Rest Easy: Human DNA Sent Into Space Will ‘Back-Up’ Species So We’re Never Extinct

su_note note_color=”#daf2fd” radius=”2″]Technocrat alarmists who have doubts about their social engineering project are intending to store a ‘backup’ of  humanity in outer space, just in case something goes terribly wrong. Um, don’t you think that these nuts should come clean about the nature of their worries, doubts and fears?  TN Editor [/su_note]

A revolutionary project is in the pipeline which will see scientists send human DNA to other star systems as a ‘back-up’ for the human species.

As fears mount the humanity’s time on Earth is limited, scientists are making contingency plans by setting up a cosmic CLOUD of human data.

As it stands, experts neither have the technological capability or the knowledge of how to mass-transfer the human race to a nearby habitable planet – with the closest being 14 light years away (one light year is equal to 5,878,499,810,000 miles).

This is why some are looking at the possibility of using the Universe as a sort of ‘cosmic cloud’ to back up data of the human race for when we do meet our inevitable end.

A project called Voices of Humanity would send data, messages and even DNA into space using laser propelled spacecrafts where “Your data will live forever in the universe. You will be immortalized,” according to the KickStarter page

The team is hoping to initially raise $30,000 (£22,700) to launch computer chips full of images and data into low-Earth orbit by 2017, with more distant missions such as the moon and Mars in the future.

Once they have reached $100,000 (£75,000), “we will be able to build a sophisticated ground-based laser and robotic telescope that allows your data to be optionally transmitted via laser to the target of your choice in space”.

Those behind the plans add: “We will then be able to ‘beam you up’ by encoding and sending your data to the stars so you will travel at the speed of light into the universe.

“In both cases, we will be able to ‘back up humanity’, using the universe as our ‘cloud’ with your images, pictures, text, tweets, video, and DNA!”

Esteemed scientists have given their backing to the project, including Nasa’s Philip Lubin, who is also working on Stephen Hawking’s Breakthrough Starshot project, which will also be using similar laser-propelled spacecrafts.

Read full story here…


FP Magazine: It’s Time For The Elites To Rise Up Against The Ignorant Masses

This article from the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine is quite blunt: Leadership’s role is to ‘educate’ the ignorant masses (um, that’s us) on why they should support globalization and the global elite. The headline, however, is even more provocative, and sounds more like war.  Technocracy News Editor

I was born in 1954, and until now I would have said that the late 1960s was the greatest period of political convulsion I have lived through. Yet for all that the Vietnam War and the civil rights struggle changed American culture and reshaped political parties, in retrospect those wild storms look like the normal oscillations of a relatively stable political system. The present moment is different. Today’s citizen revolt — in the United States, Britain, and Europe — may upend politics as nothing else has in my lifetime.

In the late 1960s, elites were in disarray, as they are now — but back then they were fleeing from kids rebelling against their parents’ world; now the elites are fleeing from the parents. Extremism has gone mainstream. One of the most brazen features of the Brexit vote was the utter repudiation of the bankers and economists and Western heads of state who warned voters against the dangers of a split with the European Union. British Prime Minister David Cameron thought that voters would defer to the near-universal opinion of experts; that only shows how utterly he misjudged his own people.

Both the Conservative and the Labour parties in Britain are now in crisis. The British have had their day of reckoning; the American one looms. If Donald Trump loses, and loses badly (forgive me my reckless optimism, but I believe he will) the Republican Party may endure a historic split between its know-nothing base and its K Street/Chamber of Commerce leadership class. The Socialist government of France may face a similar fiasco in national elections next spring: Polls indicate that President François Hollande would not even make it to the final round of voting. Right-wing parties all over Europe are clamoring for an exit vote of their own.

Yes, it’s possible that all the political pieces will fly up into the air and settle down more or less where they were before, but the Brexit vote shows that shocking change isn’t very shocking anymore. Where, then, could those pieces end up? Europe is already pointing in one direction. In much of Europe, far-right nativist parties lead in the polls. So far, none has mustered a majority, though last month Norbert Hofer, the leader of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party, which traffics in Nazi symbolism, came within a hair of winning election as president. Mainstream parties of the left and right may increasingly combine forces to keep out the nationalists. This has already happened in Sweden, where a right-of-center party serves as the minority partner to the left-of-center government. If the Socialists in France do in fact lose the first round, they will almost certainly support the conservative Republicans against the far-right National Front.

