There must be more efforts at popular collaboration for successful truth circulation in the face of corporate gross mismanagement, governmental interference, and the attacks on journalism and information brokers.
September 18-19, 2017 — Google disseminates the largest amount of “fake news” on the web
Google claims it, like Facebook and Twitter, is tackling the issue of “fake news” appearing on social media sites. However, Google is the largest disseminator of “fake news” in the world today. There is a difference between “false news,” which is the focus of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others, and “fake news,” which primarily consists of meaningless and unimportant information. Chief among this so-called “news” is sports and celebrity entertainment.
Karl Marx once opined that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Today, Marx would look around at near-empty churches and the preponderance of sports and celebrity news in the media and declare that “sports and entertainment are the opiate of the masses.” Google has lent itself to the dumbing-down of culture by programming its search algorithms to boost stories about sports and entertainment over those concerning issues of war and peace, feast and famine, and death and destruction. Google has created a virtual world that is composed of super-rich football players, entertainers, and super-models.
Google’s irresponsibility when it comes to offering anything closely resembling “journalism” should be condemned by every professional journalism organization. During the era of print journalism, it made sense to combine news, sports, entertainment — including comic strips like Dick Tracy and Blondie — and stock market reports in the newspaper. Until radio happened upon the scene, the newspaper served as a single conduit of information to the masses. With the advent of electronic journalism, there is no need to contaminate important news with meaningless nonsense about football, baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis, rugby, cricket, badminton, golf, professional poker, bowling, Nascar and Formula 1 auto racing, or tournament fishing. These are not “news” stories. Nor do gossip items about movie actors and actresses, singers, rap performers, or night club performers belong under the banner of “news.”
The most innocuous political story is still more important than what player the Philadelphia Eagles or the Atlanta Braves are contemplating trading or hiring. That drivel does not qualify as news, even though the brain-dead listeners of and callers to the broadcast wasteland known as “sport radio” would deem otherwise. These sports savants and nincompoops are able to rattle off the performance stats of some obscure quarterback or pitcher but come up blank when trying to name their two U.S. senators or governor. Google, with its prioritization of sports over actual news, contributes to the ignorance of such imbeciles. Giving more attention to such “fake news” also directly contributes to low voter turnout in the United States.
Some social scientists explain the sports “fandom” culture as promoting self-esteem when a fan’s sports team is successful. The fan is emotionally buoyed when his or her team is successful. However, sports fanatics are normally at the low end of the intellectual scale and are losers when it comes to education, no matter how well their favorite teams perform. Anyone who tortures themselves for even a few minutes by listening to “sports talk” radio can ascertain that sports fanatics, as well as the sports talk radio hosts, are like any other extreme devotees — born losers.
Google, the largest news aggregator on the Internet, uses several metrics to rank news stories. The company has remained mum on the details of its algorithms, but some aspects are known. Google bases its news rankings on the size of the staff of the originating news organization, popular opinion about the news story in question, the “breaking” quality of the news story, the length of the news article, the popularity of the news organization, the number of news bureaus associated with the news organization, number of identified sources in the news story, writing style, international diversity associated with the news organization, and use of a particular news story (cites) by other news organizations.
Google’s algorithms are based on extremely subjective calls. They also fail to distinguish between hard news and sports and entertainment. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are all joining in a campaign against “fake news,” but this, too, is based on subjectivity and relies heavily on thoroughly discredited websites like Snopes and Wikipedia. Snopes has not recovered from an embezzlement and prostitution sex scandal involving its co-founder, David Mikkelson, and Wikipedia continues to be plagued by the duplicitous behavior of its co-founder Jimmy Wales.
The following are but a few examples about how Google’s algorithms are helping to dumb-down the world by placing greater emphasis on fake news about sports and other meaningless trivia:
New Zealand is facing a general election on September 23, one that may see the governing party ejected from office. Google News does not appear to care as seen with its top three stories on New Zealand:
Sport. Rugby Union. Aaron Cruden exclusive interview: New Zealand fly-half happy to quit All Blacks to build new life in France.
2. American rockers The Killers announce New Zealand tour.
3. Rugby Championship: New Zealand in record win over South Africa.
At seventh place on Google News is a story about New Zealand’s election: “Jacinda Ardern ‘electrifies’ NZ election.” That story should, along with other election news, been placed ahead of trivial items concerning rugby and some Las Vegas-based rock band. If Google News considers itself to be a news resource, it is guilty of blatant journalistic malpractice.
A search for “Canada” fares no better.
The first Google News story that appears is a click-bait item from a coin dealer website about crypto-currency. This story constitutes a different type of fake news, an advertisement masquerading as a legitimate news story. Google is certainly not alone in promoting this type of fraudulent journalism.
Following the click-bait is:
2. Canada’s Nestor, Pospisil top India to take Davis Cup lead.
The tennis item is followed by legitimate stories dealing with draconian U.S. immigration policies and U.S.-Canadian trade issues. The tennis item should have never been weighted as so important by Google relative to the more important U.S.-Canadian relations stories.
[The whistleblower, whose video is embedded at the link] “held several high-level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, a team leader protecting sensitive CIA assets from assassination, a manager of high-risk protective operations, a lead instructor for members of allied governments, an internal staff security investigator, and a polygraph examiner. He was tasked with protecting the CIA from foreign agent penetration and the chief of training for the CIA federal police force. Mr. Shipp functioned as program manager for the Department of State, Diplomatic Security, and Anti Terrorism Assistance global police training program. He is the recipient of two CIA Meritorious Unit Citations, three Exceptional Performance Awards and a Medallion for overseas covert operations. He is the author of From the Company of Shadows–CIA Operations and the War on Terrorism.”
When discussing the “serious, violent, habitual juvenile offender,” we should attempt to reach at least a glimmering of consensus as to whom we are talking about. Some people see serious offenders, violent offenders and habitual offenders as individual types. Because we are here to talk about the type of individual who has all three characteristics, it seems that we are talking about some new breed of juvenile. If you read the papers, watch T.V. or listen to politicians you will believe that somehow genetics and culture have combined or conspired over the years to produce a new kind of child: a kid who rapes and robs and murders with impunity, with abandon, and who seems to enjoy this work. Such a child seems to be completely unresponsive to anything we have to offer. But that’s been kind of an excuse. The kids they write about today, whose faces now appear in the newspapers and on television, are the same kinds of kids who existed 10 years ago, a decade ago, a generation ago … a hundred years ago.
“…One of the reasons that our profession has been willing to accept the idea that there is a new breed of juvenile is that this profession does not want to face the fact that it has failed with a particular, tiny segment of the population for which we are responsible.”
One of the reasons that our profession has been willing to accept the idea that there is a new breed of juvenile is that this profession does not want to face the fact that it has failed with a particular, tiny segment of the population for which we are responsible. It is much easier to say we are geared up to deal with “delinquents,” that we can handle all kinds of “juvenile” crime, and that there’s a certain type of kid whom we call the “life–style violent juvenile” (I’ll get into that definition in a moment) whose very existence is a threat to every single one of our treasured principles about juvenile justice. Every single bill of goods that we’ve been selling the public for the last century is at risk because of this kid. This kid is the failure of our profession but our fight now is to keep this kid. When I say keep this kid, I mean keep him within our jurisdiction. Keep him within our zone of responsibility. To fight against the idea of waiver, bind–over, transfer, certification, whatever term you choose to use. But to fight against the concept of washing our hands and throwing this kid out with the garbage. That fight is the strength of our profession too. I’m not always proud of our profession, but I am proud of the fact that we are not buying into the idea that we are going to surrender on this critical issue.
Now, what am I talking about? Who is this kid? What are his characteristics? (And when I say “his,” obviously there are female delinquents who also fit within this category. So far, their numbers are relatively small so there’s been little focus on them. So when I use the term “his” or “he,” picture in your mind that the terms are somewhat interchangeable with “her” and “she”). This kid is characterized by a complete lack of apparent empathy for other human beings. He feels no pain but his own. This is the type of kid who will kill three people on separate occasions for no apparent reason, commit a subway robbery, do a push–in mugging, blow somebody away because they “looked at him wrong.” He will show no remorse, and then come into the office of an institution just enraged, veins bulging out of his neck, sweat pouring off his forehead, eyes wild, incoherent almost to the point of tears … all because someone broke his portable radio. And he’ll see no contradiction whatsoever. He simply does not feel anyone’s pain but his own. This is a learned response. People are not born like this.
The second characteristic is lack of perception of the future. He has none. If you ask a kid like this, “What are you going to be doing next year?” you will get an absolutely blank stare. Not because he’s stupid, but because he simply cannot conceptualize such a distance from right now. If you want to speak with this kid, you have to speak within his time frame, and that time frame isn’t ever more than a few hours from the present.
This kid does not relate behavior to consequences. He does not see a causal connection between his acts and a response. What do I mean? To this kid, life is a lottery. Everyone rolls the dice, but not everyone pays the price. He has no perception as to how the dice will come up. In his world, everyone commits crimes. Everybody. Some smaller percentage of that number are arrested. A still smaller percentage go to court; an even smaller percentage go to trial. A smaller percentage still are actually found guilty (or “adjudicated delinquent” if you prefer), and a smaller percentage of that group are committed to a youth authority. Lastly, an even smaller percentage are actually incarcerated.
In his mind, everybody commits these crimes. He sees no connection between his acts and the consequences. He is marked by a chronicity of violence, usually an escalating pattern. Violence permeates his existence until it is his existence. It is not the extent of his criminality that frightens us, but its regularity. Crime is not so much an occupation in the sense of a professional criminal, but a way of life, with violence as the structural underpinning.
He has translator mechanisms in his head. You think of earning money; he thinks of taking money. You think of romance; he thinks of rape. Criminal sophistication is almost totally lacking. He takes money: he doesn’t plan in any real sense; he’s not organized in his criminality. Even what to do with the money is not pre–planned. The money itself has an ephemeral quality. He gets up in the morning about 11:00 a.m., puts on his sneakers, listens to the radio, looks in the refrigerator, sees nothing there … maybe some old corn–flakes. Hits the street with his friend, hangs out. He waits for an elderly woman to come home from the supermarket; follows her to her house. Gets on the elevator with her; she presses the button for the fourth floor; he presses it for the second floor. Jumps off at the second floor and runs up the stairs, watches her open her apartment door, slams forward, shoves the door open and the woman inside, kicks the door shut behind him, smashes the woman in the face until she hits the ground, snatches whatever little money she has. And goes back downstairs to the same corner. If there was enough money, he may buy some soda, some pizza, some marijuana; he may go to a movie downtown. He’ll be back tomorrow. Sooner or later one of the elderly women dies. And then the crime is treated in the media not as an organic continuation of a lifestyle but as some kind of nova–blast of episodic crime. That’s not the way it really is, and we all know better.
