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…

Silicon Valley Technocrats Intend To Settle The Moon

I would dare anyone to look at these moon-crazy Technocrats from Silicon Valley and China, and try to justify labeling them as Communists, Socialists or Marxists. It just doesn’t fit. They are Technocrats! ⁃ TN Editor

The moon is all the rage these days. China wants to send people there. So too does the United States and NASA. In fact, just about every country with a space program has some sort of lunar ambition that they hope will play out over the next few years.

Now, there’s a new entrant in this new space race, a nonprofit organization called the Open Lunar Foundation. Based in San Francisco, it’s a group made up of tech executives and engineers—many of them with former ties to NASA—who have serious ambitions to create a lunar settlement.

The driving ethos behind the foundation is to start a development that would not be beholden to a particular country or billionaire. Instead, as the group’s name suggests, Open Lunar wants to create technology for exploring and living on the moon as a type of collaborative effort.

“Our highest ambition is catalyzing and enabling a peaceful and cooperative lunar settlement,” said Chelsea Robinson, the director of policy and governance for Open Lunar. “At this time when there are so many commercial and government actors advancing their efforts on the moon, we are excited to demonstrate a civic approach to participation.”

Open Lunar began a few years ago as something of a thought exercise. A group of friends in Silicon Valley were taking stock of the dramatic improvements in aerospace technology along with the falling cost of rocket launches, thanks to companies like Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. and Peter Beck’s Rocket Lab. The friends came to the realization that it might soon be possible to create a small lunar settlement for about $2 billion to $3 billion. It’s a hefty sum, but a very achievable one in an era that abounds with wealthy space enthusiasts. And so, the friends decided to explore the idea of going to the moon in earnest.

“The picture that emerged out of those meetings was that you could create a permanent, economically self-sustaining presence on the moon that could be done for the single-digit billions,” said Steve Jurvetson, a venture capitalist, who provided the initial Open Lunar funding. “I got excited by that idea and the compelling nature of the people involved.”

Some of the most prominent members of the group include the astronaut Chris Hadfield, who has spent time on the International Space Station; Will Marshall and Robbie Schingler, co-founders of the satellite maker Planet Labs Inc.; Simon “Pete” Worden, the former director of NASA’s Ames Research Center; and Jurvetson, who has invested in both SpaceX and Planet Labs. Hadfield is listed as a director of Open Lunar in nonprofit filings, while the others are advisors to the foundation. These individuals, along with dozens of other people, have spent the last 18 months meeting in private to figure out what sort of early missions would make the most sense. Working ideas include smaller, cheaper missions to put various probes and robotic systems on the lunar surface rather than one, massive mission.

Some of the most prominent members of the group include the astronaut Chris Hadfield, who has spent time on the International Space Station; Will Marshall and Robbie Schingler, co-founders of the satellite maker Planet Labs Inc.; Simon “Pete” Worden, the former director of NASA’s Ames Research Center; and Jurvetson, who has invested in both SpaceX and Planet Labs. Hadfield is listed as a director of Open Lunar in nonprofit filings, while the others are advisors to the foundation. These individuals, along with dozens of other people, have spent the last 18 months meeting in private to figure out what sort of early missions would make the most sense. Working ideas include smaller, cheaper missions to put various probes and robotic systems on the lunar surface rather than one, massive mission.

It was Robinson, a longtime nonprofit organizer, and Jessy Kate Schingler, a software engineer who most recently worked at a rocket startup, that turned the brainstorming into a formal organization. Schingler took on the role of director of policy and governance. Now, the foundation’s small team has been hiring full-time hardware and software engineers for Open Lunar and putting the rest of the executive structure in place.

“Lunar activity is exploding,” Jessy Kate Schingler said. “There are governments and companies intensely focused on going, but there is no third pillar representing the possibility of doing things differently. If we don’t roll up our sleeves and get involved, then by definition the future of human settlement in space will reflect the status quo of those currently in power. To see things done differently on the moon, we had to start experimenting now.”

Read full story here…

Also see:

Designing the First Full-Time Human Habitat on the Moon

Have Engineers Just Discovered The Perfect Spot To Build An Underground Colony On The Moon?


Russia to build Moon colony by 2040

Elon Musk

Musk The Technocrat: ‘China Is The Future’

Elon Musk is the consummate Technocrat of our age, whose grandfather headed the entire Technocracy, Inc. movement in Canada during the 1930s and 40s. He now joins other Big Tech billionaires to declare the ‘China is the future.’ ⁃ TN Editor

Tesla CEO Elon Musk commented that “China is the future” at the 2019 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai on Thursday.
Speaking with Alibaba Group founder Jack Ma at the 2019 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai this week, Tesla CEO and SpaceX founder Elon Musk discussed the opening of Tesla’s Shanghai Gigfactory, calling progress in the country “mind-blowing.”