The Republican Party, already rife with science-deniers and economic reality-deniers, has thrown itself into the embrace of a man who fabricates realities that ignorant people like to inhabit.

Did I say “ignorant”? Yes, I did. It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them. Is that “elitist”? Maybe it is; maybe we have become so inclined to celebrate the authenticity of all personal conviction that it is now elitist to believe in reason, expertise, and the lessons of history. If so, the party of accepting reality must be prepared to take on the party of denying reality, and its enablers among those who know better. If that is the coming realignment, we should embrace it.

Read full story here…

Getting What We Want from Schools – Without Technocracy

Technocracy is increasingly being associated with education. Technocracy, Inc. founder M. King Hubbert wrote (1934) that education was to be a “system of continental conditioning” along the lines of Pavlov’s experiments. Nothing has changed since then, but now it is finally being recognized.  Technocracy News Editor

Our forefathers built the education reform movement on a foundation that all reformers shared: We need to hold schools accountable, so they’ll give kids the education we want them to get. Now we’re discovering cracks in the foundation. It turns out we don’t agree on what we want, or on how we get schools to deliver it.

The recent debate over an article by Robert Pondiscio has brought this conflict further out into the open. So has Jeb Bush’s latest attempt to cast a vision for education reform, in which he dramatically reverses his earlier commitment to rigid, top-down systems of “accountability” in favor of radical disruption, diversity and parent choice.

Jay Greene is right that this is not really a debate about Left v. Right but a debate about technocracy—rigid and centralized systems of control, using narrow and reductive quantitative metrics, that give enormous power to a special class of education experts on the theory that we can trust them to be all-knowing, benevolent and apolitical. There are plenty of technocrats on the Right, and plenty of anti-technocrats on the Left.

“Accountability,” long established as the foundation of education reform, has come to mean technocratic accountability. Big new bureaucracies have been built, and millions spent, to grind out and analyze countless billions of data points whose connection to children’s real educational success is tenuous at best. The byzantine world of congressional sausagemaking, with its shadowy dealmaking and its forest of esoteric acronyms stretching as far as the eye can see, has become the center of the educational universe.

For those of us who reject technocracy, the fate of education reform now hinges on whether we can find a new vision of what accountability is.

Offering up such a new vision may well split the education reform movement, dividing us from old allies, but it may also attract powerful new allies from the anti-technocratic Left. And the response to Pondiscio and Greene shows that the technocrats aren’t listening to us and don’t care about our concerns anyway. We’re not leaving them; they have already left us.

Most people who call themselves education reformers have embraced rigid, technocratic, highly systematized and numbers-driven approaches to accountability. The great benefit claimed for this system is that it is outcomes-based rather than inputs-based.

A few of us, however, think that all this technocracy is precisely what we have been fighting against all along. It is essentially an extension of the old regime’s philosophy: We’re the education experts, and we know best! It’s just as impersonal and unresponsive to the real needs of real people as the blob. It’s as if we defeated the Soviet Union, and then celebrated our victory by imposing communism on Western Europe and North America.

However, those of us who resist technocracy have not done an adequate job of casting a vision of what we think real accountability would look like. Talking points and canned rhetoric about “markets” and “competition” are woefully inadequate to the needs of the present moment.

It’s not that the things we’re saying are wrong. We just aren’t getting to the heart of the matter because we are not challenging our nation to re-ask itself the big questions about education: What is the purpose of education? Who has final responsibility for it and why?

Read full story here…

Brexit Britain Deserves A Better PM Than ‘Theresa The Technocrat’

TN Note: This story is from Britain, where the rise of Technocrats is apparent. Theresa May is less the ideologue and more the “fix it’ leader that will make right any problem she decides to tackle. This is also the meme in the U.S. as represented by Donald Trump. 