I’m not here to excuse or condone such crimes. But I want you to understand them. I’m not talking about an episodic offender. I’m not talking about some human being that just snaps out and hurts other people. I’m talking about a person who has violence so inexorably woven into his life that a fatality is, in fact, predictable at some point in his career.
WHO ARE THE ROLE MODELS FOR THESE OFFENDERS?
Who are his role models? Those who are, in his mind, successful criminals. He doesn’t know any real successful criminals. He knows no embezzlers. He knows no computer criminals. He knows no politicians. He knows only what he perceives as success. And what tells him someone is a success? A diamond ring, fine clothes, a car. Not a home, because his perception doesn’t extend that far. He focuses on the things you can carry around with you. And when he goes to jail, that perception doesn’t change. So when you read about one kid stabbing another to death over a fancy pair of sneakers in a juvenile institution, don’t dismiss it as insanity. It may be insane, but it’s consistently so.
So who are the role models? Pimps, dope dealers, armed robbers. And when this kid thinks “armed robbery,” he’s thinking like a cowboy. He’s thinking about the guys who kick in the door of a social club, blow away three or four people, and end up with five hundred dollars. He doesn’t even conceptualize a large–scale robbery, such as an armored car job. He doesn’t even conceptualize stealing anything but cash, or things readily convertible to cash.
This obsession with visible symbols of power and respect translates into the ultimate perversion of the American version of manhood. If you ask one of these kids, “how do you know you’re a man?”, he’ll answer you like this: “I’m a man because I can make a life, and I can take a life.” That kid, that’s his world. Is he dangerous? Of course he’s dangerous. Is he too dangerous to be at large? Very probably so.
IS HE BEYOND OUR REACH?
Now here’s the question: is he beyond our reach? If we can’t say “No!” to that, we should give it up. We’ve been ducking and dodging that issue for too long a time. If we face reality, this is what “prevention” is all about. Part of the profession wants to say: “We can’t deal with this kid; this kid is (you fill in the blanks with whatever you want … an animal, a beast, a lunatic); we can’t deal with him. Let the adult system take him. We’ll work with the good kids, the other kids.” Now part of our profession wants to accept and acknowledge our collective responsibility for this kid. But even that part doesn’t say: “I’ll take him.” No. What we say is: “We’re going to prevent him. We’re going to stop this deadly flower from reaching full bloom.” Well, people, that’s a joke, a real joke. And the joke is on you and on the American public. You cannot prevent this kid if you persist in starting where you have been. There’s a continuum of production that results in this kid being among us. There’s a virtual assembly line, with components being attached at each stage until this human being has reached his full dangerous growth. By the time you start to “prevent,” it’s already too late.
WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
Now why should we care about this kid at all? The whole profession keeps saying, in a very self–comforting kind of way, that this kid represents only a tiny minority of the juvenile population. A minority within a minority, we keep telling ourselves. People draw pictures that show us this kid is maybe one percent of the whole mixed bag of juveniles. In fact, I’ve talked to people from some states who swear “We don’t have any such kids. Not in the whole damn state. After all, we don’t even have apartment buildings.”
There’s a reason to care. First, these kids have a disproportionate impact on crime in any community. Allen Breed has quoted some scary statistics. He has said that twenty–four percent of all violent crime was committed by people under eighteen years of age. But he didn’t say that twenty–four percent of all criminals are under eighteen. And the fact is that each and every one of these kids is a crime wave. Each and every one of them. They are very few. In Professor Wolfgang’s famous “Cohort Study” he found that about six percent of all juveniles in his study were responsible for sixty–six percent of repetitive violent crime. Think about it. These young human beings impact explosively on communities. Then, too, they have high visibility. These kids are a politician’s dream. People have been elected to office on the backs of two or three violent kids. All because the public loves hypodermic solutions to problems. The public desperately wants to believe that there’s a pill or an injection that will stop crime. So these kids have been a bonanza for politicians. You can pass laws that will provide all kinds of Draconian consequences for kids who engage in this violent behavior on a daily basis, but you are doing nothing whatsoever to stop the behavior itself.
The real reason these kids are so important is that they destroy every piece of mythology that has been built up about juveniles over the past century. This kind of kid does not fit within any “program.” I’ll tell you what I mean.
Not too long ago, we were fighting another battle, the battle for de–institutionalization. We knew, instinctively, intuitively, and intellectually that institutions were bad for kids. They damage human beings; they are criminogenic. We called them “crime factories” and “sodomy schools” and we were right. We wanted to take kids out of institutions.
Community–based programs came into vogue in the late 60s and early 70s, and some folks had some fantastic programs. Some programs really worked. And then along would come one of these special kids, one life–style violent juvenile and, boom! … no more program. All by himself, one of these kids could dismantle a program.
So why did the programs take these kids? Well, there are two basic reasons. Number one, sometimes when people hit on an idea that works, they think it’s infinitely expandable, and that’s a mistake. The second mistake is that these community–based programs were always dependent on funding, unlike juvenile prisons. The more successful the program, the more likely you are to have one of these kids dumped into it.
Now how do they blow up a program? I’ll give you one example. When I was running an institution, we had a young man there I’ll call Raphael. He was a member of a gang in which manhood was expressed in ways I’ve already described to you, and with one additional feature: skill with a knife was most highly exalted. Skill with a knife and distorted visions of manhood and respect.
So Raphael cut a lot of people, hurt a lot of people. In fact, before we arrived, he hurt a lot of people within the institution. He settled all disputes, all conflicts, with a knife. Now, after a while, he was doing okay with us, and by “okay” I mean he wasn’t stabbing anybody. You understand what I’m talking about? I don’t mean he was “self–actualized.” I don’t mean to say he was a heavy participant in group therapy. He wasn’t on the road to college, but he wasn’t stabbing anybody. And we knew, unlike most of the people who seem to run institutions, that some day he would leave us and would be judged in the real world not on our success inside, but on how he acted on the streets. He was making progress.
Now he was a good–looking young man and had the gift of gab. And one day a group of people came in to see us. They’re running a “program;” I won’t characterize it, a group home of some kind. They were looking for candidates for their program. They had some empty beds and they wanted some of our kids. We were opposed to this. But, of course, we were not running the state government. So they roamed around and made a selection, and Raphael was a selection. We sat them down and tried to talk to them like human beings. We said “You don’t want this kid. Ever. You don’t want him in life. He’s going to hurt somebody.” And what do they tell me? “You’re a thug.” “You don’t understand. You have to reach out and touch him.” You know the story.
The temptation was to say “Go ahead and take him” but we still resisted. And we lost. So they took Raphael and figured they’d go to work on him right away. They had a procedure there that they called the “hot–seat.” They’d put one kid in a chair, circle around it, and then verbally attack him. They’d rip him up and then tell him that the house rules are “no violence.”
So they put Raphael in the chair and they decided that the reason he stabbed people, the reason he had tattoos, the reason he carried himself as he did, was that he was a homosexual. They confronted him with this so–called “reality” about himself. He excused himself, got up very calmly and went into the kitchen, found a knife, and gutted another kid, like you would a fish.
Raphael stabbed the other kid, sat down, said “I’m a man” and waited for the police to come. Big deal; an instant replay of his life. The program was totaled.
This happens a lot, and the program people in this case were not completely to blame. They thought they had something good; they wanted to go with it; there was heavy pressure on them to take more people. But every time you try and co–mingle one of these kids with their natural prey, it’s not going to work.
WHERE DO THESE YOUNG PEOPLE COME FROM?
Where did this kid come from anyway? Is he a bio–genetic mutation that has evolved after hundreds of years of reproduction in the human race? I hope you don’t believe that, and I hope you don’t believe that he’s a cultural aberration. Or that once the economy gets back on its feet, he will disappear. I hope you don’t believe it’s as simplistic as a “breakdown of family values.” Let me tell you something. He comes from us. He is a product of the human services profession.
“…I have never seen one of these kids that hasn’t been within our child protective and child–caring system for years and years before the juvenile justice profession is asked to “intervene.”
I have never seen one of these kids that hasn’t been within our child protective and child–caring system for years and years before the juvenile justice profession is asked to “intervene.” We have to create the beast. It cannot be born whole. If you look at adult life–style criminals (and again I emphasize life–style, not people who made a lot of headlines with one explosive act), you can be guaranteed to see one thing in their background. No matter where such people are politically or socially: from a berserk neo–Nazi like Charles Manson to a prison–created revolutionary like George Jackson, from the Boston Strangler to Carryl Chessman, from John Dillinger to Gary Gilmour, to Carl Panzram to Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie and Clyde). They all did time as juveniles. Amazing, isn’t it?
You probably never heard of Carl Panzram. He was a mass murderer who killed more than a couple of dozen people at different times in his short life. He killed for the fun of it. He liked to kill people. The only things he liked better than killing people were sodomizing little boys and arson. He caused more destruction than a small army.
Finally, Panzram, who was intelligent despite his lunacy, decided he wanted to die. But the state wouldn’t kill him. He kept killing, but he didn’t die. Finally, he killed a prison guard and ended up on trial for his life. Do you know what lie he told the jury? “I am what you made me. You put me in that training school for boys and you trained me that the greatest joy in life is sodomy and murder. And if you don’t kill me now, while you have the opportunity, I’m going to kill some of you. The state gave me birth, let the state take my life.” The state finally did.
Now I’m not Carl Panzram’s attorney. I’m not trying to excuse his behavior.
Even if I could explain it, he was too dangerous to walk among us. But he spoke the truth. When Charles Manson said, “You can see me in the eyes of your ten–year–olds,” that was not an original line. We have been producing the life–style violent criminal for generations, and the factory has been the child protective and juvenile justice system.
