So let me repeat: The man who has been chosen to be the National Security Advisor to the president tweets dangerous, malicious, unproven conspiracy theories that have now led to a near disaster at a local family restaurant.
“An employee of the restaurant told the owner of a neighboring store, Bradley Graham, that Welch went into the kitchen of the restaurant, “presumably looking for the alleged tunnels” used to hide, torture and traffic children, the Post reports.”
In shotgun fashion, I’m throwing out a number of things for your consideration.
Back in January of 2015, J. R. Dunn had a prescient piece entitled Pedophilia And The American Future at American Thinker. Read it all, and ask yourself the question, did you know about the extent of this back in 2015? [“In imperial Rome, homosexual and heterosexual rape, carried out as an expression of male potestas (dominance) was a commonplace.]
At Medium.com, Lori Handrahan has a piece entitled State Department Dan Rosen’s Arrest: Cheat Sheet For Journos. I notice that WRSA also picked this up. The article has an almost mind boggling list of recent arrests of other government employees for pedophilia. Read the list and look at their government stations. Warning. The article is very long because the list is very long.
Well looky, looky looky here what the boys and girls at Voat have dug up. James Alfantis – he goes by other names – of Comet Ping Pong is connected as business partners with Dr. Pong, a shady Berlin dive strongly suspected of the same sort of thing.
One painter, Scot G. Brooks, is a collaborator with a photographer, Todd Franson, who took pictures for James Alfantis. Here is a discussion of some of his work, with a one linked painting involving infants that will make you sick to your stomach if you care to look at it.
Finally, to close this installment out, I mentioned to you that I had been getting some interesting visits to my web site, including Pizzagate posts. These visits keep compounding: CIA, FBI Department of Criminal Justice, U.S. Senate, State Department, and on and on the list goes.
So I’ve been asking myself the question lately, why would these folks be interested in a small to medium size blog posting about “fake news?” You know, it’s all “fake.” So if it’s all “fake,” why would so many people in such positions be so interested to stop by my place on what is becoming a regular basis?
“…. When a pedophile does act on his or her feelings or desires, they may be committing acts of child sexual abuse or molestation, child exploitation, child pornography, incest, kidnapping, statutory rape, or the prostitution of minors.
There is no definitive profile of a pedophile, as individual characteristics can vary significantly. A pedophile can be a man or a woman. Of those pedophiles that commit unlawful acts involving children, the perpetrator is much more likely to be a man (80-90 percent) than a woman (10-20 percent). A pedophile may be a trustworthy and respectable adult in the community, who shows no outward signs of their condition to others…..
Any sexual act that involves a minor and an adult is unlawful. Individuals who are below the age of consent are considered by the law to be unable to give consent to any type of sexual activity. It is commonly believed that any person who molests a child is a pedophile and that is not always true. According to research, only two to ten percent of all child molesters are pedophiles in the true definition of the word. The majority of child molesters are situational offenders whose motives and desires are different than those of a pedophile. Regardless of motive or offender characteristics (pedophile or not), any act committed by an adult or older child that is sexual in nature and involves children is an illegal felony offense.
A pedophile will typically not stop their behavior on their own, will not turn themselves in and will not take responsibility for or acknowledge their own wrongdoing. A true pedophile can be treated but not cured of their condition. A pedophile who commits any sexual act involving children can be charged with a felony crime and face years of prison time, heavy fines, and other penalties. A convicted pedophile is required to register with a sex offender registry upon release from incarceration and must do so for the rest of their lives in most cases.
A sex offender registry provides information to the public about sex offenders who live, work, or otherwise reside in their communities. This registry requirement is mandated by a federal law known as Megan’s Law which was passed in 1996. If you would like to learn more about pedophilia, please contact us to speak with an attorney.
8 U.S. Code § 2251 – Sexual exploitation of children
(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.
(b) Any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor who knowingly permits such minor to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct shall be punished as provided under subsection (e) of this section, if such parent, legal guardian, or person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.
(1) Any person who, in a circumstance described in paragraph (2), employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct outside of the United States, its territories or possessions, for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e).
(2) The circumstance referred to in paragraph (1) is that—
(A) the person intends such visual depiction to be transported to the United States, its territories or possessions, by any means, including by using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or mail; or
(B) the person transports such visual depiction to the United States, its territories or possessions, by any means, including by using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or mail.
(1) Any person who, in a circumstance described in paragraph (2), knowingly makes, prints, or publishes, or causes to be made, printed, or published, any notice or advertisement seeking or offering—
(A) to receive, exchange, buy, produce, display, distribute, or reproduce, any visual depiction, if the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual depiction is of such conduct; or
(B) participation in any act of sexually explicit conduct by or with any minor for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct;
shall be punished as provided under subsection (e).
(2) The circumstance referred to in paragraph (1) is that—
(A) such person knows or has reason to know that such notice or advertisement will be transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed; or
(B) such notice or advertisement is transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed.
(e) Any individual who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years, but if such person has one prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact involving a minor or ward, or sex trafficking of children, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 25 years nor more than 50 years, but if such person has 2 or more prior convictions under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to the sexual exploitation of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 35 years nor more than life. Any organization that violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title. Whoever, in the course of an offense under this section, engages in conduct that results in the death of a person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life.
“… Unless the Satanic Pedophile Cabal (SPC) is able to neutralize the alternative press and reestablish the lost credibility of the Controlled Major Mass Media (CMMM), they will not be able to easily hijack the newly emerging, incredibly powerful populism in America and much of the world.”
Drugs to transform individuals…and even, by implication, society.
Drug research going far beyond the usual brief descriptions of MKULTRA.
The intention is there, in the record:
A CIA document was included in the transcript of the 1977 US Senate Hearings on MKULTRA, the CIA’s mind-control program.
The document is found in Appendix C, starting on page 166. It’s simply labeled “Draft,” dated 5 May 1955(note: scroll down to #123-125 in the document).
It states: “A portion of the Research and Development Program of [CIA’s] TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:”
What followed was a list of hoped-for drugs and their uses.
First, a bit of background: MKULTRA did not end in 1962, as advertised. It was shifted over to the Agency’s Office of Research and Development.
John Marks is the author of the groundbreaking book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate, which exposed MKULTRA. Marks told me a CIA representative informed him that the continuation of MKULTRA, after 1962, was carried out with a greater degree of secrecy, and he, Marks, would never see a scrap of paper about it.
I’m printing below, the list of the 1955 intentions of the CIA regarding their own drug research. The range of those intentions is stunning.
Some of my comments gleaned from studying the list:
The CIA wanted to find substances which would “promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness.” Serious consideration should be given to the idea that psychiatric medications, food additives, herbicides, and industrial chemicals (like fluorides) would eventually satisfy that requirement.
The CIA wanted to find chemicals that “would produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way.” This suggests many possibilities—among them the use of drugs to fabricate diseases and thereby give the false impression of germ-caused epidemics.
The CIA wanted to find drugs that would “produce amnesia.” Ideal for discrediting whistleblowers, dissidents, certain political candidates, and other investigators. (Scopolamine, for example.)
The CIA wanted to discover drugs which would produce “paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.” A way to make people decline in health as if from diseases.
The CIA wanted to develop drugs that would “alter personality structure” and thus induce a person’s dependence on another person. How about dependence in general? For instance, dependence on institutions, governments?
The CIA wanted to discover chemicals that would “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men.” Sounds like a general description of the devolution of society.
As you read the list yourself, you’ll see more implications/possibilities.
Here, from 1955, are the types of drugs the MKULTRA men at the CIA were looking for. The following statements are direct CIA quotes:
A portion of the Research and Development Program of TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:
1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
3. Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
6. Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.
7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.
8. Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
11. Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.
12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.
At the end of this 1955 CIA document, the author [unnamed] makes these remarks: “In practice, it has been possible to use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this [research] work. However, that part which involves human testing at effective dose levels presents security problems which cannot be handled by the ordinary contactors.
“The proposed [human testing] facility [deletion] offers a unique opportunity for the secure handling of such clinical testing in addition to the many advantages outlined in the project proposal. The security problems mentioned above are eliminated by the fact that the responsibility for the testing will rest completely upon the physician and the hospital. [one line deleted] will allow [CIA] TSS/CD personnel to supervise the work very closely to make sure that all tests are conducted according to the recognized practices and embody adequate safeguards.”
In other words, this was to be ultra-secret. No outside contractors at universities for the core of the experiments, which by the way could be carried forward for decades.
A secret in-house facility.
Over the years, more facilities could be created.
If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda. Speed-type chemicals to addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD. Anti-psychotic drugs, AKA “major tranquilizers,” to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage. And of course, the SSRI antidepressants, like Prozac and Paxil and Zoloft, which produce extreme and debilitating highs and lows—and also push people over the edge into committing violence.
These drugs drag the whole society down into lower and lower levels of consciousness and action.