Please, no, not Theresa May. Theresa the technocrat, who doesn’t do ideology, passion or even gossip, would be the worst PM for Britain right now. Post-Brexit Britain, where politics has become interesting again, after 17.5m souls gave an otherworldly establishment just the fright it needed, needs a leader who is properly political, up for debate, and maybe even a ruck. Not May, not this apolitical politician, not this woman who says ‘I will get the job done’ as if she’s applying for a position in HR rather than Downing Street. Having May run Brexit Britain would be like having a bank manager referee a Mike Tyson fight.

You can tell a lot about May from how she talks. She speaks in CVese. That bureaucratic lingo we all use when writing a CV, simultaneously self-promoting and wooden, because we want our potential employer to think we’re competent but not up ourselves, is how May talks all the time. Look at the interview with her in yesterday’s Evening Standard. ‘Whatever job it is I’m doing at the time, [I’ve always] given it my best shot’, she says. ‘I put my all into it’, she continues. ‘“Just get on with it” and “do the best I can” are messages that came from my parents’, she says. I half expected her to finish with: ‘I also like playing tennis, travelling, and reading books. I have three A-levels.’

Where’s the zap? The fire? The ideology? If May believes in anything — beyond getting the job done — she keeps it well hidden. The more we learn about her, the clearer it becomes that her famous kitten heels do not point to a latent sparky personality but rather are a substitute for one. Like the school headmistress who wears zany Su Pollard specs in a desperate bid to offset her innate conservatism, May opts for leopard spots in the hope of convincing us there’s a firebrand beneath the bland exterior. But there isn’t.

Read full story here…

Trump and Tyson For Technocracy

TN Note: The above headline was created in the original story on Splice. The writer makes the connection between Trump, Tyson and Technocracy, and makes some interesting remarks along the way. Otherwise, this story fits Technocracy.News because it is news about Technocracy.

Donald Trump sells racism and xenophobia—but he also sells that eternal nostrum of the masses, technocracy. As Vox has pointed out, Trump repeatedly tells the electorate “our country is being run horribly.” When he says he wants to prevent Muslim immigration, it’s only until we “figure out what’s going on.” Trump’s a pragmatic businessman; he will provide the simple fixes that everyone would agree on if only politicians weren’t so venal and corrupt. Like Ross Perot before him, Trump promises to improve things through sheer force of acumen, without the necessity of difficult compromises or trade-offs. A Trump presidency will be an apotheosis of prosperity and common sense solutions for all.

I doubt Neil deGrasse Tyson is a Trump voter. But he shares a similar vision of technocratic utopia. On Wednesday, the astrophysicist neatly summarized the political faith in Mr. Fixit with a tweet. “Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence.”

At first, Rationalia sounds like a cool place. Who would object to government by the weight of evidence? Vaccines would be mandatory, carbon emissions slashed, guns banned as unsafe, and a panel of experts would determine the ideal tax rates for maximum economic growth. The virtuous would inherit the earth, and the superstitious, cowardly gun lovers would be banished to the nether realms. Right?

Well, maybe not. There are two problems with determining policy by the weight of evidence. First, evidence about political issues is often contentious and confusing. What level of taxation would be best for economic growth? I’m a liberal lefty, and I think I know where the evidence points, but technocrat Trump doesn’t agree with me. Do you take a survey of all the economists for every economic decision? Is there some czar of economic weightiness who balances the different opinions and determines which one is weightiest? Who gets to appoint that czar, and how do we make sure he or she is objective beyond question?

The second problem about the “weight of evidence” is that the majority of political questions aren’t about “evidence.” They’re about political and ethical values. It’s frustrating to that U.S. politicians deny the existence of climate change when we know the world is getting warmer and we’re all screwed. However, even if all the skeptics were suddenly enlightened, this wouldn’t solve the political problem, which is that it’s really hard to know what to do about worldwide environmental change linked to out most vital energy resource.

Read full article here…

What Technocrats Fears Most: Populism

TN Note: By definition, Technocracy seeks to force everyone into a holarchy where all serve the ‘greater good’ and no one is allowed to serve themselves. Populism blows that model to pieces, and is the biggest threat to Technocrats everywhere.