Musk stated during the conference:

I spend a lot of my time on sustainable energy with tesla with you know electric cars and solar and batteries and that kind of thing and I’m really excited to be here in Shanghai for the Shanghai Gigafactory which is I think that Tesla china team has done an amazing job on. It is really mind-blowing like I’m just astounded by how good the job is and how much progress has been made and I think it’s a good story for the world and to say like look how much progress you can make in China.

This is extremely impressive like my hat is off you know you guys rock so I’ve never seen anything but so fast in my life before. To be totally frank I’ve seen some crazy things so you know I think it’s like I really think China is the future.

The Wrenching Chinese-ification Of America

America has roughly 12 months to sort out its desired future as either a Constitutional Republic or a Chinese-style Technocracy. Currently, the tipping point is tilted toward Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

As brave Hong Kongers protest the totalitarian communist Chinese regime in the streets and at the airport of their city, the mood here in the West, even in the United States, seems to be going in the opposite direction.

I’m not just referring to the violent so-called anarchists of Antifa, who often turn out to be emotionally disturbed community college instructors behind their Guy Fawkes masks, but to the larger zeitgeist. From Big Tech to Hollywood to our media to our campuses to the campaign rhetoric of virtually every Democratic candidate, we are moving toward a homogenization of thought and action that is, well, Chinese communist in style and ultimately in content.

Chairman Mao said, “Let a hundred schools of thought contend,” knowing full well whose would prevail. We’re no longer even paying that kind of lip service. Some form of political correctness has dominated our major institutions for years with minimal pushback.

Except for the election of Donald Trump, which was considered a horrifying aberration by our elites. How could such a vulgarian rise to such power? (No matter that they themselves were equally, if not more, reprehensible, as the Epstein revelations demonstrate.)

Because Trump’s policies were often arguably good and sometimes even conventionally so, attacks on him concentrated on his personality. That was especially true because his very persona upended that unifying and totalitarian (what else?) impulse toward political correctness.

So an American Cultural Revolution—not that distant from the original Chinese one, except so far no dunce caps—has been put in place by those various elites of the Academic-Hollywood-Media Complex. Actually, it’s been in place for a long time; only now it is escalating and approaching a point of no return.

Writers and thinkers are ghettoized. Only approved Republican pundits are allowed space, at least for long, in mainstream newspapers or television shows. The arts have become almost entirely off-limits to the right. Conservative professors are an endangered species at our universities, if not already extinct.

That is why it is no accident that you see Democrat proposals on the 2020 campaign trail that could have been taken from Lenin’s playbook. They are just part of this metastasizing zeitgeist. That these ideas have failed over and over is of no consequence. They sound good.

Don’t look at China or the Soviet Union or Cambodia or Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea or the entire Eastern Bloc when it was communist, not to mention Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia plus many others that all flirted with socialism/communism uniformly to disastrous ends. Look at Denmark! And please ignore that that extremely homogeneous country has a tiny population roughly half the size Los Angeles County’s and that they have been becoming less socialist themselves in their actual policies. We can use the land of Hans Christian Anderson as our model.

Read full story here…

Elon Musk Jack Ma

Elon Musk v Jack Ma: Who Is More Human?

Two billionaire arch-Technocrats from vastly different cultures square off to debate the future of the world. Alibaba Chairman Jack Ma is clearly more in touch with the human condition than Elon Musk.

Musk’s illogic is seen with a statement like:  “The first thing we should assume is we are very dumb. We can definitely make things smarter than ourselves.” How can dumb people make things smarter than themselves? ⁃ TN Editor

Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Wednesday said that computers are getting smarter than humans in more and more spheres and that the trend will continue.

“We will be far, far surpassed in every single way. I guarantee it,” Musk said to Jack Ma, chairman of Alibaba, at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai.

The comments highlight an evolving landscape in technology, including in artificial intelligence — an area technology companies are tapping to enhance their products and sell to businesses.

Musk pointed to advances in chess and the Chinese board game of Go as evidence of progress in AI.

“Your cell phone could crush the world champion of chess, literally,” Musk told Ma.

He talked about how in the future technology from Neuralink, a start-up he co-founded, could give people a way to boost their skills in certain subjects. The company is seeking to draw on AI for augmenting people’s cognitive capabilities with brain-machine interfaces. The company is not there yet, though.

“The first thing we should assume is we are very dumb,” Musk said. “We can definitely make things smarter than ourselves.”

Ma had a different view, suggesting that a computer has never spawned a human being, or even a mosquito.

“I’ve never in my life, especially [in the] last two years, when people talk about AI, human beings will be controlled by machines,” he said. “I never think about that. It’s impossible.”