If that’s the goal of a very powerful and clandestine government agency…it’s succeeding.
In a long footnote to Book Two, Chapter Four of A Terrible Mistake, H. P. Albarelli, Trine-Day, 2009, which is found on pages 792-793, Albarelli notes:
“Readers familiar with Freemasonry will recognize that many of these esoteric subjects are related to that secret society. Some readers may also know that many of the CIA’s subcontractors under MKUKTRA and ARTICHOKE, as well as other programs, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, were Masons, some of the 33rd degree. For decades there have been rampant speculations about Freemasonry and MKULTRA. Nowhere is this best witnessed them on the Internet. Some of the speculation is been fueled by the documented activities of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry as related to behavior modification programs. The possible connections are intriguing but not a primary subject for this book. When this book was close to completion, in yet another another of numerous coincidences that occurred over the course of his writing, author Peter Levenda had just completed a book on Freemasons and America. I asked Peter about the CIA’s pursuits of such matters, and he said: “CIA’s interest in matters esoteric was prompted by several concerns. In the 1st place, esoteric organizations–secret societies, cults, etc.–run parallel to intelligence agencies in terms of the culture of secrecy and deception. A secret society operates below the radar of social and governmental oversight and control; their membership lists are secret; their members use pseudonyms; and they believe that they have secret power to control the outcome of world events. Members of secret societies are often intelligent, are familiar with foreign languages and cultures, and travel incognito across national borders. Thus, purely as a security matter, CIA would be interested in those groups and would be tempted to infiltrate them, or otherwise keep an eye on them. The SS and Gestapo did the same in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, when it was understood that secret societies–like the Masons, but also the Golden Dawn and other groups–provided a covert network of potential anti-government operatives that had to be suppressed. In the 2nd place, the very arcane pursuits of the secret societies hinted at avenues of knowledge, power and control there were not available to the government. CIA would have wanted to know is how cults were so successful in “brainwashing” their members, convincing them of the truth of the most unbelievable ideas and concepts. Was the Korean War era method of brainwashing captured American soldiers equivalent to the approach used by cults and occult groups on their own members? What was the effect of these methods on memory, perception, volition? Did the cults know something about the functioning of the human brain that the government scientist did not?
Thirdly, the interest of CIA in such matters paralleled that of the Nazis and their SS-Ahneherbe. Himmler’s desire to find ancient artifacts–including the holy Grail, the Ark of the covenant, etc.–was motivated not by a sincere religious sentiment but by the naked pursuit of the power they represent. This is an astonishing development, for it indicates that somewhere within the CIA’s labyrinthine bureaucracy there were (and are) individuals who were able to get funding to search the world for these artifacts. For instance, Robert K Temple in the new preface to his much acclaimed The Sirius Mystery tells of how CIA approached him as he was researching the religion of the African Dogon tribe. What possible reason could CIA have for keeping tabs on such an arcane, academic study involving ancient astronomy? If we realize that such practices as remote viewing, hallucinogenic drug research, and the investigation of cults, ESP, if hypnosis and other factors were taking place all at the same time within America’s intelligence establishment–involving not only the CIA but also the Army and the Navy–then we are forced to consider that CIA had a reason for all of this that transcends mere curiosity. It was the era of the weaponization of esoterica, something that had not been seen in the Western world since the Middle Ages.”
“Major Abramson, assisted by 1st Lt. Frank Olson and several other Edgewood scientists, began his search for the proper aerosol using a solution of sodium hypochlorite. Also assisting was in Dr. Vernon Bryson of the Long Island Biological Association. Still operational today, the Association is a private research group founded by 1924 by number of wealthy entrepreneurs, including J.P. Morgan and William K Vanderbilt. The group has organizational ties to the controversial eugenics research conducted by Charles Davenport’s Cold Spring Harbor Department of Eugenics. During World War II, Vannevar Bush, head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, strongly supported the association’s work.” [Page 40]
“In response [to Pres. Roosevelt’s increasing concern over mounting intelligence reports about the Axis powers stockpiling poison gas], the War Department created a War Research Service (WRS), and installed George Wilhelm Merck as its director. Merck was a natural for the job, as he was already a high-ranking consultant of the war Department on biological warfare. He was also head of Merck and Company, one of the oldest and largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. The firm had its beginnings in the late 1600s in Germany as the E. Merck chemical factory. In 1891, George Merck, George Wilhelm’s father, left Germany to establish Merck and Company in New York City. His son, George Wilhelm Merck, born in West Orange, New Jersey and a Harvard graduate, assumed control had assumed control of the company in 1925. The younger Merck dynamically guided the company to become the largest full-line producer and distributor of pharmaceuticals in the world. Merck and Company has since been responsible for countless innovations in the drug industry, including many in the controversial areas of enthnogenic products and shamanic inebriants.
In 1914, Merck’s German operation was the first company worldwide to synthesize and patent methylene dioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA. As readers shall see, MDMA, a semisynthetic psychoactive drug properly known today as Ecstasy, was tested in the early 1950s under the codename EA–1475 at the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal….” [Page 42]
“George W Merck, however, was no neophyte in biological warfare. Previously, he had served as a high-ranking consultant to a top-secret group called the WBC committee. The WBC committee had been formed in the fall of 1941, two months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Secretary of War Henry L Stimson asked Frank B Jewett [whose dad was a Mason and is a cousin from the other branch ten generations removed], president of the National Academy of Sciences, to appoint a working group to make a complete survey of the biological warfare capacities of other nations. Wrote Stimson to Jewett, “because of the danger that might confront this country from potential enemies employing what may be broadly described as biological weapons, it seems advisable that investigations be initiated to survey the present situation and the future possibilities.”
Julie turned to his good friend Dr. Edwin B Fred at the University of Wisconsin to identify who would be best for the group. Fred picked Merck; Dr. Ira Baldwin; Thomas Bourne Turner, chair of the department bacteriology at Johns Hopkins University; Thomas Rivers, director of the Rockefeller Hospital in New York; William Hay Taliaferro at the University of Chicago; and Louis O Kunkel of the Rockefeller Institute. Merck chaired the group, which was named the War Bureau of Consultants, or, as it was commonly referred to, the WBC committee. Acting as military liaison to the committee were major Arvo Thompson and Lieut. Col. James A. Defendorf from Edgewood Arsenal.
Starkly illustrating the enemy dangers that preoccupied the Secretary of War were series of incidents that had occurred 2 years earlier in New York. The 1st incident occurred on February 3, 1939. Dr. Ryoichi Naito, an assistant to Dr. Shiro Ishii–head of Japan’s secret germ warfare program–visited the Manhattan offices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and asked for samples of the yellow fever virus strain stored there for use in vaccinations. The Institute refused the request, but Dr. Knight told repeatedly returned, harassing Rockefeller Institute scientists with questions about the virus.
During one of Naito’s uninvited visits, scientists were stunned to hear him brag that he had recently spent 18 months at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. At the time, the Koch Institute, a renowned research facility, was a hub for Nazi biological research.” [Page 43]
“On April 10, 1953, just 3 days before he approved MK-ULTRA, Allen Dulles made a major policy speech in Hot Springs, Virginia to the National Alumni Conference of Princeton University … Dulles focused exclusively on what he termed “Brain Warfare”,” or the “battle for men’s minds” provoked by “the international tensions” called the Cold War. Said Dulles… :
“ The human mind is the most delicate of all instruments. It is so finely adjusted, so susceptible to the impact of outside influences, that it is proving a valuable tool in the hands of the sinister men. The Soviets are now using brain perversion techniques as one of their main weapons in prosecuting the Cold War. Some of these techniques are so subtle and so a bar and to our way of life that we have recoiled from facing up to them.”
Dulles went on and politically recited a long litany of evil Soviet practices, including the domination of huge landmasses and populations, using “powerful jamming equipment” to “eliminate the reception of foreign radio messages,” a “government approved” media, persecution of and mass purges of racial minority groups, religious intolerance, and a concentrated program of “brain-conditioning” directed at turning human beings “into humble confessors of crimes they never committed or [to] make them the mouthpiece for Soviet propaganda.” Dulles seemed most concerned with “brain-conditioning” and Soviet efforts to develop “new techniques” that employed Russian “science and ingenuity” in the “study of mental reactions and in the nefarious art of breaking down the human mind.”
Most alarming, Bellows declared, was that the Communists were now applying brainwashing techniques “to American prisoners in Korea.” It “was not beyond the range of possibility,” he warned, “that considerable numbers of our own boys there might be so indoctrinated as to be induced, temporarily at least, to renounce country and family.” The United States would do all possible to combat communist oppression, Dulles said, but it was “handicapped” in doing so because there were “few survivors” of Soviet brainwashing, and “we have no human guinea pigs ourselves on which to try out these extraordinary techniques.”