The European Union’s trade chief described populist movements in the United States and elsewhere as “a recipe for isolation and failure” on Monday even as she sought to allay fears about Britain’s exit from the EU during a trip to China.

Cecilia Malmström, the commissioner for trade, made the remarks before the EU’s annual summit with China, where the two sides are expected to make progress on a major investment deal and discuss issues from steel overcapacity to China’s island-building in the South China Sea.

Asked by a student about the possibility that presidential candidate Donald Trump could become the United States’ next leader, Malmström said that populists coming to power around the world could lead to the closing of borders.

“The debate in the U.S. today personified by candidate Trump is one of strong criticism against globalisation, against trade. The effects of the global crisis have hit many people really, really hard,” Malmström said. “Many populists around the world prey on these feelings, on these fears.”

If populists come to power, “that is a clear recipe for isolation, for failure, and for less prosperity,” she added.

However, she said that China and the EU must maintain close ties with the U.S. whether Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton wins the White House.

Opposing trade deals has generated controversy within Trump’s own Republican Party, but won him supporters among American voters concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs at home.

Read full story here…

Freedom Is Receding Around the World

TN Note: It is not coincidental that Freedom and Liberty would decline in direct proportion to the rise of Technocracy at the helm of Scientific Dictatorship. Technocracy is more toxic to freedom than socialism, communism or fascism.

The economic dangers of Britain’s exit from the European Union are probably exaggerated. The U.K.  is in a bit of trouble, since falling real estate prices might spark a recession there. But it seems unlikely that the spillover to the global economy will be severe. British trade policy probably won’t change much, and extremists in the U.K. Independence Party, which spearheaded the “leave” campaign, are unlikely to take power. The EU itself is on shaky ground, but that was just as true before Brexit.

Brexit’s real importance probably comes not from its direct effects, but from its symbolism. It’s a sign of a much bigger, broader trend — a global political regime change. The shift was happening before Brexit, and it will continue after. It’s something we should be worried about.

In the aftermath of World War II, the globe was divided into two main blocs — a U.S.-led group that embraced liberal democracy, capitalism and free trade, and a Soviet-and-Chinese-led group that favored autocracy, economic isolationism and various forms of communism. Neither side was particularly unified, and neither one lived up fully to its professed ideals. But gradually, the liberal bloc succeeded economically and socially, and the other one failed. As this became apparent, many countries started changing their institutions to be more like the U.S. China and other authoritarian countries liberalized their economies, while many others converted from autocracy to democracy.

In recent years, that trend has halted, and the institutional tide now appears to be moving in the other direction. Illiberalism — political autocracy and restriction of civil liberties — are on the rise.

Many organizations track these trends, and they tend to have different definitions of democracy and freedom. But they all seem to agree on the broad trend. For example, Freedom House, an organization sponsored by the U.S. government, says that freedom in the world has been declining for the past 10 years. Since 2006, the number of countries it records as having experienced declines in freedom has been greater than the number of countries where freedom has advanced.

Read full story here…

Whence Technocracy: Neofeudalism, Peasants and Pitchforks

C.H. Smith nailed it: “There is no avenue left for advocacy, grievances or redress in a system dominated by global corporations.”

In the old feudal days, peasants with pitchforks and torches could assault the lord’s castle on a hill. Today, there is no castle nor even a hill. Yet, we still have the same grievances, angst and desires for peace, safety and prosperity.

Smith writes,

The reality is there is no avenue left for advocacy, grievances or redress in a system dominated by global corporations. The castle on the hill doesn’t exist; it is diffused all over the planet, and well protected by state minions controlled by neofeudal corporate interests.

Do you really think it’s mere coincidence that small business growth has imploded in the era of corporate dominance? As I explained yesterday in Governments Change, the Corporatocracy Endures, central banks dropping interest rates to near-zero for financiers and corporations sealed corporate dominance of finance and governance. There are few opportunities for small businesses when the financial and political structures serve neofeudal corporate interests.