In order to create the kind of sociopathic, non–empathetic, violent human being I’ve been talking about, you need an institution. You need a controlled environment. You need an environment where might makes right.
You need an environment where there is a hierarchy of exploitation; where the rule is “be exploited or exploit others.” For many, many years we have run our institutions on a jungle model where the strong not only survive, but thrive. And when the beast is released, we all pay.
HOW DID WE GET WHERE WE ARE?
Now how did we get to this stage?
First, all we’ve ever done as a profession is react. From the beginning of juvenile justice, we’ve reacted to things. How did this all start? At the turn of the century, we said to the public: “You can’t lock up adults and children together. It’s going to criminalize the juveniles. Prison is a bad experience.” And when the public bought this proposition, we proceeded to simply react to the opportunity without going further. We did not say that prisons were a bad experience because of the way they are run. We did not design particular kinds of incarcerative options ranging from ultra–minimum to full maximum security. All we did was take the kids from the adult prisons and then replicate the adult prison system, brick for brick, program for program, and failure for failure.
Then we invented a whole lot of euphemisms. We changed all the names. Crime becomes “delinquency,” a “finding of delinquency” is substituted for guilty, prisons become “training schools.” We kept talking about “the best interests of the child,” “the needs of the child,” and it was all nonsense. We didn’t develop anything, we simply reacted, like any politician would.
We’ve been in hot pursuit of “rehabilitation” for a hundred years and we haven’t caught it yet. We bought into a medical model that we knew in our hearts was pure junk. You break a bone, you go to physiotherapy, you work with the therapist, you follow the program, you take the medicine, the cast comes off, the arm works again … it’s rehabilitated. But the kids we’re talking about today never functioned. They dysfunctioned starting before they ever came into the juvenile justice system. What can we return them to?
“…Child protective and juvenile justice professionals pay a terrible price for not being willing to take responsibility for these kids. That price is giving up the control we need to prove once and for all that we can do the job.”
Child protective and juvenile justice professionals pay a terrible price for not being willing to take responsibility for these kids. That price is giving up the control we need to prove once and for all that we can do the job.
We don’t want to bite the bullet and admit that there are certain human beings on this planet, in this country, in our cities who need basic socialization before they can be among us. I don’t mean that these kids need exotic drugs; I don’t mean that they need bizarre treatment modalities. I mean they need to learn how to be human beings. They can#39;t learn that on the street. They can’t learn that in group homes.
There are people who require incapacitation, because if it’s not provided, we end up where we are today, with a public that doesn’t trust us a good goddamn. The public has been listening to us, albeit with a jaundiced ear, for a century. And we’ve been promising them the moon. Now the only promise the public wants to hear is that we are going to do something about the crimes that affect the quality of their lives. We are too fond of parables that are just plain nonsense. Here’s one of my favorites: “It costs less to send a kid to Harvard than it does to incarcerate him for a year.” If Harvard would take them, we’d ship them to Harvard. Well, Harvard won’t take them, and if we want out from under the domination of these kids, we can’t get there with clever sayings.
What we have to realize is that kids will be adults. If all we do is put them on ice until we are no longer administratively responsible for their behavior, we’ve committed a mortal sin. If we get a kid that’s, say, 15 years old we probably will hold him in some kind of suspended animation, doing nothing but time until he’s eighteen. If after he’s released he kills a cop, he’s an adult. And we have nothing to do with it. Well, maybe not legally, but certainly morally. The public’s finally waking up to the fact that once you put your hands on something you have a responsibility for it.
I agree that we should fight wholesale institutionalization, but we should not fight it so hard that we abandon the field to our traditional adversaries. We should be against institutionalization, but we must also understand that we must have the capacity to remove the tiny percentage of life–style violent juveniles from society while work is being done. Without secure treatment units we show society nothing, and we show the kids nothing.
What do we do with the criminally insane, violent juvenile? The hospitals won’t take him. Nobody will take him. So he ends up in a juvenile institution, doing time with others who are criminal, but not insane. What other profession does this?
CAN WE “INDIVIDUALIZE THE OFFENDER?”
If we were truly to “individualize the offender,” we would take the responsibility upon ourselves, not pass it along to prosecutors, or to legislators. We would keep it. And if we were to respond to the problem by establishing secure treatment units for this tiny minority, we would take a crushing weight off the entire juvenile justice system.
Our skilled professionals then could get on with doing their business, freed from constantly watching their backs for the emergence of one of the kind of kid who can destroy their programs. Because we’ve known for a long time that if we could just get the life–style violent juvenile and the criminally insane juvenile out of our system, we could make that system work. In reality, we have to take collective responsibility for all kids, below whatever age the legislature establishes, and on a statewide basis. Accepting this as fact, within our collective responsibility we can and must make our own decisions. No law can prescribe the treatment required for an individual. The law can only define what constitutes an offense. Most people believe that murder is the worst offense of all. To me, murder is the offense for which there are the broadest possible range of motives. If I were told about a 15–year–old boy only that he killed somebody, I would actually know very little about him and I would certainly not be prepared to make an incarcerative placement or treatment decision about him. But we do that all the time.
Child protective and juvenile justice professionals pay a terrible price for not being willing to take responsibility for these kids. That price is giving up the control we need to prove once and for all that we can do the job. The public will accept construction of secure treatment units, not only because they guarantee incapacitation of those that they fear, but because such units are a visible symbol of the jurisdiction’s commitment to do something about violent crime. All we’re doing now is fighting a losing battle against the concept of treating juveniles in the adult criminal justice system. The fact is, if we say to the public, don’t send the kid to adult corrections, the public has a right to ask us “What are you going to do with him? More experiments? More R&D? No thanks. The risks are too high. Go ahead and conduct your experiments. Take a chance and see if maybe you can help this kid. But do it in some place where the kid can’t come around and visit me at night.” Until we can promise this to the public, we haven’t said a thing.
What the public really wants is a kind of “soft death penalty” for these kids: not to kill them, but to knock them out for a few years and then have them emerge, reborn as good citizens. We have sold the public a bill of goods about that too. We quote the old “burn out” baloney. “Kids who commit acts of vandalism burn out. They stop eventually. Kids who steal cars for joy rides; kids who get into fist fights, kids who shoplift. They may all burn out.”
But the kid who gets up every morning for crime and goes to sleep each night dreaming of violence doesn’t burn out. He burns people up. We’ve got to stop selling that bilge to the public. We have to advocate strongly for special programs for the life–style violent juvenile.
Years ago, the so–called “wolf children” were found in Europe. They had, apparently, been raised by wild animals. They were completely amoral, unsocial. They were feral, wild things. They lacked any semblance of social control; just responded, as animals, to stimuli. And millions and millions of dollars were spent understanding those kids.
Today we have “wolf children” in every city… and they scare the hell out of us. So, we try the “quick fix” solution: make them into adults. That will work. That will give the public half of what’s wanted. It will, in fact, temporarily, cage the animal.
New York, for example, has a life sentence possibility—for 13–year–olds. A kid may serve nine, 10, 15 years on a life sentence by the time he reaches the age of 28. Half his life has been spent in a maximum security prison. Is he going to rejoin society as a computer programmer? Of course not. He’s going to hurt people, very quickly, and, depending on what he’s learned in prison, perhaps very efficiently. This is not the solution to the problem of violent juvenile crime.
The public doesn’t really care about crime. The public cares about violence. The public cares about robbery, rape, arson, and murder. A bomb is ticking within the juvenile justice system. We have (and we have had before) the opportunity to defuse that bomb and we’ve been wasting time passing the buck instead.
There has been a lot of talk about “prevention,” but if by “prevention” we are talking about preventing vandalism we are probably perpetrating another rhetorical rip–off. If we’re serious, we’re going to try to prevent violent crime.
We are just beginning to realize that the protection of children from child abuse is protection of society in the long run. We are finally waking up to the fact that victims don’t just shrug off child abuse and go about their normal lives.
“…We are just beginning to realize that the protection of children from child abuse is protection of society in the long run. We are finally waking up to the fact that victims don’t just shrug off child abuse and go about their normal lives.”
CHILD ABUSE AND THE VIOLENT OFFENDER
Here’s the problem: a kid progresses from birth until the time he finally impacts on our system. I have seen (and please, don’t anybody ask me to “look at the numbers” because I haven’t received $3 million in federal funds to reinvent the obvious), as have others, an astounding causal connection between children who were horribly abused at an early age and those who end up as tenants in our juvenile institutions, convicted of serious violence.
Here, then, is the paradox. When social workers get an abused kid that’s been tortured, they say the kid is a victim. Several years later, when the juvenile justice system gets the kid, the kid is a predator.
When the kid kills, the newspaper coverage is sure to include a line about how this kid was known to the juvenile justice profession. He was on probation, on parole, a graduate of one program or another, a runaway from a training school… it doesn’t matter.
“…Here, then, is the paradox. When social workers get an abused kid that’s been tortured, they say the kid is a victim. Several years later, when the juvenile justice system gets the kid, the kid is a predator.”
I love driving. I love to get out on the open road and just go. Scenery, good weather, a nice destination, great music, top companionship… you’ve been there. I could put together a list of my favorite drives. In fact, I think I already have…
But I was looking the other night in a moment of dream state for an article that would describe the top vehicles for driving on America’s fractured infrastructure roadways, you know, with the thunks and the heaves and the potholes and the possible loss of control, to say nothing of potential damage to tires, rims, shocks and suspension.
I did not find that list.
That vehicle probably includes a heavy-duty suspension, special tires, specially-sprung seats for occupants, secure luggage storage, protected-and-secured engine components if not the engine mounts themselves, racing harnesses for all passengers, and more. What the authorities in the USofA allow for maximal headlight performance, for example, is near-criminal.
Riding on some highways inside New England is becoming like running the Baja 500.
But I did find this list, and I had to share it with you. Hop in.
Finally, I was working the comments and back links section of my own web site here just before Ipostedd this and cleaned out a lot of stuff that slipped through (sorry, I won’t post links to erotic tapes, tales, toys, etc., not that there is anything wrong with erotica, but there’s a time and place for it and this ain’t it) when I found a link to a musical rendition that was probably the product of someone’s hard work.