One can only imagine how uncomfortable it might have been from Dulles to be questioned about having “no guinea pigs” in light of the fact that CIA programs he had approved 2 months earlier were aggressively experimenting on human beings with an array of mind control and behavior modification techniques far surpassing anything the Soviets were accused of.” [Pages 136-137]
“By early summer 1951, Project BLUEBIRD administrators had further refined their interrogation research to focus exclusively on “special interrogation and hypnotism techniques” applied to “war and specific agency problems.” The problems were listed with startling specificity:
Can we ‘condition’, by posthypnotic suggestion, Agency employees (or persons of interest to this Agency) to prevent them from giving information to any unauthorized source or for committing any act on behalf of a foreign or domestic enemy?
Can we, in the matter of an hour, 2 hours, one day, etc., induce a hypnotized condition in the unwilling subject to such an extent that he will perform an act for our benefit?
Could we seize a subject and in the space of an hour to by posthypnotic control have him crash an airplane, record train, etc.?
Can we [long and short range] through posthypnotic control induces a subject to commit violence against another individual, or induces subject to murder another individual or group of individuals?
Can we through posthypnotic control create a condition whereby a subject would forget any such induced act after the subject is brought out of his “conditioned” state? [Pages 223-224, A Terrible Mistake, H. P. Albarelli, Trine-Day, 2009.]
“Surviving minutes from nearly a dozen ARTICHOKE committee meetings so that the committees work mostly focused on ARTICHOKE team recruitment and project enhancement, and that the committee functioned in a routine in congenial fashion. However, not everything was always peachy keen with the group. A handwritten note by one CIA official on the committee reveals what might have been strong dissent among committee members. That dissent could just as easily have been expressed again some of today’s “war on terror” practices. The note reads:
“What in God’s name are we proposing here? Does it not strike anyone but a few that these projects may be immoral and unethical, and that they may fly in the face of international laws? What really are we attempting to accomplish? Where does respect for life and human dignity come into play?”
The unidentified rider was reacting to a proposal concerning “the possibilities of inducing subjects to go against their will and personal beliefs and commits acts such as murder.” Another note, scribbled by someone with the initials “JG” on a proposal drafted months later, reads: “Where does this stuff end? The sheer madness of some of these ideas is getting difficult to swallow.”
ARTICHOKE conference meetings regularly delved into consideration of immoral practices. At one of its earlier meetings, in December 1951, the six-member group discussed at length how to use a “standard electric shock machine” to produce “normal shock effects” including convulsions and eventually amnesia, “following a series of shock treatments.” An unnamed college professor, who was also identified as a psychiatrist, appeared before the conference and explained that through the use of Reiter electric-shock machines he “could guarantee amnesia for certain periods of time and particularly he could guarantee amnesia from any knowledge of use of the convulsive shock.” According to conference minutes, the professor explained that electric shock machines set up producing “lower current type of shock” would have the “effective making a man talk.” [Pages 230-231]
“… It is suspected that Goodenow may have consulted with the CIA and Mulholland to help devise a special pinprick type device to be used to covertly induced diseases in targeted individuals.” [Page 258]
“White was sent to Camp X not only to be trained, but also to become a trainer himself, which he did when he was assigned in 1942 as branch chief of schools and training for the OSS counterespionage division in Washington DC. Subsequently, he became deputy chief of counterespionage, or X2, as it was commonly called. In his trainer role, White rotated among several secret sites, including area B3, a 9,000 acre center hidden away in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountain Park, a few miles from today’s Camp David presidential retreat. Another secret training site was known as area A2, a 5,000 acre wooded site near Quantico Virginia. “The Farm,” located 40 miles from Washington DC, was a 3rd site. White’s own training continued, as well. In May 1942, together with Garland Williams and Philip Strong, White took a brief break from his trainers position to attend a six-week advance commando and parachute school in Virginia.
Among White’ first OSS students were several novice officers who would later become top CIA officials: Richard Helms, Frank Wisner Jr, James Jesus Angleton, Lyman B Kirkpatrick Junior, Thomas Karmessines, and William Colby. Several other notable students were anthropologists Carleton S Coon and Gregory Bateson, psychologist Dr. James A. Hamilton, future Federal Narcotics agent Howard Chappell, and Alfred M. Hubbard, an elusive and fascinating figure who arrived at OSS’s Area B fresh from a stint in prison. Hubbard, as readers already know, would later become “the Johnny Appleseed of LSD.” Michael Burke, who would also become a CIA employee and then a high-profile executive who ran the New York Yankees in Madison Square Garden, was another of White’s trainees in Maryland…..”
“ Dr. Henry Murray, OSS psychological warfare chief who later conducted secret CIA-funded experiments at Harvard in the 1950s, observed:
“The whole nature of the functions of OSS were particularly inviting to psychopathic characters; it involves sensation, intrigue, the idea being a mysterious man with secret knowledge.”
It was not long before George White’s training skills were demanded that other newer locations. The OSS training complex soon expanded to several other additional locations in Maryland, including one that bordered Edgewood Arsenal, and another in Garrett County, just a few miles away from Deep Creek Lake. There were others, including a converted estate in Fairfax Virginia, and a West Coast commando center in San Clemente, California. In addition, several urban centers or “finishing schools” were established in New York City at 630 Fifth Avenue and 55 W. 42nd St., with an adjunct branch on Long Island. Other “finishing schools,” were operated in San Francisco and in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles. These schools focus primarily on imparting the skills of “urban terrorism,” “partisan recruitment,” and counterintelligence techniques. Here it is interesting to note , the OSS’s location at 635th Ave. was the international building and Rockefeller Center, which also served at that time is the headquarters of British intelligence in the United States.
Kermit Roosevelt, OSS chief historian, reveals in his declassified war report of the OSS, that all OSS training “stressed from the beginning the importance of maintaining cover.” Students at all its schools “were forbidden to disclose their real identities and lived under assumed names. At the same time, they were instructed to attempt to pierce the cover of their fellow students.” Roosevelt explains:
“Intensive interrogation exercises of various types were carried on in attempts to force the student to break is assumed identity. In each of these the student was made familiar with the various techniques of interrogation and the importance of the most minute detail was stressed. The entire atmosphere at all training establishments was designed to prepare the trainees psychologically for the fact that the life of an agent is a constant and continuing gamble with detection.”
In the same report, Roosevelt explained the basic concept of “compartmentalization” in intelligence matters, which he dubbed the “principle of insulation,” as well as the need for, and functions of, “safe houses.”
In his position as OSS training chief, Col. White demonstrated a pronounced flair for innovation. He designed several challenging field exercises that required individual students to develop their own cover stories, secure “appropriate cover credentials,” and then attempt to penetrate a highly secured industrial establishment in one of the 4 selected cities, Chicago, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia. White’s field exercises, in addition to providing training, served the added function of pointing up serious security weaknesses in the nation’s defense plants.” [Pages 399-400]
My creeping paranoia tells me that Google saw to it that my e-mails were never delivered; my more realistic sense tells me that the recipients have been busy and pre-occupied with work, health, life and their own priorities, or perhaps that they were not quite ready to take on an entrenched authority that quite obviously has no problem killing people. I understand; such courage is difficult to summon.
I envisioned (fantasized about) some means of communicating across time and distance with an online meeting, symposium or teleconference that was devoted to strengthening the alternative media. (There are lots of technologies, including our own inherent ability to project thought to other people located far away.)
There are probably several sub-sets of “breakouts” in some form of larger “meeting” that involve teaching and learning discernment, or how to tell “crap” from 18-karat fact and insight, or how to determine the validity, veracity and verifiability of information and sources.
My own “crap detector” (as Hemingway called it) has been through a great deal on the last fifteen years and is probably due for some “detailing” and re-buffing. But I’ve assembled and posted files on information warfare and a lot of related topics. I’m a grizzle (or maybe grisly) veteran with scars, stripes, and a commendation or two.
I mused about a group process that would not get bogged down, as so many do and have, in inertia, minutiae, interference or apathy, or become vulnerable to destruction from inside or outside.
What I dreamt about(and be careful, for last night I dreamt about forgetting to go to an important job interview, though I’ve been disabled/retired for almost a decade) was the crossroads of investigative journalism, reality, high perception or awareness, and rhizomatic progression.
develop a multi-media library that would teach about known methods of dissimulation, propaganda, information warfare, mind control, et al.;
build a toolchest that would enable individuals, groups and organizations to learn about methods used in legal research, archival research, and investigative journalism;
create a living database of media outlets that was fed by a cloud of information about their validity, authenticity, transparency and accountability.
I envisioned a process by which more and more people could get together to talk about and learn informational technologies, cybersecurity, media production skills, new methods for information dissemination (ex.: live-streaming), etc.
I envisoned a gathering that featured guest appearances by people like Wayne Madsen, Jon Rappaport, Kris Millegan, Joachim Hagopian, Wendy Painting (lonewolf research), and others. A list needs to be built of who has this kind of expertise so we can tap it, reward it, and replicate it. You can start by doing a search for tools for journalistic verification, and finding organizations devoted to the development of investigative journalists.