Corporate power destroys democracy. That is the heart of neofeudalism.

Let me explain what happened here.

In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era. Three years later in 1973, Brzezinski teamed up with financier David Rockefeller to start the Trilateral Commission that was dedicated to “fostering a New International Economic Order.” Brzezinski explained,

“The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi­national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.” –  Between Two Ages

Antony Sutton and I wrote (Trilaterals Over Washington, I and II) and lectured extensively on this in the late 1970s. It’s too bad that more people didn’t listen to us back then, but the establishment made sure that we were thoroughly marginalized and discredited. In fact, the nation’s largest book chain at the time, B. Dalton Booksellers, blatantly black-listed our books by sending out a memo to all their stores that stated, “Trilaterals Over Washington is out of print and the publisher is out of business.” Neither was true, but it killed our sales.

So, what part of Brzezinski’s statement above is unclear?

Was Between Two Ages some sort of literary equivalent to Hitler’s Mien Kampf in which he laid out the elites’ plans in terms so clear that nobody would believe them?

Whatever the case, Brzezinski envisioned the “ultimate solution” in his carefully defined “Technetronic Era.”

What is the “Technetronic Era”? Plain and simple, it is a vision rooted in historic Technocracy from the 1930s.  It is also the resurrection of feudalism with many new twists thanks to advanced technology. Thus, the term neofeudalism fits Technocracy or Technetronic perfectly: A few own all the resources and then tell everyone else what they can or can’t do on planet earth.

In 1938, The Technocrat magazine defined Technocracy as follows:

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

This is exactly what is happening today: social engineers working with global corporations to take over the entire economic and social landscape. Thus, society is being ‘scientifically’ reengineered to serve the corporate lords. The old-fashioned terms of ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ don’t apply any more. Consumer demand is artificially manipulated to soak up whatever global corporations decide they want to manufacture.

In other words, Technocracy is a complete takeover of both the means of production and consumption, a feat never before attempted nor achieved in the history of the world.

You might never have heard of Technocracy before, but can you feel the manacle of scientific dictatorship tightening around your neck?

In my opinion, this is why Britain recently voted to leave the European Union, which is openly called a Technocracy in the European press. This is also why Trumpism is accelerating in America.

Simply put, people don’t have to understand the cause in order to feel the pain.

Oh, would that there were a castle on a hill that we could assault and demand that our grievances be heard. However, because Technocracy and Technocrats are so thoroughly infused into society, institutions and corporate culture, it is impossible to hold their feet to the fire.

(Permission is granted to repost this article but only with complete attribution to the author and link back to the original page.)

Beware Virtual Reality: It Can Rewire Your Brain And Plant False Memories

TN Note: The world is crazed on virtual reality technology, where you put a view-finder device on your head and immerse yourself in a 3-D world of… whatever: computer games, role play, modeling systems, pornography. Because the experiences are so very realistic, they are certain to produce memories that will seem to be very real. Plus, if the programmer so desires, such memories might be created without any knowledge or understanding by the recipient. 

Virtual reality has been the talk of the entertainment industry for the last couple of years, as the TV, film, gaming, and social media worlds all look to immersive experiences as the next advancement in digital experiences.

But while big budget productions will rake in millions in the coming years, the on-the-ground presence of virtual reality will be about more than studios—it will be about sharing individual experiences and recording personal moments. And that’s maybe not a good thing.

At a recent Cannes Lions Festival appearance, Google VR vice president Clay Bavor said some interesting things about the future of VR, as a way for users to start reliving their own life experiences. It starts with the close connection between memory and experience. “When you look at your brain under an fMRI,” he said, “remembering and experiencing look very similar.”

Bavor talked about how, if your home was on fire, you’d be saving photo albums and hard drives with photos because of their value: the experience. “You can remember someone you love” is how he phrased it, someone “who might be far away or who you’ve lost.”

And for him and the many others writing and developing the VR world, that’s the primary goal: to step back into that memory years later.

Bavor went on to discuss his own experiences with a new prototype camera for recording VR.