Hard work and creativity are in short supply and need all the help it can get, and I apologize for having missed it previously; here it is:
I had another look and I had a cup of tea and butter pie
(The butter wouldn’t melt so I put it in the pie)…
This is the English Butter Pie from the Beatles’ song Admiral Halsey. Farm families used to make it often. This recipe does not call for nuts, but 1/2 cup chopped hazel nuts would be very good in this savory dish. English walnuts are another alternative.
•4 pounds potatoes
•4 large sweet onions (Spanish or Vidalia), sliced medium
•1 clove garlic, minced
•1/4 Cup butter (melted), plus additional butter or oil to sauté Onions
•1 Tbsp salt
•1/2 tsp. pepper
•1 Cup milk
•1/3 Cup flour
•1 Cup heavy cream
•Pie crust of your choice
•Peel the potatoes or leave skins on if you wish (sometimes I peel them but leave a bit of skin on here and there for texture).
•Slice potatoes very thin.
•Parboil potato slices in salted water 2 to 3 minutes & drain.
•Sauté onions and garlic together in butter or oil just until soft.
•Layer potatoes and onion mixture in a 3-quart baking dish, sprinkling with salt and pepper over each layer and top.
•Gradually stir milk, half the cream and the melted butter into flour to form a paste.
•Pour milk mixture over potatoes.
•Prepare pie crust and roll it to fit the top of baking dish. Put it on top and crimp edges.
•Cut X air vent in the center of top crust.
•Brush top with additional cream.
•Bake at 350 degrees for 1 hour and crust is golden brown.
•Remove from oven. Warm the rest of the cream, pour through the X, set aside 15 minutes and serve.
“… read with skepticism and doubt the conventional wisdom presented as “news” by the so-called mainstream media. There are agendas at work and information is disseminated, in my view, for the express purpose of shaping public opinion to manipulate the mass rather than informing the citizens….”
As the U.S. growing season entered its peak this summer, farmers began posting startling pictures on social media: fields of beans, peach orchards and vegetable gardens withering away.
The photographs served as early warnings of a crisis that has damaged millions of acres of farmland. New versions of the herbicide dicamba developed by Monsanto and BASF, according to farmers, have drifted across fields to crops unable to withstand it, a charge authorities are investigating.
As the crisis intensifies, new details provided to Reuters by independent researchers and regulators, and previously unreported testimony by a company employee, demonstrate the unusual way Monsanto introduced its product. The approach, in which Monsanto prevented key independent testing of its product, went unchallenged by the Environmental Protection Agency and nearly every state regulator.
Typically, when a company develops a new agricultural product, it commissions its own tests and shares the results and data with regulators. It also provides product samples to universities for additional scrutiny. Regulators and university researchers then work together to determine the safety of the product.
In this case, Monsanto denied requests by university researchers to study its XtendiMax with VaporGrip for volatility – a measure of its tendency to vaporize and drift across fields.
The researchers interviewed by Reuters – Jason Norsworthy at the University of Arkansas, Kevin Bradley at the University of Missouri and Aaron Hager at the University of Illinois – said Monsanto provided samples of XtendiMax before it was approved by the EPA. However, the samples came with contracts that explicitly forbade volatility testing.
“This is the first time I’m aware of any herbicide ever brought to market for which there were strict guidelines on what you could and could not do,” Norsworthy said.
Monsanto is an international agriculture company that develops products for farmers around the world. Recently, the company has come under fire for allegedly participating in a cover-up campaign to suppress a study that was critical of one of their most popular products, Roundup.
The study that Monsanto worked to retract, led by Prof GE Seralini and coined the “Seralini Study,” found that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide was causing rats to develop massive tumors, as well as serious kidney and liver damage.
New documents that have been released during an ongoing court case in San Francisco reveal that as Monsanto was working to get the damaging study retracted, the company was simultaneously trying to hide the fact that it was ever involved in the matter in the first place. Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to creating a “third party expert” campaign, where independent scientists would demand that the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, retract the study.
In one of the documents, Saltmiras brags about all of the things he has accomplished during his time with Monsanto, writing that he “Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Seralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond.”
Saltmiras goes on to say how “Throughout the late 2012 Seralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor in Chief of the publishing journal… and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal.” This is factual evidence that Monsanto did play an active role in the attempts to influence research on their Roundup weed killer product.
Another Monsanto employee by the name of Eric Sachs wrote an email regarding Bruce Chassy, a scientist who pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs says in the email that Chassy “understands the urgency” of retracting the study. In response, Chassy urged Wallace Hayes to do just that: “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process.”
It was also revealed that a writer for Forbes by the name of Henry Miller had allowed Monsanto to ghost write an article downplaying the environmental risks associated with Roundup. Conveniently, Forbes took the article down just as Monsanto admitted to the New York Times that, “Our scientists have on occasion collaborated with Dr. Miller on other pieces.”
So Monsanto could have potentially been collaborating with Forbes for years and intentionally crafting articles in a way that benefits their company and their products, even if they were lying to the public in the process.
The potential risks and dangers associated with the use of Roundup have been well documented. Last year, The Intercept published an article about a farmer by the name of John Sanders, who worked for over three decades in the orange and grapefruit groves of Redlands, California. Both he and another landscaper by the name of Frank Turner routinely used Roundup to kill invasive weeds with ease.
However, after years of being exposed to Monsanto’s weed killing product, both men developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which is a blood cancer that starts in the lymph cells before spreading to the rest of the body. Each of them filed lawsuits against Monsanto, thus marking one of the most pivotal moments in the ongoing debate over the risks of excessive Roundup use.
As a well-established international company, it goes without saying that Monsanto has a responsibility to be honest with their customers and truthful about the products made available to them. Sadly, it appears that in recent years, the company has been anything but truthful.
WikiLeaks whistleblowing website has shed a light on the “CouchPotato” project, a secret tool that the US Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) used to remotely hack into computers and steal images of users’ video streams.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — WikiLeaks announced the release of a classified user guide for “CouchPotato” in a statement on Thursday.
The document explained that the CouchPotato tool allows for a video stream to be collected either as a video file in AVI file format or as series of still images of frames from the stream in JPG format.
“[CouchPotato] utilizes ffmpeg [software] for video and image encoding and decoding as well as RTSP [The Real Time Streaming Protocol] connectivity. CouchPotato relies on being launched in an ICE v3 Fire and Collect compatible loader,” the statement overviewing the tool concluded.
The creation of the CouchPotato user guide dates back to February 14, 2014.
There’s a new kind of “privilege” in town, and if you suffer from it, you can’t help it any more than you can help your skin color or your gender. (Although, of late, gender seems to be completely open to debate and have nothing to do with biology.) If you are an intelligent person, you have “cognitive privilege” according to an op-ed in the Daily Iowan.
Well, that’s just really not fair, is it?
With all the “privileges” out there that need to be kept in check, may God help you if you are white, male, attractive, and smart. You are public enemy #1 to the social justice set, you privileged scumbag.
I’ll let the author, Dan Williams, explain cognitive privilege because I couldn’t possibly do it justice in a summary:
We now know that intelligence is not something we have significant control over but is something we are born with. We are living in a society in which success is increasingly linked to one’s intelligence. This is not to say that intelligence is the only factor that is important. All that is implied is that below a certain threshold of intelligence, there are fewer and fewer opportunities. These opportunities are being shifted upward to jobs that require heavier cognitive lifting or else are being replaced by robots. Thus, the accident of having been born smart enough to be able to be successful is a great benefit that you did absolutely nothing to earn. Consequently, you have nothing to be proud of for being smart. (source)
So, in other words, if you’re not that smart, your job may be taken by a robot, and that isn’t your fault. I assume that this will eventually lead to the assumption that if you cognitively “disabled,” the world probably owes you something. Because we’re all about “fairness” in the United States, right? RIGHT?
Furthermore, if you are smart, in the wise (cough) words of former President Obama, “You didn’t build that.” You just hit the genetic lottery and should be humbled (and perhaps a little embarrassed) as opposed to proud.
Will this be the next thing that kiboshes people who deserve it from getting a job? “We wanted to hire her, but she is smart. We have already exceeded our quota of cognitively privileged individuals, so we’ll have to go hire that dumb guy or we’ll be breaking labor laws.”
Sometimes there is so much ridiculous stuff out there that you all must just think, “She has to be making this up.” Oh, that I was so creative. Nope, this is the society in which we dwell, with one ridiculous outrage on top of another.
DISREGARD THE FACT THAT YOU COULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR LACK OF COGNITIVE PRIVILEGE.
Of course, none of this takes into account the possibilities we all have to improve our lots in life. Between libraries and the internet, opportunities abound to learn more about basically any topic you want. Perhaps you won’t end up being a neurosurgeon, but what is stopping you from being an expert on some other topic that perhaps takes a brain with common sense as opposed to book sense?
If we all devoted our time to improving ourselves, instead of watching reality television and walking around with our faces and thumbs firmly engaged with our cell phones, perhaps the “cognitive privilege” of those who do focus on learning would not provide so great a disparity amongst our opportunities.
So much of this is a choice about how we spend the hours in our days. It’s about our drive and the habits we intentionally develop.
Williams doesn’t want you to feel too guilty if you are intelligent. Just the right amount of guilt will do:
The purpose of pointing out someone’s privilege is to remind them of the infinite number of experiences that are possible and the very large number of experiences that are actual [sic] that they know very little about. The purpose is to enlarge their moral consciousness, to make them more sympathetic to people who are less fortunate than they are.
Feelings of guilt are natural when coming to consciousness of one’s place in the scheme of things — and noticing that one has been conferred benefits through sheer accident — but guilt is an impediment to social-justice action, not a motivator (guilt slides easily into resentment).(source)
Okay, isn’t that possibly the worst kind of condescension that ever existed? You know how feminists always talk about men with whom they work “mansplaining” something to them and how it infuriates them? Wouldn’t “smartsplaining” and moral sympathy be every bit as infuriating to one without “cognitive privilege?”
I don’t know about you, but if I had a “disability” the last thing in the world I would want is sympathy. Particularly if my disability was that I was stupid, I wouldn’t want the intellectual elite fawning over me superciliously.
PRIVILEGE IS JUST THE OTHER SIDE OF THE “ISM” COIN.
