three good reasons. First and foremost, the value of data collection is found in all living human beings, regardless of their socio-economic status. Second, the early-bird gets the worm for the rest of the data plundering operation in other parts of the city or region. Third, once embedded, the data stream continues to pump into the coffers of those who “own” the collection infrastructure.


It’s time to face the dark reality of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The promised tax cut for individuals was largely a myth. Conversely, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations were ostentatious. A just-released report by the Congressional Research Service confirms this: “the main consequence was that real tax rates for corporations fell by nearly half while individual income taxes barely budged.” The key sentence in the report states,

“From 2017 to 2018, the estimated average corporate tax rate fell from 23.4% to 12.1% and individual income taxes as a percentage of personal income fell slightly from 9.6% to 9.2%.”

Thus, a Republican-led Congress betrayed the American people, and President Trump offered no rebuke to get it right. Instead, he eagerly signed the Jobs Act into law and subsequently created an Executive Order to insure the streamlining of its provisions throughout all levels of government agencies.

It should be duly noted and with alarm that this kind of globalization transcends the ideological labels of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing, etc. Technocrats are apolitical on one hand, but will use or manipulate any convenient political platform to advance their own goals.

After realizing that the door was open for the rich to get richer with the Jobs Act, one can almost picture the resulting feeding frenzy of lobbyists to get their favorite loophole into the text. The Economic Innovation Group was able to claw their way into the mix to ensconce Opportunity Zones on behalf of their super-rich Big Tech/venture capitalist cronies.

To repeat the question, how much more financial plundering can Americans endure before America is declared an outright Oligarchy and the middle class declared dead?


Bilderberg 2019: Is Eric Schmidt The New Henry Kissinger?

Former CEO of Google and Chairman of Alphabet, Eric Schmidt is a member of the Trilateral Commission, as is founding member Kissinger.  The Commission has been the primary driver of Technocracy since 1973. ⁃ TN Editor

The two figures at Bilderberg who seem to have an aura of influence about them are Schmidt and Thiel. Over the years, Schmidt has been gently aligning himself as the heir to Kissinger, and has populated recent conferences with Google executives. The Libertarian Thiel has already engineered his lieutenant, Alex Karp, onto the steering committee.

The Americans have come to Bilderberg in force this year. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived on Saturday afternoon in a motorcade so long it stretched halfway back to Geneva. He’ll be sharing his thoughts on “A New Strategic Order” with the head of NATO, two prime ministers, the German foreign minister, the King of Holland, and any number of finance bosses and billionaires, many of them from the world of tech.

A slew of Silicon Valley luminaries are attending this year’s elite transatlantic conference at a heavily-guarded five-star hotel on the shores of Lake Geneva. They include Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who is making his first appearance at the secretive summit, and his fellow Microsoft board member, Reid Hoffman, who’s a regular face at the Bilderberg buffet.

The White House is making itself felt at this year’s conference, by sending along not only Pompeo, but Trump’s dealmaking diplomat son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and two members of his National Security Council. Not to be outdone, the Pentagon has sent two senior officials: their top military strategist and the technical director for AI.

As the war machine gets smarter, and every last bit of weaponry becomes AI-enhanced, the lines between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon start to get awfully blurry. Sniff this year’s Bilderberg and you can smell this new kind of war: “cyber threats” and “the weaponisation of social media” are on the agenda. And around the table are the head of GCHQ and the director of NATO’s new StratCom Centre of Excellence, which spearheads “digital engagement” and psychological warfare.

This blurring of tech and war takes physical form in some of the participants at Bilderberg. Longtime conference insider and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt chairs the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board and also heads up the new National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. Two other members of the Defense Innovation Board are here in Montreux: Reid Hoffman, and the psychologist Adam M. Grant.

Alongside Schmidt on the Bilderberg steering committee are yet another two tech billionaires, Alex Karp and Peter Thiel. Karp is the CEO of Palantir, a shady data-analytics company which has just won a massive $800 million Pentagon battlefield intelligence contract. Palantir was set up in 2004 by Peter Thiel with backing from the CIA. Thiel, who was a co-founder of PayPal, is a director of Facebook and is high tech’s most vocal supporter of Donald Trump.

Read full story here…