I envisioned a process and an organization that would direct, nurture and nourish this on an ongoing basis.
We could call it the society of truth horticulture; it’s a form of landscape gardening.
“… These top notch open source web conferencing software tools are proof that you don’t need to pay a bundle to get the features and functions you need. Due to the fact that they are free, you can take the opportunity to try out a few and choose the best match for your eLearning team. Keep in mind that free does not always mean better, however. If you discover that the learning curve is just too steep for your eLearning team or online users, you may want to consider going with another tool that offers the features you need combined with a user-friendly interface, even if that means sacrificing some more advanced functions. ….
Want to get more information about the various video conferencing fee structures to choose from? Read the article The Insider’s Guide To Video Conferencing Pricing Models to learn about the most common pricing models that you should keep in mind when choosing your next virtual meeting tool.”
The getting ofreal news — the sort one can learn from minstrels (and perhaps from teleconferencing) — is not a mechanical act so much as a social process, and the social precondition for it is community.
A global conference of senior military and intelligence officials taking place in London this week reveals how governments increasingly view social media as “a new front in warfare” and a tool for the Armed Forces. The overriding theme of the event is the need to exploit social media as a source of intelligence on civilian populations and enemies; as well as a propaganda medium to influence public opinion.
The establishment media is dying. This is not a biased view coming from “alternative media,” it is a fact borne out by metrics and opinion polls from within the establishment itself. It was true before the recent election, and is guaranteed to accelerate after their shameless defense of non-reality which refused to accept any discontent among the American population with standard politics. Now, with egg on their face after the botched election coverage, and a wobbling uncertainty about how they can maintain multiple threads of a narrative so fundamentally disproven, they appear to be resorting to their nuclear option: a full shut down of dissent. Voices within independent media have been chronicling the signposts toward full-on censorship as sites have encountered everything from excessive copyright infringement accusations, to de-monetization, to the open admission by advertising giants that certain images would not be tolerated. [Source: ACTIVIST POST ]
The discredited mainstream media who have spread propaganda and lies causing the needless death and suffering of millions are now arrogantly trying to censor the alternative media who are working to expose their lies and save lives.
History has proven that the corporate/state media is the truly dangerous and deceptive “news”.
The irony is that alternative news sites would never have become popular if the mainstream media had not failed humanity by lying to us from Vietnam to Iraq.
They have the blood of millions on their hands and are panicking at the thought of brave whistleblowers and real investigative journalists exposing their crimes.
Of course there are fake stories in alternative media. It takes very little discernment to debunk these obvious frauds.
It’s like getting an email from a Nigerian prince who promises you millions. It does not take a genius to figure out it’s a scam.
We don’t need truth police censoring information the establishment does not like.
We need an honest fourth ward to speak truth to power, but they had their chance and blew it.
Now it’s our turn.
The age of the citizen journalist is here.
The age of the dinosaur media is done, and thank God for it.
“… who gets to decide what is real and what is not real? And – in an age when all sides propagate propaganda – when does conformity in support of a mainstream “truth” become censorship of reasonable skepticism?
As a journalist for more than four decades, I take seriously the profession’s responsibility to verify information as much as possible before publishing it – and as editor of Consortiumnews.com, I insist that our writers (and to the extent possible, outside commenters) back up what they say.
I personally hate “conspiracy theories” in which people speculate about a topic without real evidence and often in defiance of actual evidence. I believe in traditional journalistic standards of cross-checking data and applying common sense.
So, I am surely no fan of Internet hoaxes and baseless accusations. Yet, I also recognize that mainstream U.S. news outlets have made horrendous and wholesale factual errors, too, such as reporting in 2002-03 that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program (The New York Times) and was hiding stockpiles of WMD (many TV and print outlets, including The Washington Post).
And, mainstream outlets getting such life-and-death stories wrong was not just a one-off affair around the Iraq invasion. At least since the 1980s, The New York Times has misreported or glossed over many international issues that put the United States and its allies in a negative light.
The Times lagged badly, too, on investigating the secret operations that became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. The Times’ gullibility in the face of official denials was an obstacle for those of us digging into that constitutional crisis and other abuses by the Reagan administration. [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “New York Times: Apologist for Power.”]
In that same era, The Washington Post performed no better. Leonard Downie, its executive editor at the time of the Contra-cocaine scandal, has continued to reject the reality of Ronald Reagan’s beloved Contras trafficking in cocaine despite the 1998 findings of CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz that, in fact, many Contras were neck-deep in the cocaine trade and the Reagan administration covered up their criminality for geopolitical reasons.
So, who are the “responsible” journalists who should be anointed to regulate what the world’s public gets to see and hear? For that Orwellian task, a kind of Ministry of Truth has been set up by Google, called the First Draft Coalition, which touts itself as a collection of 30 major news and technology companies, including the Times and Post, tackling “fake news” and creating a platform to decide which stories are questionable and which ones aren’t.
Formed in June 2015 and funded by Google News Lab, the First Draft Coalition’s founding members included Bellingcat, an online “citizen journalism” site that has gotten many of its highest profile stories wrong and is now associated with NATO’s favorite think tank, the Atlantic Council.
Despite Bellingcat’s checkered record and its conflicts of interest through the Atlantic Council, major Western news outlets, including the Times and Post, have embraced Bellingcat, apparently because its articles always seem to mesh neatly with U.S. and European propaganda on Syria and Ukraine.
If such a Ministry of Truth had existed in the mid-1980s, it might well have denounced the investigative reporting on the Contra-cocaine scandal since that was initially deemed untrue. And if “Minitrue” were around in 2002-03, it almost surely would have decried the handful of people who were warning against the “group think” on Iraq’s WMD.
Power and Reality
While it’s undeniable that some false or dubious stories get pushed during the heat of a political campaign and in wartime – and journalists have a role in fact-checking as best they can – there is potentially a greater danger when media insiders arrogate to themselves the power to dismiss contrary evidence as unacceptable, especially given their own history of publishing stories that turned out to be dubious if not entirely false.
It’s even more dangerous when these self-appointed arbiters of truth combine forces with powerful Internet search engines and social media companies to essentially silence dissenting opinions and contrary facts by making them very difficult for the public to locate.
Arguably even worse is when politicians – whether President-elect Donald Trump or Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan or President Obama – get into the business of judging what is true and what is false.
On Thursday, an impassioned President Obama voiced his annoyance with “fake news” twice in his joint news conference in Berlin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel — “because in an age where there’s so much active misinformation and it’s packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. … If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect.”
Let that phrase sink in for a moment: “We won’t know what to protect”? Is President Obama suggesting that it is the U.S. government’s role to “protect” certain information and, by implication, leave contrary information “unprotected,” i.e. open to censorship?
On Friday, a New York Times front-page article took Facebook to task, in particular, writing: “for years, the social network did little to clamp down on the false news.”
The Times added, in a complimentary way, “Now Facebook, Google and others have begun to take steps to curb the trend, but some outside the United States say the move is too late.”
This new alarm about “fake news” comes amid the U.S. government’s “information war” against Russia regarding the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts. Obama’s State Department insists that it is presenting the truth about these conflicts while Russia’s RT channel is a fount of disinformation. Yet, the State Department’s propaganda officials have frequently made false or unsupported claims themselves.
On Wednesday, there was the unseemly scene of State Department spokesman John Kirby refusing to answer reasonable questions from a Russian journalist affiliated with RT.
The RT journalist asked Kirby to identify the hospitals and clinics in Syria that he was claiming had been hit by Russian and Syrian airstrikes. You might assume that a truth-teller would have welcomed the opportunity to provide more details that could then be checked and verified.
But instead Kirby berated the RT journalist and tried to turn the rest of the State Department press corps against her.
QUESTION: Don’t you think it is important to give a specific list of hospitals that you’re accusing Russia of hitting? Those are grave accusations.
KIRBY: I’m not making those accusations. I’m telling you we’ve seen reports from credible aid organizations that five hospitals and a clinic —
QUESTION: Which hospital —
KIRBY: At least one clinic —
QUESTION: In what cities at least?
KIRBY: You can go look at the information that many of the Syrian relief agencies are putting out there publicly. We’re getting our information from them too. These reports —
QUESTION: But you are citing those reports without giving any specifics.
KIRBY: Because we believe these agencies are credible and because we have other sources of information that back up what we’re seeing from some of these reports. And you know what? Why don’t [you] ask … Here’s a good question. Why don’t you ask your defense ministry … what they’re doing and see if you can get…”
QUESTION: If you give a specific list —
KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
QUESTION: If you give a specific list of hospitals —
KIRBY: No, no, no.
QUESTION: My colleagues who are listening hopefully would be able to go and ask Russian officials about a specific list of hospitals that you’re accusing Russia of …”
KIRBY: You work for Russia Today, right? Isn’t that your agency?