And Ma said that he does not want to play chess or Go against a machine. These games were designed for people to play against each other, he said.

“I’ll be happy to see two computers fight each other,” Ma added.

The Tesla chief has spoken previously about AI. In 2017 he suggested that competition among nations in AI could lead to World War III.

Read full story here…

South Africa

Troubled South Africa Looks To Technocracy For Solutions

South Africa has been destroyed by its solidly Marxist ANC party, and is now looking to Technocracy as seen in Japan, Singapore and China. This again validates Zbigniew Brzezinski’s theory that Marxism is a necessary stepping-stone to the final Technocratic state. ⁃ TN Editor

The National Development Plan touts the necessity of building a professional public service and a state capable of playing a transformative and developmental role.

It highlights several challenges that hobble the democratic state, such as unevenness in state capacity, unstable administrative leadership, skills gaps, erosion of accountability and authority, poor organisational design, as well as inappropriate staffing and low staff morale.

One of the ways in which the governing African National Congress (ANC) can address these challenges is by embracing a technocratic model of government. And the ANC must look to the East Asian nations of Japan, Singapore and China for inspiration and guidance. Partly, these countries owe their economic success to strong governments underpinned by technocratic elites and expertise.

Renowned author and global strategist Parag Khanna describes a technocracy as a “government built around expert analysis and long-term planning rather than narrow-minded, short-term populist whims or private interests. It is meritocratic (elevating competent leaders) and utilitarian (seeking the broadest societal benefit). Technocratic leaders are selected more by IQ than by popularity contest. They are extensively educated, trained and experienced professionals, not just pedigreed elites.”

Ministries rule, politicians reign

Japan’s bureaucracy played a pivotal role in the country’s impressive rise in the post-war period. At the core of the country’s development was the role of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). MITI formulated and implemented trade and industrial policies. It provided ‘administrative guidance’ on a raft of domestic and foreign economic policies including technology, investment, energy and power, modernisation, competition as well as pollution control. MITI’s close ties to Japanese industry facilitated a foreign trade policy that complemented its efforts to shore up domestic manufacturing interests.

In his book the late Japanologist Chalmers Johnson chronicled the country’s post-war model of governance. He concluded that Japan was “ruled” by powerful, independent, and very competitive government ministries. By contrast, he pointed out that politicians merely “reigned,” operating mainly as a “safety valve” in the case of bureaucratic overreach.

Singapore represents the apogee of technocratic rule. Bureaucratic leadership is deeply embedded: public servants are expected to be technically minded, long-term thinkers and with a strong utilitarian streak. Although the role of the founding father Lee Kuan Yew in the city-state’s success has been immeasurable, Singapore’s progress has also been a product of a system of expert rule, focus on meritocratic talent and long-range thinking. These institutional strengths have contributed to the transformation of the country from a poor backwater into an economic dynamo: an export-oriented manufacturer, a coveted port, a flight hub as well as a financial centre with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

As Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted, “our system shielded civil servants from political interference, (giving them) the space to work out rational, effective solutions for our problems [so they can] practise public administration in almost laboratory conditions.” Singapore’s major accomplishment has been to merge the political and expert components of the governing system.

Technocrats dominate

China today is significantly different from what it was during the revolutionary years of Mao Zedong. Whereas Mao and his generation had limited formal education, successive generations of Chinese leadership have boasted higher education qualifications. Over the past few decades engineers and scientists have dominated Chinese political leadership. Until recently, all but one member of the nine-person (since reduced to seven) Chinese Communist Party Standing Committee – the country’s highest decision-making body – have been engineers, including the current president Xi Jinping and erstwhile presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao.

Not only do technocrats dominate the top echelons of political office in China, they also permeate all levels of the Chinese government. They include mayors, local and provincial party secretaries, and governors. The technocratic mindset is deeply ingrained in Chinese political culture. Mencius, a loyal disciple of Confucius, once remarked, “Let those who labour with their heads rule those who labour with their hands.”

Japan pioneered technocratic governance, Singapore perfected it and it is in progress in post-Mao China. Despite their distinctive histories and, in the case of Singapore and China, authoritarian development models these countries provide useful lessons for South Africa to emulate. To be sure, technocratic rule is not a panacea for South Africa’s governance problems. And it has its shortcomings, including the fact it is arguably inimical to the country’s political culture; it could erode democratic accountability, thereby create a government for the people without the people.

Even so, it can contribute towards remedying the country’s institutional deficiencies. It can enable policymakers to fulfil the objectives set out in the NDP including depoliticising the public service and making it a career of choice, developing technical and specialist professional skills among public servants, improving relations between national, provincial and local government and bolstering the functioning of state-owned enterprises.

Read full story here…

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.”