Words to express our affront are being made up left and right by the mere addition of “ism” to the ends of what were formerly perfectly neutral words. It seems like pundits can take basically any word and add “ism” to the end of it and that means they’re being slighted. The list of isms could go on and on, but instead of promoting more equality, all they’re doing is promoting more division. Isn’t that divisionism?
Personally, I’m affronted by the constant barrage of affronts. When did we, as a nation, become such weenies? How is it that such a collection of whiners has become the vocal majority? Certain people are constantly offended and demand the attention of others so they can express the epic level of their personal offendedness.
So vast is the recent level of Great American Butthurt that no mainstream news outlet is complete without breathlessly exposing a secret “ism” each day. These secret “isms” are called “microaggressions,” defined as “the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.”
How can our country ever again expect to be united when we are constantly divided by a never-ending series of isms and privileges? What if we just stop labeling everyone and everything and just be human beings with choices and personal responsibility for those choices?
I’m not denying that racism and sexism exist – of course, they do – but why would people spend so much time focusing on some perceived negative instead of focusing on the positive aspects of self-improvement? I’m also not denying that being an intelligent person makes it easier to succeed, but there are plenty of very bright people who can’t make a go of it.
When everything is an ism or a privilege, doesn’t that take away from the true, serious issues that exist? If everyone is so busy competing for victimhood, don’t the actual victims get drowned out in the roar? And if everyone is angry at everyone else for accusations about isms and privileges, it’s a pretty good bet folks will never be able to get along.
Success isn’t about your privileges or your lack of isms. It’s about your drive. It’s about the choices that you make.
We can get out there and make opportunities happen or we can complain about it. Guess which decision will make you more successful?
The book that some people are already calling nebulous because they doubt its veracity and validity is called “The Nebula”. Its three-page foreword is written by Wayne Madsen. The author is a former Belgian NATO AWACS command post officer and NATO Air Defense Officer. The book is published by Trine-Day.
The back cover says that the book provides “deep insights into the unseen but real forces” and “exposes a cabal which controls most of the money transfers worldwide as well as the highest political authorities.”
Donald Trump is featured in the last of four parts, particularly in chapter 19. There is an index and 22 appendices totalling fifty pages. There is a 3.5-page list of acronyms and abbreviations, a 3.5-page introduction, and a bibliography that lists 85 sources.
There is an index and 22 appendices totalling fifty pages. There is a 3.5-page list of acronyms and abbreviations, a 3.5-page introduction, and a bibliography that lists 85 sources.
On page 201, in the epilogue, Walter Baeyens says “In these days of unbridled egocentric materialism, , power and money have become the only means and measure of all thingd. How they are acquired does not matter.” In the pages preceding, he gives you a better sense of how they are acquired.
“In these days of unbridled egocentric materialism, power and money have become the only means and measure of all thing. How they are acquired does not matter.”
In the pages preceding, he gives you a better sense of how they are acquired.
The ATLAS report was triggered by serial murders, enough of them that one needs a guide and additional references to get clear on their history. One involved Andre Cools, and then there were the Brabant murders, and a range of Gladio events, and they stretched all the way back to the murder of Julien Lahaut in 1950 whose sponsor (to use Drago’s template) Baeyens alleges (page 2) also attempted to derail investigations in the late 80’s into the the Brabant kills and the child abuse cases labeled “Dossier X”. If this is beginning to sound familiar, read the book.
The kingpin, we are told on page 10, is a Grandmaster of the Jewish Lodge B’Nai B’rith, putting to rest one of the main points by the first Amazon reviewer who claims Baeyens went on an anti-Semitic binge “two-thirds” into the book. But the Israeli maffiya are mentioned on the very first page (and after you finish reading this book you can join the global discussion about the criminalization of free speech).
Weapons, money and corruption are identified early and often. There is no centering exclusively on Jewish or Israeli components of the global criminal cabal; the Vatican, Wall Street, banking, the Rothschilds, the the Russian-Jewish maffiya, the old Italian mafia, crime families, the OTO, the Federal Reserve, water and power utilities and corporations, big corporations, numerous governmental intelligence agencies, the Trilaterals, the Bilderbergers and the European Round Table all get their moments in the spotlight.
French historian Annie Lacroix-Riz and her book The Choice of Defeat make their first appearance on page 38 to point out how the German conquest of Northern France at the beginning of World War Two became “a walk in the park”. Wikipedia of course has an entry on her; many others exist on the internet but tend naturally to be in her French language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Lacroix-Riz She is accused of being a communist sympathizer, but I guess we all have to call one another something, no? In the world of Hegelian dialectic, in the end we’re either fascist or communist or dead or some combination thereof, Christianity and all major religions having been relegated to the trash heap of history, thought and choice by the eventual dictatorship that necessarily evolves under either choice. (Everyone is damned to pennilessness or some form of insignificance (if not death itself) if they fail to adhere to the dominant political centrality of the moment.)
In the world of Hegelian dialectic, in the end we’re either fascist or communist or dead or some combination thereof, Christianity and all major religions having been relegated to the trash heap of history, thought and choice by the eventual dictatorship that necessarily evolves under either choice. (Everyone is damned to pennilessness or some form of insignificance (if not death itself) if they fail to adhere to the dominant political centrality of the moment.)
The history of the French Cagoule is well-documented, says Baeyens on page 39, where he lays out an organizational structure for the Synarchist organization which keeps the thugs and the killers on the fourth level, the technocrats who rationalize their acts on the third level, the very wealthy politically-neutral businessmen who bribe their way into politics (taking turns to infilitrate all parties large and small) on the second level, with the ideologues at the top. He notes that the horrible crimes they commit remain unprosecuted decades after the fact speak to the depth of the cover-up.
On page 43, it is said that the absolute power structure and its particular instruments can order assassinations, start wars and terrors campaigns, and impose complete silence.
The Synarchist “conspiracy theory” comes in immediately, as does a wide range of Freemasonry lodges starting with P2. Freemasonry comes into focus on pages 45-54. ( Did you know that Lyman Lemnitzer was a 32nd degree Mason of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite?)
Adam Weishaupt and his “papers” get a moment with his mantra “the ends justify the means”, and the means include usury, blackmail, the subjugation of the press, the destruction of relgiion (especially Christianity), corruption, sedition, terror, violence and perversion (including pedophilia, child sacrifice et alia which, in this book, are only peripherally mentioned as a primary tool of blackmail and an element in the over-arching occultism that preaches that men, being divine, do not need their immoral acts forgiven.
Chapter Five (entitled Nazism to Gladio) discusses the roles of John J. McCloy, the Bank of International Settlements, the Grey Wolves, and socialism, which brings us back to Andre Cools. The cabal does not care about religion, politics or nationalism, but only about itself. Chapter Six is about Iran-Contra, Gerald Bull, Marc Rich, and 9/11. Chapter Eight details the role of B’nai B’rith, the Bolsheviks, Trotskyism, communism, the Federal Reserve, alcohol and prohibition. Harry Hopkins, the birth of Israel, Iran-Contra, the Harriman family, Maurice Tempelsman and, again and again, the famous Felix Przedborski.
Chapter Ten talks about waste criminality, Chapter Eleven tells the amazing story of Major Jordan’s diary, and Chapter Thirteen discusses what happened to the Belgian royals during World War Two. Chapter 14 is about the Nazi underground (treated in much greater detail in other sources) but which mentions that Skorzeny was contracted by Mossad for the killing of a German scientist in 1962, and goes on to mention the influence of the Nazi underground on the history and future of North Africa and the Middle East. This “Geozentrale” is treated in more detail in Chapter 15. We’re talking about the maintenance of the tools and the global export of Nazi modes of terror.
Latin America and Carlos Lehder come into focus in Chapter 16, along with Gehlen, Barbie, and the Belgian drugs-for-arms trade through Antwerp and, soon enough, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, AIG, Goldman Sachs and the Clintons. Part of the strategy of the Nazi movement in diaspora was the creation of the EU and its binding to the UK. The Nazi infilitration of the Stasi and the KGB are mentioned, as well as trafficking in gold, artwrok, antiques, cars, drugs, AK-47s and “visas”. Points of contact were created through the world including Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia and Africa, all with links back to Belgium. Eventually Costa Rica becomes a centerpeice in the network.
Chapter 18 brings the reader through the world of Nazism, Zionism, NATO, terrorism, homosexual practices, pedophilia, Yale, Skull and Bones. mind control, merceneries, mobs, and the rituals of the special operations military community. Kay Griggs is the tour guide.
Chapter 19 introduces The Donald and the threat of the Jewish-Marxist alliance as it teamed up with Freemasonry and Protestantism in their common goal of the abolition of Christianity. Roy Cohn’s role is detailed. The Order of Malta is mentioned, as well as many of its Knights (Gehlen, the Dulles brothers, Bill Casey, William Colby, Clay Shaw, and thrre members of the Bush family). Baron Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola makes a guest appearance on page 173, bringing into focus the theme of an order based on violence, hierarchy, caste, race, myth, religion and ritual.
Chapter Twenty notes Lenin and his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, brought into focus in the late 20th century with the reality that “the financial industry had definitely become the dominant force of global economic activity. To make a fortune, you no longer needed to start up a production plant. You simply speculated your way to riches…. Political regimes have become mere instruments of the global banking cartel. Wherever governments failt to hand over the riches of their nation, politicians are replaced by technocrats [who] “straighten out” things in favor of the banks, while the press and the media are seeing to it that the masses remain largely uninformed and constantly entertained.”
Chapter Twenty-One is about the Muslim connection, the role of Turkic studies expert Gerhard von Mende, as well as Theodor Oberlander (aptly named.., did he date Frau Lebensraum?), who “saw great opportunities in the use of Muslim extremism for the re-unification of Germany and the re-annexation of former German territories”. Of 9/11, Baeyens says “the 9/11 pictures, masterpieces of Hollywood propaganda, stunning and hypnotizing, were like a mix of cheap Godzilla movie scenes and a TV ad. Being constantly bombarded with these terrible visual imprints, the public at large, as expected, soon acknowledged two basic facts. First, this was an act of war against America. Second, that Muslim extremists did it….” Further, that the new building, the creation of architect Daniel Libeskind, “could be understood as another Holocaust memorial on US soil, dedicated to the victory of money over truth” and that, post 9/11, the “uncontested state of affairs [of Pax Americana and the US as global enforcer now under attack triggering Article V of the NATO pact] made the acquiescing European nations accomplices of the planned American criminal wars in the Middle East. Finally, Baeyens cites and quotes Max Keiser on the option purchases, ABS, Buzzy Krongard, and Deutsche Bank:
“… the noise which occurred between Baltimore, New York City and Langley was interesting, as you can imagine, to say the least.”