QUESTION: That is correct. Yes.
KIRBY: And so why shouldn’t you ask your government the same kinds of questions that you’re standing here asking me? Ask them about their military activities. Get them to tell you what they’re – or to deny what they’re doing.
QUESTION: When I ask for specifics, it seems your response is why are you here? Well, you are leveling that accusation.
KIRBY: No, ma’am.
QUESTION: And if you give specifics, my colleagues would be able to ask Russian officials.
As Kirby continued to berate the RT journalist and stonewall her request for specifics, an American reporter intervened and objected to Kirby’s use of the phrase “‘your defense minister’ and things like that. I mean, she’s a journalist just like the rest of are, so it’s – she’s asking pointed questions, but they’re not …”
Kirby then insisted that since RT was “a state-owned” outlet that its journalists should not be put “on the same level with the rest of you who are representing independent media outlets.” (But the reality is that Voice of America, BBC and many other Western outlets are financed by governments or have ideological benefactors.)
Kirby’s hostility toward legitimate questions being raised about U.S. or U.S.-allied assertions has become typical of Obama’s State Department, which doesn’t seem to want any challenges to its presentation of reality.
For instance, during the early phase of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry called RT a “propaganda bullhorn” and Richard Stengel, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, issued a “DipNote” saying RT should be ostracized as a source of disinformation.
But Stengel’s complaint revealed a stunning ignorance about the circumstances surrounding the February 2014 putsch that overthrew Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
For instance, Stengel cited RT’s “ludicrous assertion” about the U.S. investing $5 billion to promote “regime change” in Ukraine. Stengel apparently wasn’t aware that Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland had cited the $5 billion figure in support of Ukraine’s “European aspirations” during a public speech to U.S. and Ukrainian business leaders on Dec. 13, 2013.
At the time, Nuland was a leading proponent of “regime change” in Ukraine, personally cheering on the Maidan demonstrators and even passing out cookies. In an intercepted, obscenity-laced phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland said her choice to lead Ukraine was Arseniy “Yats is the guy” Yatsenyuk, who ended up as Prime Minister after the coup.
So, was Stengel a purveyor of “fake news” when he was accusing RT of disseminating fake news or was he just assembling some propaganda points for his underlings to repeat to a gullible Western news media? Or was he just ill-informed?
Both democracy and journalism can be messy businesses – and credibility is something that must be earned over time by building a reputation for reliability. There is no “gold seal” from the Establishment that makes you trustworthy.
It’s simply important to do one’s best to inform the American people and the world’s public as accurately as possible. Awarding trust is best left to individual readers who must be the ultimate judges of what’s real and what’s fake.”
By Robert Parry, the investigative reporter who many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. Originally published at Parry’s Consortium News (republished with permission).
Emergent Complexity and the Role Attributes of Media
CUNY Brooklyn College, Montclair State University, and Evolutionary Media
Presented at the Spring, 2005 Meeting of the International Communication Association
This paper explores the “roles in media” as a consequence of the processes of structuration. It treats the generic roles that people play in enabling the smooth operation of a medium as generically useful solutions that solve recurrent problems across a variety of media. The processes of structuration are explored through the development of a typology, based on a dataset that codes 18 generic roles across 167 distinct media. Seven distinct role-based clusters of media are identified within a two dimensional solution. When the clusters are viewed as endpoints within these dimensions, several emergent solutions to role complexity in media are observed, each of which appears to be a consequence of a different kind of complexity. One of these solutions appears to parallel the hierarchical subassemblies suggested by Simon (1969) as the single emergent solution to complexity. The other emergent solutions to role complexity, serial complexity and floor contention, appear entail very different role profiles. Four research questions are satisfied by the results. The typology successfully groups structurally similar media. The structures reflect general solutions to problems that are encountered in the operation of media. A fundamental set of problems, different kinds of complexity, engenders the solutions. Finally, the typology is found to have practical value in its suggestion that that while technology may enable the convergence of user interface devices for very different media, role structures may make it difficult to merge companies that manage different kinds of media.
Julian Assange cautioned all of us a while back, in the vein of revelations similar to those provided by Edward Snowden, that Google — the insidious search engine with a reputation for powering humanity’s research — plays the dark hand role in furthering U.S. imperialism and foreign policy agendas. Now, as the Wikileaks founder faces days of questioning by a Swedish special prosecutor over rape allegations inside his Ecuadorian Embassy haven in London today — and particularly in wake of the presidential election — Assange’s warning Google “is not what it seems” must be revisited.
Under intense scrutiny by the U.S. State Department for several controversial Wikileaks’ publications of leaked documents in 2011, Assange first met Google Executive Chairman, then-CEO, Eric Schmidt, who approached the political refugee under the premise of a new book. Schmidt, whose worth Forbes estimates exceeds $11 billion, partnered with Council on Foreign Relations and State Department veteran, Jared Cohen, for the work, tentatively titled The Empire of the Mind — and asked Assange for an interview.
Later acknowledging naïvte in agreeing to meet the pair of tech heavyweights, Assange found afterward how enmeshed in and integral to U.S. global agendas Schmidt and Cohen had become.
In fact, both have exhibited quite the fascination with technology’s role in burgeoning revolutions — including, but not-at-all limited to, the Arab Spring. Schmidt created a position for Cohen in 2009, originally called Google Ideas, now GoogleJigsaw, and the two began weaving the company’s importance to the United States into narratives in articles, political donations, and through Cohen’s former roles at the State Department.
That same year, Schmidt and Cohen co-authored an article for the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, which, seven years hence, appears a rather prescient discussion of Google’s self-importance in governmental affairs. Under the subheading “COALITIONS OF THE CONNECTED,” they wrote [all emphasis added]:
“In an era when the power of the individual and the group grows daily, those governments that ride the technological wave will clearly be best positioned to assert their influence and bring others into their orbits. And those that do not will find themselves at odds with their citizens.
“Democratic states that have built coalitions of their militaries have the capacity to do the same with their connection technologies. […] they offer a new way to exercise the duty to protect citizens around the world who are abused by their governments or barred from voicing their opinions.”
Perhaps appearing laudable on its surface — at least to some degree — as Assange pointed out, there is a self-mischaracterization by the American and other Western governments and inaccurately-monikered ‘non-governmental organizations’ that their interests in other nations’ affairs are innately good.
This cult of government and non-government insiders have a firm belief their goals should be the unassailable, unquestionable motivator for American imperialism — whatever the U.S. thinks best as a “benevolent superpower,” so should the rest of the ‘non-evil’ world.
“They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them,” Assange wrote in When Google Met Wikileaks.“This is the impenetrable banality of ‘don’t be evil.’ They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem.”
Cohen, an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the notorious Council on Foreign Relations, lists his expertise in “terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran,” and has worked for both Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton at the Department of State. Fortune, calling Cohen a “fascinating fellow,”noted that, in his bookChildren of Jihad, the young diplomat and technology enthusiast “advocates for the use of technology for social upheaval in the Middle East and elsewhere.”
Under the auspices of discussing technological aspects at Wikileaks’ disposal for the upcoming book, Schmidt; Cohen; Lisa Shields, a CFR vice president at the time; and Scott Malcomson — who would shortly afterward be appointed Rice’s lead speech advisor for her role as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — descended on Assange’s safe haven in Norfolk, outside London.
It wasn’t until weeks and months after this gathering Assange fully realized how closely Google operates in tandem with the government of the United States — and how perilous the innocent mask of its public intentions truly is in light of such cooperation.
Ironically enough, in Wikileaks’ publishing three years later of the Global Intelligence Files — internal emails from private security firm, Stratfor — Cohen’s and Google’s true depth of influence became strikingly apparent. Assange wrote:
“Cohen’s directorate appeared to cross over from public relations and ‘corporate responsibility’ work into active corporate intervention in foreign affairs at a level that is normally reserved for states.Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s ‘director of regime change.’
According to the emails, he was trying to plant his fingerprints on some of the major historical events in the contemporary Middle East. He could be placed in Egypt during the revolution, meeting with Wael Ghonim, the Google employee whose arrest and imprisonment hours later would make him a PR-friendly symbol of the uprising in the Western press. Meetings had been planned in Palestine and Turkey, both of which—claimed Stratfor emails—were killed by the senior Google leadership as too risky. Only a few months before he met with me, Cohen was planning a trip to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan to ‘engage the Iranian communities closer to the border,’ as part of Google Ideas’ project on repressive societies.”
However, most significantly, Stratfor vice president for intelligence Fred Burton, also a former official with the State Department, wrote in one of those emails:
“Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do . . . [Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov’t can then disavow knowledge and Google is left holding the shit-bag.”
Of course, the massive company — its various facets now under the umbrella of Alphabet, Inc. — has never been fully absent government involvement. Research for what would become ultimately become Google had been undertaken by company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in cooperation with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — the strictly secretive technological testing and planning arm for the Department of Defense.