“I’ve recorded similar things too, little fleeting moments,” he said. “Sitting with my grandmother in her home. Having breakfast with my son. Here’s the thing: A few years from now, when my grandmother is gone, I’ll be able to sit with her. Twenty years from now, when my son is an adult, I’ll be able to put on some goggles and sit across the breakfast table from him as a little boy.”

Recreating the past is what we do. It’s how we remember what we lost, what we had. It’s how we find inspiration to get
through bad times. But being able to call up an experience with the push of a button carries some dangers that memories don’t. We could get lost in the experiences, in an addictive way.

I know that sounds like science fiction, and yes, here’s where the Matrix reference would go. Feel free to make your own associations. But as a counterpoint to the skepticism, the more apt comparison isn’t with that film so much as Vanilla Sky, or perhaps Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. You know, tales of a virtual world people want to stay inside of.

Read full story here…

Why The World Is Rebelling Against ‘Experts’

TN Note: Among the ‘rebels’, there is still no recognition of Technocracy, but people feel the effect of it as regulations strangle economic progress, personal freedoms and the society we live in. The question is, will the Technocrats be able to cloak their identity while staying one step ahead of the rebellion? If so. then scientific dictatorship is inevitable. If not, then there will be a chance to reject Technocracy and its practitioners.

The Great Rebellion is on and where it leads nobody knows.

Its expressions range from Brexit to the Trump phenomena and includes neo-nationalist and unconventional insurgent movement around the world. It shares no single leader, party or ideology. Its very incoherence, combined with the blindness of its elite opposition, has made it hard for the established parties across what’s left of the democratic world to contain it.

What holds the rebels together is a single idea: the rejection of the neo-liberal crony capitalist order that has arisen since the fall of the Soviet Union. For two decades, this new ruling class could boast of great successes: rising living standards, limited warfare, rapid technological change and an optimism about the future spread of liberal democracy. Now, that’s all fading or failing.

Living standards are stagnating, vicious wars raging, poverty-stricken migrants pouring across borders and class chasms growing. Amidst this, the crony capitalists and their bureaucratic allies have only grown more arrogant and demanding. But the failures of those who occupy what Lenin called “the commanding heights” are obvious to most of the citizens on whose behalf they claim to speak and act.

The Great Rebellion draws on five disparate and sometimes contradictory causes that find common ground in frustration with the steady bureaucratic erosion of democratic self-governance: class resentment, racial concerns, geographic disparities, nationalism, cultural identity. Each of these strains appeals to different constituencies, but together they are creating a political Molotov cocktail.

 Class Conflict

The Brexit vote reflected the class aspect of the Rebellion. The London Times post-election analysis , notes socialist author James Heartfield, found the upper classes 57 percent for remain, the upper middle class fairly divided, while everyone below them went roughly two-thirds for leave. It doesn’t get much plainer than that.

This dissent reflect the consequences of the globalization celebrated by elites in both parties. Britain’s industrial workforce, once the wonder of the world, is half as large as it was as just two decades ago. The social status of the British worker, even among the Labour grandees who pay them lip service, has been greatly diminished, notes scholar Dick Hobbs, himself a product of blue collar east London. “There are parts of London,” he writes, “where the pubs are the only economy.”

As labor has struggled, writes Heartfield, “the Labour Party became more distant, metropolitan and elitist. It sought to re-write the party’s policy to mirror its own concerns, and also to diminish working people’s aspirations for social democratic reform in their favour. “

A similar scenario has emerged here in America, where corporations—especially those making consumer goods—have grown fat on access to Chinese, Mexican and other foreign labor. Like their British counterparts, the U.S. working class is falling into social chaos, with declining marriage and church attendance rates, growing drug addiction, poor school performance and even declining life expectancy. Even during the primary campaign, as both Sanders and Trump railed against globalization United Technologies saw fit to announce the movement of a large plant form Indianapolis, where about 1,500 jobs were lost, to Monterrey.

And much as the leave wave crested in just those parts of the U.K. where trade with Europe is highest, so is Trump support highest in the Southern states that now dominate what remains of American manufacturing.

Read full story here….