If that’s all too much for you, find and watch this movie:
As conflict on earth, in space, and in cyberspace becomes increasingly fast-paced and complex, the Pentagon’s Third Offset initiative is counting on artificial intelligence to help commanders, combatants, and analysts chart a course through chaos — what we’ve dubbed the War Algorithm (click here for the full series).
Conversely, AI can speak the ugly truths that human subordinates may not. “There are not many captains that are going to tell a four-star COCOM (combatant commander) ‘that idea sucks,’” Work said, “(but) the machine will say, ‘you are an idiot, there is a 99 percent probability that you are going to get your ass handed to you.’”
Before commanders will take an AI’s insights as useful, however, Work emphasized, they need to trust and understand how it works. That requires intensive “operational test and evaluation, where you convince yourself that the machines will do exactly what you expect them to, reliably and repeatedly,” he said. “This goes back to trust.”
Trust is so important, in fact, that two experts we heard from said they were willing to accept some tradeoffs in performance in order to get it: A less advanced and versatile AI, even a less capable one, is better than a brilliant machine you can’t trust.
“… it’s safe to conclude that AI will be a mandatory part of every new technology start-up within the next two years. It’s also safe to conclude that there won’t be a sector of economy untouched by AI…..”
While you spend some time coming up with your guest list, the needs for liquid refreshment, and the menu… ( bon appetit)… you can read this report on how the Empire runs its roasting and grilling procedures.
If you run in government circles or political parties that unthinkingly support this kind of thing, you can hand out copies to your guests, or send one along with your invitation.
An unprecedented report from the corporate press claims U.S. forces have participated in extreme torture and abuse of detainees accused of affiliation with Al Qaeda in Yemen — including “the ‘grill,’ in which the victim is tied to a spit like a roast and spun in a circle of fire,” the Associated Press finds.
An unprecedented report from the corporate press claims U.S. forces have participated in extreme torture and abuse of detainees accused of affiliation with Al Qaeda in Yemen — including “the ‘grill,’ in which the victim is tied to a spit like a roast and spun in a circle of fire,” the Associated Press finds.
A network of secretive prisons in southern Yemen provide the backdrop for the alleged barbaric acts allegedly carried out by forces from the U.S. and United Arab Emirates — many of those detention facilities remain hidden in plain sight.
That some of the covert prisons sit inside military bases might not be much of a shock, but others are located in ports, an airport, private villas, and even a nightclub — and all, according to the AP, remain untouchable by the embattled Yemeni government.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden weighed in on the new revelations, tweeting,
“Biggest @AP scoop in a long time: US government behind UAE torture in Yemen, with some reportedly grilled alive.”
American officials unsurprisingly balked at the accusation troops have participated in the astonishingly heinous behavior described in the AP’s report.
Reports the AP:
“Senior American defense officials acknowledged Wednesday that U.S. forces have been involved in interrogations of detainees in Yemen but denied any participation in or knowledge of human rights abuses. Interrogating detainees who have been abused could violate international law, which prohibits complicity in torture.
“The AP documented at least 18 clandestine lockups across southern Yemen run by the United Arab Emirates or by Yemeni forces created and trained by the Gulf nation, drawing on accounts from former detainees, families of prisoners, civil rights lawyers and Yemeni military officials. All are either hidden or off limits to Yemen’s government, which has been getting Emirati help in its civil war with rebels over the last two years.”
Notably, this is the first ‘official’ acknowledgment the United States participates in interrogations inside the borders of Yemen.
Forces transported some detainees to an Emirati base in Eritrea, according to Yemen Interior Minister Hussein Arab.
Unnamed and unverifiable U.S. defense officials told the Associated Press ‘senior U.S. military leaders’ have been aware of alleged torture taking place in Yemen for some time — but have investigated the charges, and apparently found nothing amiss, as U.S. troops, they claim, were never present during detainee torture.
Perhaps beyond tellingly, neither the AP nor the anonymous officials elucidated on whether the lack of U.S. troop presence during the alleged grilling alive of detainees meant senior military leaders indeed discovered forces from other nations roasting people alive and said nothing, or that the torture allegations were completely baseless.
Those defense officials further “told AP that American forces do participate in interrogations of detainees at locations in Yemen, provide questions for others to ask, and receive transcripts of interrogations from Emirati allies.”
Torture this horrific, if proven true, harkens immediately back to Bush-era implementation of barbaric human rights violations by the CIA — which included waterboarding and other acts the agency, itself, knew to be utterly inefficacious — which temporarily halted adherence to the law and all semblance of ethics under the premise of extracting information from detainees following the attacks of 9/11.
“We always adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional conduct,” chief Defense Department spokeswoman, Dana White, told the AP on perusal of its report. “We would not turn a blind eye, because we are obligated to report any violations of human rights.”
READ MORE: Secret Docs Reveal Allies Knew About Holocaust, Allowed it to Happen — For Years
In a statement, the UAE government also balked, insisting, “There are no secret detention centers and no torture of prisoners is done during interrogations.”
“The UAE was one of the countries involved in the CIA’s torture and rendition program,” reminds New York University Professor of Law Ryan Goodman. “These reports are hauntingly familiar and potentially devastating in their legal and policy implications.”
To repeat, the U.S. Department of Defense must report violations of human rights — yet the vagueness of the claim senior military brass investigated allegations of excruciating torture, but would only offer that U.S. troops had not been present. Without further explanation, that detail could indicate a troubling sin of omission — in short, a failure to report violations of human rights.
Not one of the dozens interviewed by the AP accused U.S. troops of witnessing torture, but the malicious, degrading, deplorable, torturous abuses described by former inmates of the secret prisons would seem impossible to have taken place without their cognizance.
“At one main detention complex at Riyan airport in the southern city of Mukalla, former inmates described being crammed into shipping containers smeared with feces and blindfolded for weeks on end. They said they were beaten, trussed up on the ‘grill,’ and sexually assaulted. According to a member of the Hadramawt Elite, a Yemeni security force set up by the UAE, American forces were at times only yards away. He requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.
“‘We could hear the screams,’ said a former detainee held for six months at Riyan airport. ‘The entire place is gripped by fear. Almost everyone is sick, the rest are near death. Anyone who complains heads directly to the torture chamber.’ He was flogged with wires, part of the frequent beatings inflicted by guards against all the detainees. He also said he was inside a metal shipping container when the guards lit a fire underneath to fill it with smoke.”
READ MORE: In the Wake of Brussels Attack — The US Quietly Admits to Their Own Act of Terror that Killed 42
As in the first revelations on the renewed use of the gross physical and psychological abuses comprising torture, human rights advocates admonished such practices cannot be carried out without the broad knowledge of military and intelligence officials at the scene — particularly not for the duration described.
“It would be a stretch to believe the US did not know or could not have known that there was a real risk of torture,” Amnesty International Director of Research in the Middle East, Lynn Maalouf, told the Associated Press. Amnesty called for a swift investigation by the United Nations into the torture allegations against the UAE and other possible participants or knowledgeable parties.
Torture has been championed as acceptable by the president and other U.S. officials, despite its illegality internationally — almost exclusively as a tool of the War on Terror to extract information from prisoners — but torture has been proven repeatedly to be ineffective for that very purpose.
At least 2,000 people have vanished in Yemen — their families left agonizing over their fate, tragically wondering whether a torturous interrogation took their lives.
“Wives, mothers, and daughters in the north and south of Yemen want to know whether their husbands, sons, and brothers are all right, if they are even alive,”noted Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, after issuance of a similar report on torture in Yemen by her organization, on Thursday.
“Yemen, the UAE, Houthi-Saleh forces, and any other party disappearing people should immediately inform families of where their loved ones are and release those held arbitrarily.”
It is entirely possible that this is either wartime propaganda or fake news, but that stills begs the question about the humanity of the people who run the Empire.
about the Shelley’s and their book about Victor Frankenstein,
as well as the discussion on pages 142-143 that specifically mention the work of the DSO, DARPA’s DARPA, whose mission brief is social engineering, i.e., engendering enough interest in a specific topic that a critical mass of research and researchers will accrue to allow it to come to eventual fruition.
In this article http://www.unz.com/isteve/douthat-the-cult-deficit/about cults and their role in hijacking “the prestige of science for … anti-scientific purposes in the tradition of Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, and L. Ron Hubbard”, there is a discussion about Bilkderbergers, Peter Thiel, and the Golden Age of science fiction, and “the modern cult of Scientology and the postmodern cult of transgenderism and transhumanism, as exemplified by …Martin/Martine Rothblatt, a founder of satellite radio, and now promoting his/her book Virtually Human…”
“Published in 1970, Firestone’s socialist-feminist manifesto The Dialectic of Sex demands the abolition of gender, the biological family, childhood, and toil. Firestone advocates women seizing control of reproductive technology, employing artificial wombs to separate procreation from body, and creating an egalitarian automated economy based in cybernetics. Firestone’s thought resonates with transhumanism and particularly connects through transsexual inventor and entrepreneur Martine Rothblatt’s 1994 transgender manifesto The Apartheid of Sex. Rothblatt later became a notable figure in the transhumanist movement, making an explicit connection between it and transgenderism.”
“… It doesn’t have anything to do with tolerance but indoctrination; it’s because the satanic elite who are behind so much change see androgyny as the ultimate state of being. According to occultists, only gender-neutrals can rise to godhood. The fallen angels they worship are seen as androgynous, and this is driving the modern transgender program. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to God’s word:
Genesis 5:1-2 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them …
This is a long-term goal of the elite, first openly articulated in the work of Saint-Simon (a French social philosopher and reformer) around 1813, which through his disciples led to many of the tenets of Marxism in the mid-nineteenth century. But it really came into its own as an agenda to pursue with the 1893 Parliament of World Religions at the Chicago World’s Fair. This is where the goal of a one-world religion and political system was first embraced openly by organized religion, although the work of Saint-Simon laid the groundwork for the linking of the two areas in modern theory.