Indeed Google’s continued coziness with the diplomacy, military, and intelligence wings of the United States government should not be, though perpetually are, ignored.
Political establishment bulldogs on both sides of the aisle and their cheerleader corporate media presstitutes will continue for months or years to debate the failed presidential bid of Hillary Clinton and the apparently-shocking rise and election of Donald Trump, but technology played a starring role in those events. Several reports last year cautioned Google’s algorithms could swing the election — and not only the American election, but national elections around the globe.
“We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world,” said Robert Epstein, a psychologist with the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and author of one of the studies, “that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”
Considering lines between the tech giant and the government have essentially been abandoned, this revelation puts power and influence into acute, if not terrifying, perspective.
Google’s ties with the Pentagon and intelligence communities never ceased. Revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request cited by Assange, Google founder Brin, together with Schmidt, corresponded casually by email with National Security Agency chief Gen. Keith Alexander in 2012, discussing a program called the “Enduring Society Framework.” Alexander wrote to Brin:
“Your insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base are valuable to ensure ESF’s efforts have measurable impact.”
According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Industrial Base is “the worldwide industrial complex that enables research and development, as well as design, production, delivery, and maintenance of military weapons systems, subsystems, and components or parts, to meet U.S. military requirements .”
It also provides “products and services that are essential to mobilize, deploy, and sustain military operations.”
Although Schmidt and Cohen ultimately watered down their book title The Empire of the Mind into the more palatable and less blatantly imperialistic, The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations, and Business, its message amounted to self-congratulatory justification for broader foreign policy goals. Nefarious warmonger Henry Kissinger, for one, praised the work, which included telling lines by the Google execs, such as:
“What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first.”
So ubiquitous has Google become, its presence — like similarly U.S. government-connected Facebook — is nearly indispensable in the daily lives of hundreds of millions worldwide.
However well-known is the government intelligence framework in such platforms, it would be ill-advised to ignore the far darker Machiavellian aspects of private corporate technology’s intersection with global political agendas — and the force that coalition wields around the planet.
Whether or not the American establishment’s empire suffered a blow in the election of Donald Trump will be a debatable point for some time, but it’s a veritable guarantee its cogs — seeing themselves as the planet’s saviors — have planned in advance for just such an occasion.
“If the future of the internet is to be Google,” Assange noted, “that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union, and even in Europe—for whom the internet embodies the promise of an alternative to US cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony.”
Empire will remain empire until its dying breath — particularly if it functions under the obstinate belief it, alone, can save the world. Julian Assange should be praised for the transparency and insight he and Wikileaks have readily given the world, instead of excoriated and blamed for faults which lie in the establishment framework — it is this political, intelligence, and military web deserving of a pointed finger.
The methods and systems take into account a multiplicity of approaches to reputation determination and integrates them together in a way that determines not only a reputation index but a veracity scale on which to gauge that reputation. The system proposed herein will create reputation indices based on input from other participants in the ecosystem taking into account the weighting of the value of the input of the various participants based on their credibility as applied to the judgment at hand. The system will also take into account temporal components, the historical value of the work, passive input based on usage behavior, comments by casual observers as well as independent assessment in public fora. The system is able to be applied to journalists and their work to generate a veracity scale for articles.
While I’m sure many can see the value in actually rating journalists on how accurate/truthful their reporting is, the idea that a rating system like this should be patentable is fairly ridiculous. I mean:
Like anyone wouldn’t have come up with such a system if there wasn’t patent protections?
Separately, as the EFF’s Vera Ranieri asks, it’s questionable whether or not granting such a patent would be consistent with the First Amendment. Remember, just a month ago, a top judge at the Federal Circuit appeals court (the place where all patent case appeals go to) noted that patents could be rejected on First Amendment grounds if “they are allowed to obstruct the essential channels of scientific, economic, and political discourse.” So if this patent were granted, and (bizarrely) it excluded others from ranking the accuracy of journalists — would that violate the First Amendment?
Hopefully the patent office rejects this patent application entirely and we never have to find out.
Lo and behold, well into the aforementioned book “Aberration in The Heartland”, after I’d viewed the two two-hour YouTube versions of The Disclosure Project’s DVD with videotaped sessions with people who claim to have witnessed UFO’s et al, I encountered Wendy Painting’s research on the connections between Timothy McVeigh, Area 51, the world of UFOlogy, and lots more.
Lo and behold, well into the aforementioned book “Aberration in The Heartland”, after I’d viewed the two two-hour YouTube versions of The Disclosure Project’s DVD with videotaped sessions with people who claim to have witnessed UFO’s et al, I encountered Wendy Painting’s research on the connections between Timothy McVeigh, Area 51, the world of UFOlogy, and lots more.
The videos and their description I’d watched are here:
Top-secret military, government, intelligence and corporate witnesses to secret projects tell their true stories which disclose the greatest covert program in world history. This explosive testimony by actual government insiders proves that UFOs are real, that some are of extraterrestrial origin and that super-secret programs have energy and propulsion technologies that will enable humanity to begin a new civilization- A civilization without pollution, without poverty – A civilization capable of traveling among the stars.
In that long section (about halfway through the book), Dr. Painting noted Mark Pilkington’s book on the topic of UFO’s entitled Mirage Men: an adventure into paranoia, espionage, psychological warfare and UFO’s, published by SkyHorse Publishing (Hermann Graf Books) New York 2010, ISBN 978-1-60239-800-9
“Aberration in the Heartland of the Real: The Secret Lives of Timothy McVeigh”
and it’s must reading. This is compelling stuff.
There are four to six paragraphs in the prologue that provide an overview for all crimes of the deep state that are simply some of the best material written on the topic.
I’ve just finished the section on McVeigh during the Gulf War, the Basra highway turkey shoot, the bulldozer assault, and much more. Every American ought to read this.
The author describes the Gulf War as a “war whose carefully-constructed spectacular prime-time entertainment value qualified it as the first hyper-real post-modern info-war. The mass mediated murderous extravaganza masked its managers’ surreal and brutal genocidal, ecocidal and homocidal New World visions”.
Her next work is based on the research of Cheri Seymour, whose book “The Last Circle” I devoured (and reviewed) years ago; Dr. Painting has become an expert in in the investigative research of author Seymour, herself a private investigator and journalist.
The first footnote for the third chapter of the book speaks of “Fusion Paranoia”, a term coined by Michael Kelly in 1995, which refers to “the convergence of political wings in the conspiracy theory milieu”.
The second footnote for the third chapter details Peter Knight’s description of the “canon” of conspiracy theory.
The book is deeply and meticulously footnoted, there is a bibliography and a master document bibliography, and it is indexed. There is already a very small number of errata listed at her web site and a note that these will be corrected in a forthcoming second edition.
“Presenting startling new biographical details about Timothy McVeigh and exposing stark contradictions and errors contained in previous depictions of the “All-American Terrorist,” this book traces McVeigh’s life from childhood to the Army, throughout the plot to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the period after his 1995 arrest until his 2001 execution.
McVeigh’s life, as author Wendy Painting describes it, offers a backdrop for her discussion of not only several intimate and previously unknown details about him, but a number of episodes and circumstances in American History as well, including Cold War popular culture, all-American apocalyptic fervor, organized racism, contentious politics, militarism, warfare, conspiracy theories, bioethical controversies, mind control, the media’s construction of villains and demons, and institutional secrecy and cover-ups. All these stories are examined, compared, and tested in Aberration in the Heartland of the Real, making this book a much closer examination into the personality and life of Timothy McVeigh than has been provided by any other biographical work about him.”
“Wendy S. Painting, PhD, is a professor of U.S. history at Empire State College and works as a freelance investigative researcher. Her extensive and seminal investigatory research into the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and Timothy McVeigh distinguishes her as a leading national expert on both subjects. She coauthored and coproduced the
2011 documentary film,A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995. She lives in Rochester, New York.”
One topic that has caught my attention and that of others is the issue of extra-terrestrials, free forms of energy, covert unacknowledged ops and compartments and funding, or the secret space economy, which also brings in deep underground military bases, military/space technologies, governance of the Republic (have we kept it, Ben?), and more.
That’s enough to keep us chewing our cud for days. Tin foil hats are optional.
I’m not going to put forth a position at this time, except to say that I think this is worthy of our attention. Some have suggested that there are many forms of disinformation here. and the field at large has been the subject of much of that, much propaganda, much misdirection, purposeful confusion, outright lies, etc.
I’m going to put forth a bunch of links, and you can make up your own mind.
I should have included material submitted into a private discussion by one HongPong, who runs a web site by that name: http://hongpong.com . It is here included without change, the dominant point his calling attention in particular to one blog and one or more blog entries:
“FWIW Sirius is a rockefeller faction movie, I think it is explicit in some of the dialogue.
For more commentary on UFO materials in general I recommend http://secretsun.blogspot.com by Chris Knowles, also the facebook group is very good.