On another level, there are plans to undermine traditional Judeo-Christian morality, and to destroy the family and the social structure which requires strong families. In order to bring about a new paradigm, a one-world government and pagan religious structure, it’s first necessary to do away with any sense of traditional values. Because of this, it isn’t just the transgender/gay agenda which is being thrust upon us.
But at a deeper level there’s more than just social transformation going on. This is about spiritual transformation….”
“… transhumanism is an insidious philosophy that rejects the nature of humanity and our natural limitations. By rejecting the nature of man, transhumanism also rejects the inherent dignity of every human being in the process.
In Discover Magazine, transhumanist Kyle Munkittrick laid out his “Seven Conditions for Attaining Transhumanism.” One condition is we leave the traditional ideas about humanity behind and reject being biologically human as a prerequisite for personhood. Munkittrick writes, “When African grey parrots, gorillas and dolphins have the same rights as a human toddler, a transhuman-friendly rights system will be in place.”
Another notable pitfall is that human augmentation will likely result in a world where the enhanced superhumans will rule over the un-enhanced. Those who can afford or have access to enhancements will be the elite, and those who do not or cannot be enhanced will be second-class citizens, especially in the transhumanist world, where personhood and rights are based on everything but natural biology.
Political scientist Francis Fukuyama, when discussing transhumanism as his answer to the greatest threat to humanity, believes the “first victim of transhumanism might be equality.”
Fukuyama writes, “If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind?”
Transhumanists often insist that a core value of transhumanism is freedom: freedom to choose to do to our bodies what we want. But, in reality, those who are un-enhanced will be coerced into enhancements just to keep up with the elites, a fact that even they will hint at. Kurzweil admits un-enhanced humans will be a rarity because the un-enhanced will be “unable to think fast enough to keep up.”
If these elitist ideas of using science to take the evolution of humanity into our own hands to create a “better human” sound familiar, they should. Transhumanism has its roots in the eugenics movement — the very philosophy that inspired the Holocaust in Germany.
The term “transhumanism” is attributed to Julian Huxley, president of the British Eugenics Society from 1959-1962 and brother of the famous novelist Aldous Huxley. In his 1957 piece “Transhumanism,” Huxley wrote that the human species can “transcend itself” and that when we embrace transhumanism “the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man.”
Even the logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics proudly proclaimed, “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.” ….”
“The article named “The Transhumanist and Police State Agenda in Pop Music” briefly explored the transhumanist theme of the Black Eyed Peas’ video “Imma Be/Rock that Body”. Vigilant Citizen collaborator LVB expands on this subject and describes the Psychological Warfare techniques used in this video.
The Black Eyed Peas “Imma Be / Rock that Body” video is a masterpiece of high tech computer-generated imagery and state of the art digital music production. It is also one of the most blatant examples of Psychological Warfare and deception that I have ever seen in modern mass media. This article will discuss
1) What Transhumanism actually is.
2) The massive use of Psychological Warfare techniques in this video and all forms of mass media.
3) Analysis of the video, itself – to show you how these psychological concepts, the occult and Transhumanist symbolism and the deceptive storyline are integrated in this video to promote the dangerous agenda of the cult known as Transhumanism.
Transhumanism is the name of a movement that claims to support the use of all forms of technology to improve human beings. It is far more than just a bunch of harmless and misguided techie nerds, dreaming of sci-fi movies and making robots.
It is a highly organized and well-financed movement that is extremely focused on subverting and replacing every aspect of what we are as human beings – including our physical biology, the individuality of our minds and purposes of our lives – and the replacement of all existing religious and spiritual beliefs with a new religion of their own – which is actually not new at all.
For now, let’s just start at the start.
The Elitist Creators of Transhumanism and Eugenics
“The term ‘Transhumanism‘ was coined by biologist Julian Huxley in 1957, who defined it as “man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.”
Julian Huxley was the brother of Aldous Huxley, who you may know was the author of the very famous book, “Brave New World“, which is a vision of the future that most people view as “The New World Order” (along with the book “1984“, by George Orwell) – a depressing future police-state world in which a one world government uses technology, such as surveillance cameras, psychological warfare (propaganda) and brutal military/police forces to control everyone and everything in this dystopian, fictional world.
The founders of Transhumanism, were highly educated and wealthy individuals of primarily British and European descent. These individuals were what we would call people of the elite, ruling class of society, and their views were absolutely elitist, if not outright totalitarian and fascist in nature.
One of the primary concepts of the Transhumanist agenda is “The Hive Mind”.
“Hive Mind : A type of collective consciousness where individuality is stifled; a state of conformity; also written hivemind”.
“A group of people who give the false impression of being a hivemind (1), eg. by mindlessly following orders.”
One of the early Transhumanist elites, along with Julian Huxley, was Sir Charles Galton Darwin, the grandson of Charles Darwin, who founded the theory of evolution.
So, anyway, here is one of Charles Galton Darwin’s quotes relating to the Hive Mind:
“There might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so, reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive.”
As I said previously, the founders of Transhumanism had elitist views about what humanity should be. This Human Beehive concept has been envisioned by the ruling elite class throughout history as the ideal society. The ultimate slave race, scientifically designed to conform, obey and serve the needs of the elite – worker bees who do not question or rebel.
Transhumanists envision this Hive Mind as being possible when all people across the world can link their minds together using technology, creating a symbiotic existence through the new superintelligence of this collective Hive Mind. Forget about the needs of the individual – it’s all about the Hive. They refer to this collective, superintelligence as the Singularity.
“‘Lucifer’ is the Latin term originally used by the Romans to refer to the planet Venus when that planet was west of the sun and hence rose before the sun in the morning, thereby being the morning star.”
“According to Extropian philosopher Max More, “Lucifer is the embodiment of reason, of intelligence, of critical thought. He stands against the dogma of God and all other dogmas. He stands for the exploration of new ideas and new perspectives in the pursuit of truth.” He is also the archetypal iconoclast, rebel, and adversary (the word ‘Satan’ is from a Hebrew word, ‘Sathane’, meaning adversary or culminiator; in original Jewish usage [see the book of Job], Satan is the adversary, not of God, but of mankind; i.e., the angel charged by God with the task of proving that mankind is an unworthy creation). In the transtopian context, Lucifer represents ambition, rebellion, rational enlightenment, and the dark side of Transhumanism.”
Metacommunication is a natural human communication process, which is as simple as saying, “I love you”, while you are smiling – communication on two levels. Throw in a hug and there are three levels of communicating this positive message.
All communication consists of (at least) two levels. First, there is the “content level” of what is being said, literally. Second, there is the level that Gregory Bateson calls metacommunication, which is the underlying message or tone of the communication, which can be as simple as a facial expression. We often recognize this as being the “tone” of someone’s voice, or how something is being said. So, you have what is being said, and how it is being said. The tone is actually the “command” portion of communication, because it is designed to instruct or position the receiver (or victim) of the communication to interpret the message in a certain way.
Bateson’s communications theory can help reveal the interaction operating behind the message. Every communication, he claims, has both a report [the actual message] and a command aspect [tone]. While the report conveys information about a state of affairs, the command positions the receiver to adopt a particular attitude towards the report and (leads them to) respond in a certain way. The command element of the message is a metacommunication about the context of the message – the nature of the relationship in which the information is exchanged.
Falsified Metacommunication – Mixed Signals and Deception
The point where this becomes falsified metacommunication in mass media is when they include a primary false message in an advertisement or music video, which is designed not only to sell the product, but also to influence the viewer’s attitudes and beliefs.
Daniel Lerner, who was part of the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA), called this the “Black Level” of Psychological Warfare, because it includes:
“Commissions of falsification (lies) intended to deceive the enemy“.
There are many layers of communication in movies, videos, advertising and news media that we usually don’t even realize on a conscious level, and that is what this part of the article and the BEP video are all about.
The term, falsified metacommunication, was coined by anthropologist Richard Herskowitz. It can be understood, in part, using the simple example of a con-man:
He shakes your hand, smiles at you and tells you nice things…as he steals your money.
It is a strategy of deliberately distracting you from his real purpose or goal by using friendly, charming deception. It is saying one thing, as a way of distracting the victim with deception to make them feel comfortable with the situation, in order to do another thing – to achieve the real goal, which is stealing your money.
For example, say there is a magazine ad with a very beautiful female model, but off to the side you can see the makeup artist standing there putting makeup on another model, who looks like she just woke up. They are letting you in on the joke, the artificial nature and deceptive elements of the ad. This makes you realize that you get it, you think that you understand the illusion, and that makes you feel clever, like an insider, and this feeling gives you a sense of reward and ego boost because you feel smart and cool.
This process has the typical effect of getting people to relax and let their guard down a little bit, which leaves them more open to the actual intent of what the ad is trying to do – to sell you some crap that you probably don’t need – and ideas that you may not agree with. This brings us to another tool of manipulation and control in communication, known as a double bind….”
“… The politicization of everything naturally leads to the enforcement of everything. Debates become bitter because the stakes are higher, and we cannot simply agree to disagree.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple made this point in a 2005 interview when he described political correctness as “communism writ small.”
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better,” Dalrymple said, adding:
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control…..”
Journal of Evolution and Technology – Vol. 24 Issue 2 – May 2014 – pgs 1-16
“…. 47 per cent of people surveyed in the 2007 Interests and Beliefs Survey of the Members of the World Transhumanist Association identified as “left,” though not strictly Marxist (Hughes 2008)….”
“… Proto-transhumanists such as molecular biologist J.D. Bernal and geneticist/evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane were Marxists, Bernal being a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, while Haldane was an external supporter of the Party. Riccardo Campa, chair of the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti (AIT), expresses “only conditional confidence” in the power of markets and asserts that if “market mechanisms do not deliver, we should have to consider socializing what are, from the transhumanist point of view, the key sectors” (Campa 2008)…..”
It is clear that transhumanism and Marxism have some fundamental philosophical similarities. This comparison is admittedly composed of broad strokes and the extent to which the two fields differ is not here emphasized. I hope, however, to have contributed generally to the furtherance of a dialogue between the two fields, and particularly, to the socializing of transhumanism.