By part four: http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2013/07/secret-star-trek-part-4-psychics.html
In this case, the big money often came from Laurance Rockefeller, who saw the spark of genius in Murphy’s ambitious intellect. Rockefeller was not only the heir of a vast fortune and a brilliant investor, he was also interested in the spiritual ferment taking shape around the Bay Area. However a Rockefeller was still a Rockefeller, and needs must.
Murphy opened a dialogue with psychic researchers in the Soviet Union in 1980 and that led to a series of invitationals looking to overcome the barriers of the Cold War. Where Murphy saw kindred spirits, the Rockefeller Globalists looked behind the Iron Curtain and saw vast untapped oil fields, mineral deposits and other goodies to be plundered for pennies on the dollar. And with the arms race breaking Moscow’s back, they saw the opportunity to get their hands on the booty (just like the So’na).
Throughout history the Church often played the broker when two sides looked to make peace but the Vatican made itself a combatant in the Cold War with the election of John Paul II. The Protestant Churches were under the Rockefeller thumb (the family controls the World Council of Churches) and were often useful idiots but Esalen and the New Age offered another interesting possibility, given the Russian fascination with mysticism and the occult.
But the episode with The Nine did a lot of damage to Esalen’s public image so Murphy– who spent very little time at Esalen and hadn’t done so since trying to create an Esalen North in San Francisco beginning in 1966– came back to Big Sur to marshal his forces and get rid of Jenny and The Nine. Steve Donovan (not “Dougherty”) was brought as a third chairman to add an air of corporate responsibility.
We’ll never know how this would have played out given Dick’s death that year. But if that tragedy sent Esalen reeling into a crisis of personal grief and existential confusion, it played out well for the Rockefellers. With Dick and the Nine out of the picture, the new New Age program could be rolled out at Esalen itself, to be made safe for middle class housewives all across the free world.
Another Rockefeller minion, the Rev. Jim Garrison (no relation to the JFK prosecutor, believe me), was set up at Esalen to man the Russia program and brought the walking human disaster Boris Yeltsin to America. Garrison later headed the Gorbachev Foundation- another Esalen/Rockefeller project- at the Presidio in San Francisco.
Later headquartered at the Presidio? Starfleet.
…..Rockefeller and Donovan wanted to use Esalen to create a mainstream New Age but by doing so essentially drained Esalen of its uniqueness (or essence).
Puharich being a friend of R. J. Reynolds found support and protective acceptance, until he fell into disfavor with David Rockefeller, ultimately necessitating him to seek protection from another friend, the [then] Mexican President. Puharich capitulated, acquiescing to Mr. Rockefeller’s demands, promising not to engage in further ‘water as fuel’ research, thereby, stopping all attempts at his sanctioned assassination by the CIA.
…Puharich was well connected, and respected within the most elite of global society. He was known academically, and internationally among the power elite. He therefore was a significant threat to those special interests involving a direct influence regarding energy sources as fuel derivatives. And his use of ‘water as fuel’ was a direct threat to one of the most powerful families on planet Earth. Puharich had to personally assure the Rockefeller family, that he would no longer engage in further research or usage of ‘water as fuel’ to power combustion engines.
Because as much as it’s anyone’s, Esalen is a Rockefeller project. Rockefeller money helped build it, sustain it and grow it. It helped rebuild it after various crises. The Rockefeller in question is the late Laurance Rockefeller, whose very, very deep pockets helped build a New Age Empire in California, including Esalen, the San Francisco Zen Center, the Lindisfarne Association, the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the California Institute of Integral Studies.
Were Puharich’s problems with the Rockefellers only a function of his work with free energy? Or was his other project– The Nine– causing the Rockefellers grief on the other side of the country?
Because as much as it’s anyone’s, Esalen is a Rockefeller project. Rockefeller money helped build it, sustain it and grow it. It helped rebuild it after various crises. The Rockefeller in question is the late Laurance Rockefeller, whose very, very deep pockets helped build a New Age Empire in California, including Esalen, the San Francisco Zen Center, the Lindisfarne Association, the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the California Institute of Integral Studies.
This isn’t surprising; nothing gets done in this country without people with deep pockets behind it. Not religion, not politics, not media, not even big-time conspiracy gurus. But it might explain why the New Age movement is so arid and inert and unthreatening (especially compared to its early days). It was engineered that way.
in the weeks before Roswell we would also see one of the most remarkable meeting of scientific minds since the war’s end- the Shelter Island Conference, which took place on the first weekend of June of ’47……..
And wouldn’t you know it, Rockefeller fingerprints were all over this little get-together:
The idea for the conference was hatched by Duncan MacInnes, a physical chemist with the Rockefeller Institute and Karl K. Darrow, the permanent secretary of the American Physical Society.
Of course, you’d need Rockefeller kind of money to assemble the kind of talent that showed up at Shelter Island:
The conference featured a veritable Who’s-Who of the physics community, including Edward Teller, David Bohm, John von Neumann, John A. Wheeler, I.I. Rabi, Richard Feynman, Willis Lamb, Linus Pauling, Hans Bethe, and Julian Schwinger (and) discussion leaders J. Robert Oppenheimer, Victor Weisskopf, and H.A. Kramers.
I mean, remember that the Rockefellers and Bell Labs were running this dog-n-pony show, and invoking the old gods was the way things got done. As anyone who’s walked around Midtown Manhattan or looked into Project Nike will tell you.
Anyway I hope this is helpful and not an inordinately huge dump of text for everyone. I thought it was very interesting stuff to nosh on.
And I don’t need to remind anyone how interested the Rockefellers have been involved in the UFO/AAT field over the years.
Sorry about the rough editing, in the last 2 sentences above “anyway” is my sentence and “i dont need to remind anyone” is i think from the lucifers-techs part 1 post.
Also “rune soup” has good pieces. secret sun writer Chris Knowles lives in New England somewhere I believe. the big batch of stuff i put on the WMR thread is a great starting place. the “secret star trek” post series is a must read.
Additional material has been posted in a separate forum but I do not have the poster’s permission to add it here.
Thanks for the heads up and the links. The more the perps lie…the more the public turns to bloggers for the truth. The more the public turns to bloggers for the truth…the more repression from the liars and their co-horts. It’s a vicious cycle.
I guess we should be grateful that there the Internet allowed for this tiny window of truthtelling (the blogosphere) at all.
We know the game, but it appears to be ratcheting up and intensifying in the little ways with regard to Google (Kenny’s blogroll is no longer there, for example, and my e-mail seems suspect). More and more minor players seem to be dropping out. I am thinking of what approach to use in lieu of…
“The biological evidence indicates that humans are hard-wired to seek out the truth. Why? The truth gives us some control over an otherwise chaotic world. We seek a unified vision of what is going on around us…so that we can respond in an effective manner. Otherwise, we would be like a hive of bees that has smoke blown into it. The bees are all disoriented and left powerless. The truth as we see it is absolutely necessary for our survival on this planet…and at some very deep subconscious level, most (but, unfortunately, not all) of humanity understands this immutable law and seeks the truth every day.
So, no matter how much smoke and mirrors are are blown into our world, intelligent humans will find ways to learn the truth and to share it. Ultimately, the war on truth will fail, as it always has.”
Well said, Greencrow. Truth is essential for survival. That’s a great analogy with the bees.
We know the game, but it appears to be ratcheting up and intensifying in the little ways with regard to Google (Kenny’s blogroll is no longer there, for example, and my e-mail seems suspect). More and more minor players seem to be dropping out. I am thinking of what approach to use in lieu of…
“… [the] comment about bloggers being driven by “love of truth” gave me not one but two great ideas! Thanks. I may not implement these ideas myself or in this blog but they are great ideas and someone will eventually implement them. Here they are
1. A special page (I could have it on this blog or it could be a special blog or everyone could have a link to it) where bloggers write a short couple of paragraphs about their blog…what first drove them to do truth blogging and what issues compel them the most. Occurrences would be an excellent site for this special page or link : )
2. A Truth Bloggers Union. This could be a loosely run organization of technical support, information and solidarity for truth bloggers as we move into a new era of increased repression, marginalization, etc. There could be a logo drawn up that all members of the Union could add to their blog face page. It would look like the old Union logos. I really believe in the Union Movement and even tried to spear head a union organization movement when I was a legal secretary many years ago. I won’t tell you how that turned out…lol (or as we said in those days hahahahaha)
Think about all of this folks and please add ideas if you wish…or take up the ball and run with it!
October 9, 2016 at 8:15 AM
# # # # #
The above discussion took place across several days at http://greencrowasthecrowflies.blogspot.ca and is an extension of ideas that have been suggested, circulated or noted for years. Recent trends and events have ramped up the need for such a discussion.
I have set up this blog entry and opened up comments so that they do not require registration or even your identification. However, I suggest that you identify yourself and your blog address.