“Gender-bending” chemicals mimicking the female hormone oestrogen can disrupt the development of baby boys, suggests the first evidence linking certain chemicals in everyday plastics to effects in humans.
The chemicals implicated are phthalates, which make plastics more pliable in many cosmetics, toys, baby-feeding bottles and paints and can leak into water and food.
All previous studies suggesting these chemicals blunt the influence of the male hormone testosterone on healthy development of males have been in animals. “This research highlights the need for tougher controls of gender-bending chemicals,” says Gwynne Lyons, toxics adviser to the WWF, UK. Otherwise, “wildlife and baby boys will be the losers”.
The incriminating findings came from a study of 85 baby boys born to women exposed to everyday levels of phthalates during pregnancy. It was carried out by Shanna Swan at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, New York, U.S., and colleagues.
As an index of feminisation, she measured the “anogenital distance” (AGD) between the anus and to the base of the penis. She also measured the volume of each boy’s penis. Earlier studies have shown that the AGD is twice in boys what it is in girls, mainly because in boys the hormone testosterone extends the length of the perineum separating the anus from the testicles.
In animals, AGD is reduced by phthalates – which mimic oestrogen – which keep testosterone from doing its normal job. At higher doses, animals develop more serious abnormalities such as undescended testicles and misplaced openings to the urethra on the penis – a group of symptoms called “phthalate syndrome” in animals.
When Swan’s team measured concentrations of nine phthalate metabolites in the urine of pregnant women, they found that four were linked with shorter AGD in sons born to women showing high exposure levels.
Although none of the boys developed abnormal genitals, the quarter of mothers who were exposed to the highest concentrations of phthalates were much more likely to have had boys with short AGDs compared with the quarter of mothers who had the lowest exposures to the chemicals.
And although all the boys had genitals classified as “normal”, 21% of the boys with short AGDs had incomplete testicular descent, compared with 8% of other boys. And on average, the smaller the AGD, the smaller the penis.
Swan believes that at higher exposures, boys may suffer from testicular dysgenesis syndrome – the human collection of more serious abnormalities which corresponds to “phthalate syndrome”.
“We’re not exactly seeing testicular dysgenesis syndrome, but a cluster of endpoints consistent with it,” said Swan on at an international conference on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in San Diego, U.S.
“If you see this, you’re very likely to see every other aspect of masculinisation changed too,” says Fred vom Saal, professor of reproductive biology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.
Vom Saal says this could include behavioural changes like those seen in animals, including an aversion to “rough-and-tumble” play and a reduction in aggressiveness.
Environmentalists say the results strengthen the case for a ban or restriction on some phthalates in baby toys, as has been proposed in Europe and California.
But phthalate manufacturers maintain that the chemicals have been thoroughly tested and are “safe”. They are also critical of aspects of the study. David Cadogan, director of the European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates, points out that just one urine sample was taken from each pregnant woman, which cannot rule out drastic variations in exposure over time.
Also, he says that all AGD measurements should have been taken in babies exactly the same age, not in babies ranging from three to 24 months in age as in the study. The disparity in ages meant that complicated mathematical analyses had to be applied which may have made it more difficult to distinguish genuine differences in AGD from differences accounted for by age or weight.
Swan’s results will appear in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
“There’s no greater sin in the profession” than to suggest that new technology could change the “immutable” nature of human conflict, rather than just change the tools with which it’s waged, Work acknowledged. (He wryly noted he’d waited to make this statement until “my boss, the warrior monk, happens to be out of the country”). But Work is both a classically trained Marine Corps officer and the Pentagon’s foremost advocate of artificial intelligence.
“The nature of war is all about a collision of will, fear, uncertainty, and chance, Work said, summarizing Clausewitz. “You have to ask yourself, how does fear play out in a world when a lot of the action is taking place between unmanned systems?”
Human fallibility is central to Clausewitz and to classic theories of war as far back as Sun Tzu. But if machines start making the decisions, unswayed by fear, rage, or pride, how does that change the fundamental calculus of conflict?
“Uncertainty is going to be different now,” Work went on. While he didn’t use the utopian language of millennial Revolution in Military Affairs — whose promise to “lift the fog of war” with high-tech sensors failed utterly in Afghanistan and Iraq — Work did argue that computerized decision-making aids could help commanders see with greater clarity.
“Clausewitz had a term called coup d’oeil,” Work said, essentially a great commander’s intuitive grasp of what was happening on the battlefield. It’s a quality Clausewitz and Napoleon considered innate, individual, impossible to replicate, but, Work said, “learning machines are going to give more and more commanders coup d’oeil.”
That said, uncertainty isn’t going to go away, Work said. We could guess the capabilities of a new Russian tank by watching it parade across Red Square; an adversary’s new AI will only reveal its true nature in battle. “Surprise is going to be endemic, because a lot of the advances that the other people are doing on their weapons systems, we won’t see until we fight them,” Work said, “and if they have artificial intelligence then that’s better than ours, that’s going to be a bad day.”
Introducing artificial intelligence to the battlefield could create unprecedented uncertainty. The interactions of opposing AIs could form an increasingly unpredictable feedback loop, a military application of chaos theory.
“We’ve never gotten to the point where we’ve had enough narrow AI systems working together throughout a network for us to be able to see what type of interactions we might have,” Work said. (“Narrow” AI refers to programs that can equal human intelligence for a specific purpose; “general” AI would equal human intelligence in all aspects, an achievement so far found only in sci-fi).
So what’s the solution? In part, Work said, it’s the cautious, conservative Pentagon processes widely derided as obstacles to innovation. In particular, he pointed to “operational test and evaluation, where you convince yourself that the machines will do exactly what you expect them to, reliably and repeatedly.”
One crucial restraint we want our AIs to follow, Work emphasized, is that they won’t kill a target without specific orders from a human being. “You can envision a world of general (artificial) intelligence where a weapon might make those decisions, but we certain that we do not want to pursue that at this time,” he said.
“We are not going to design weapons that decide what target to hit,” he said. That doesn’t mean a human has to pull the trigger every time: “We’re going to say when we launch you, you can hit one of these five targets, and oh by the way, here’s the priority that we want to service them in; and if you don’t find the fifth target, you don’t get to decide if you’re going to go kill something else. You will either dive into the ocean or self-destruct.”
The problem with such self-imposed restrictions, of course, is that they put you at a disadvantage against adversaries who don’t share them. If we build our military AIs until we can predict their behavior in testing, will our enemies be able to predict their behavior on the battlefield? If we require our AIs to get permission from slow-thinking humans before opening fire, will our enemies out-draw us with AIs that shoot first and ask humans later?
The Civilians Speak
“If one country restrains itself to not develop artificial general intelligence or living AI….adversaries would have an incentive to develop more complex adaptive machines that would be out of control,” because it could give them a crushing advantage, said David Hanson, CEO of Hanson Robotics. Even outside the military field, Hanson said, “many companies are aspiring to make really complex adaptive AI that may not entirely be transparent and its very value is in the fact that it’s surprising.” AI is potentially more powerful — and profitable — than any other technology precisely because it can surprise its makers, finding solutions they’d never thought of.
That’s also why it’s more dangerous. You don’t need a malevolent AI to cause problems, just a childishly single-minded AI that doesn’t realize its clever solution has an unfortunate side effect — such as, say, global extinction. Blogger Tim Urban lays out a thought experiment of an AI programmed to replicate human handwriting that wipes out humanity in order to maximize its supply of notepaper. In one experiment, Oxford University scholar Anders Sandberg told the APL conference, a prototype warehouse robot was programmed to put boxes down a chute. A surveillance camera monitored its progress so it could be turned off when appropriate — until the robot learned to block the camera so it could happily put all the boxes down the chute. It sounds like an adorable three-year-old playing, until you imagine the same thing happening with, say, missile launches.
We’re a long way away from an AI smart enough to be evil, said venture capitalist Jacob Vogelstein: “What’s much more likely to kill us all than an intelligent system that goes off and tries to plot and take over the world is some failure mode of an automated launch system (for example), not because it has some nefarious intention, just because someone screwed up the code.”
“It’s very hard to control autonomy, not because it’s wild or because it wants to be free, (but because) we’re creating these complex, adaptive technological systems,” Sandberg said. Indeed, the most powerful and popular way to make an AI currently is not to program its intelligence line-by-line, but to create a “learning machine” and feed it lots of data so it can learn from experience and trial and error, like a human infant. Unfortunately, it’s very hard with such systems to understand exactly how they learned something or why they made a certain decision, let alone to predict their future actions.
“It’s generally a matter of engineering how much risk and uncertainty are you willing to handle,” said Sandberg. “In some domains, we might say, actually it’s pretty okay to try things and fail fast and learn from experience. In other systems, especially (involving) big missiles and explosions, you might want to be very conservative.”
What if our adversaries are willing to throw those dice? Work has confidence that American ingenuity and ethics will prevail, and that American machines working together with American humans will beat AIs designed by rigid authoritarians who suppress their own people’s creative potential. But he admits there is no guarantee.
“This is a competition,” Work said. “We’ll just have to wait and see how that competition unfolds, and we’ll have to go very, very carefully.”
US President Donald Trump has launched another bitter broadside against Germany in the latest spat between the White House and Berlin, after he described her refugee policy as “catastrophic” and castigated Germany for failing to pay its way within NATO.
Ukraine and Russia are embroiled in conflict, and this time the battlefield is Twitter. The topic of argument is the heritage of a princess that died nearly a thousand years ago.
The two nations have been passive-aggressively sniping at one another with memes and gifs, an incident that has captured the amusement – and relief – of the internet. Better for nations to fight over Twitter than with guns and bombs, seems to be the common sentiment.
“Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper claimed in an interview that Russians are “almost genetically driven to” manipulate and infiltrate as an explanation for his concern about alleged Russian interference into the US presidential election and alleged ties between Trump senior advisor Jared Kushner and Russian officials.
Clapper was asked by NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd if he knew about communications between Kushner and Russian officials. “I will tell you that my dashboard warning light was clearly on and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community: very concerned about the nature of these approaches to the Russians,” Clapper replied.
“If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically, [are] driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned.”
In so many words, Clapper admitted he believed in a genetic predisposition of Russian people to lie, manipulate and misrepresent…..”