I recently bought a Nissan Altima. My wife and I are getting older, and comfort and ease of ingress/egress is more of an issue given my hip arthritis. She rode in a friend’s Nissan (who has had two of them and swears by them) and presto change-o we bypassed the Subaru Forester and got out of the Honda CR-V, which was too unstable on the highway by my standards (I was used to smaller, wider, more ground-hugging road cars) and from which she had hip discomfort getting in and out.
So we now drive a car that dings, bings and whistles whenever we drive.
The dings, bings and whistles, as near as I can gather, are the vehicle’s poorly-timed and frail attempts to define the driving lane and let us know that we are about to wander. They let us know that something or someone is in one of our blind spots, behind us qwhen we shift into reverse, and so on. There was only minimal introduction and instruction by the rookie salesman at the dealership owned by a former NASCAR and stock car racer. The manual that comes with the car is typically massive, bland, poorly-written technical writing. The Honda I was used to was an all-wheel-drive-all-the-time model; the Nissan is a front-wheel drive car.
The blind spot warning devices flash lights on the door posts briefly (instead of in a HUD display on the windshield where the driver’s eyes are supposed to be trained). They usually ding just about the time my fellow motorist has overtaken me fast enough to actually be nosing ahead of me; “look, idiot, you’re being passed”. The car does not yet announce — though I’m quite certain many of my fellow drivers have that version — “prepare to qualify”.
The version of the car we bought does not yet come with autonomous braking, steering or parking. Good thing… I’ve gone down the path of automotive autonomy just about as far as I care to go. I may revert and invest in a re-conditioned vehicle from the 70’s before they disappear or are outlawed. The mailman just brought an invitation to subscribe to Hemmings Motor News and I may just take them up on it. I’ve been frustrated with years of NHTSA design anomalies that have taken away any kind of reasonable utilization of cabin space in fear that those things I choose to bring with me might become flying objects in a crash; the space has been taken over by airbags which are continuously being recalled anyway. The Japanese used to have a good feeling for driver ergonomics; the old phrase from the British angle of automotive journalism was about controls “falling readily to hand”. Nothing is where it should be anymore; I spend more time taking my eyes off the road to figure out where the thing is in the first place. I have begun to train my wife, who usually loses herself in a book as soon as we are underway, does not take well to the tasks, to be a kind of co-driver in the vein of late 50’s automotive rallies. She handles the radio, the heat, the air conditioning, the GPS navigation system, drinks, snacks, etc. I handle the road, the idiots who drive on it, the weather conditions, and my own inexorably-advancing age.
The future is barreling down the outside lane of society faster than that cross-town hipster blaring merengue from inside his modified low-rider Honda Civic, or any of the dozens of people in town who are late and think I am in their way.
The powers that be are quite convinced we don’t know how to drive, or at least they are quite convinced that they need to convince us that we don’t know how to drive.
Watching any of the current spate of car ads or insurance ads about driving will tell you that they are gently herding us into giving up the freedom and control of driving one’s own car.
This form of social engineering mimics “the nanny state” and “the surveillance state” in that it is sold through the gentle pushing of the idea that you are at risk, that you need to be saved, and that you can cede your safety to the concerns to the state which, after all, only has your best interests and those of society at stake.
Many of you may know my driving record. I don’t profess to be among the best. I do profess to enjoying it.
My parents wouldn’t let me near a car. As a teenager, I learned how to drive a stick working for a lawn mowing company cross-town; I got the ’39 three-speed Ford pickup truck and learned how to grind coffee. I had the experience of driving a Sunbeam Tiger when I worked at a public golf course. When I got to college, I got my license and my boss in the restaurant let me drive his Mustang. I drove from the Dunkin Donuts in the center of North Adams to the traffic circle interchange with the Interstate in Greenfield in 42 minutes. Try that one on for size some time.
The first car I owned was a 1968 British Ford Cortina GT. It died by dashboard fire and I got by with a used ’62 Mercedes-Benz 220S sedan with four-on-the-column and a very leaky radiator; I used to hand the gear shift stick to my passenger on the way up from third to fourth gear. It had a Blaupunkt radio with AM and FM and shortwave for those who were assigned to the local U-Boat fleet. When it died (I’d already worked for the fire department by then), I got myself a 1970 fire-engine-red Mustang GT with a Cleveland 351 with a four-barrel carb and a Hurst four-on-the-floor that could top out at 135 mph. Downtown Amherst, Mass. to downtown Manhattan in two hours flat. I gave that up for a 1974 Fiat X1/9. By then I was a veteran ambulance driver.
[I wonder if they are going to make ambulances autonomous and driverless and put robots in them to take care of the ill and injured.]
I was deeply into readingRoad&Track, and Car and Driver, and I remember Brock Yates’ suggestions that there be a class of drivers who were superbly skilled and trained and could be designated and recognized with a Master’s Drivers License.
At Car and Driver, we were convinced that the automobile, as we knew and loved it, was as dead as the passenger pigeon. Ralph Nader was at full cry, ringing his tocsin of automobile doom into the brains of the public, convincing them that the lump of chrome and iron in the driveway was as lethal as a dose of Strontium 90 or a blast from a Viet Cong AK-47.
“Hoping to make drunk driving a literal impossibility, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rolled out a prototype drunkenness-detection system for cars that would disallow vehicle operation if the driver is above the legal limit. Working with auto-industry members, NHTSA has been working on DADSS—Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety—and presented its ideas for stopping drunk-driving accidents before they happen before Congress and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Drunk driving is of course dangerous, illegal, and just plain stupid. Helpfully, then, NHTSA is working to make its in-car drunk-detection tech as seamless and unobtrusive as possible….”
“Autonomous cars are coming, and it’s time for everyone to just accept it.
It might seem odd to have to state such a thing so plainly, but denial is a powerful drug. And enthusiasts tend to be heavy users. Yet technology and progress are irrepressible, so here we are. For people that love to drive, the idea of an automated car is an affront to everything they hold dear. But the truth is inescapable. If you consider building-block technologies like stability control, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping, and steer-by-wire, this shouldn’t even really be surprising.
The first time I ever experienced a car that could drive itself was three years ago. I was at General Motor’s Milford Proving Grounds in a heavily modified Cadillac SRX equipped with an early version of Super Cruise, some form of which will be in the new CT6. I conducted the interview from the driver’s seat as the car competently looped around the track, in its own lane, at 60 mph (you can watch the video here). After that, it was clear: This is the future.
And it should be. Maybe not all of it, but part of it. There are a lot of logical reasons for having cars with the ability to drive themselves and communicate with each other and even infrastructure: lives will be saved, boring parts of tedious drives can be offloaded, our vehicles and roads will operate more efficiently, people who can’t currently drive will suddenly be mobile. These are just some of the positives, and there are many more, plenty of which we can’t even predict. That is the hard truth.
SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN FOR ENTHUSIASTS? THE PEOPLE WHO STILL THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW ENGINE RPMS AND GET A THRILL OUT OF INTENTIONALLY KICKING OUT THE ASS END? THE HONEST ANSWER IS THAT WE DON’T KNOW YET.
But before semiautonomous cars, which still require drivers, and fully autonomous cars are available on any sort of mass scale, there is much to figure out. These systems still can’t handle the more nuanced decisions human drivers make, and insurance and liability are looming questions. Not to mention real-world technological limitations. My Super Cruise test drive was actually our second attempt. A heavy snowfall had caused the first ride to be canceled because the SRX’s camera was unable to register the lines on the road and center the car in the lane. That was awhile ago, and severe weather remains a challenge (though machine groupthink through connected cars, better GPS, and highly accurate maps will help). Lastly, there’s the inevitable learning curve of people understanding how these technologies work, as demonstrated by Model S owners already having near accidents.
So what does this all mean for enthusiasts? The people who still think it is important to know engine RPMs and get a thrill out of intentionally kicking out the ass end? The honest answer is that we don’t know yet. Nobody does. Despite all of the sensational stories and headlines prognosticating the death of driving, it’s hard to imagine a country where people won’t at least have the option to drive themselves. Even if it’s on designated roads or it means paying a higher insurance premium. Likely, we’ll end up having a mix of cars with semiautonomous abilities and fully autonomous vehicles serving varied purposes.
Then again, maybe in 100 years people will look back and think: Who in the world thought it was a good idea to let all those distracted, careless humans hurtle around in 2-ton death machines?
It’s really hard to say.
Here’s what we do know: Road & Track will always celebrate the analog joys of driving. That much will never change. But the fact of the matter is that the very act of driving and how we will all experience it will morph into something new over the coming decades. It already is. For that reason, it’s as important to understand this shift as any other automotive innovation. To ignore it, to stuff your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet, does nothing.
There’s no stopping progress. Let’s just all hope that in the future there will still be room to have some fun.”
“Autonomous driving—what the high-minded call artificial intelligence and what we call real brainlessness—may not be as vile as we originally feared. One DeLorean DMC-12 directed by a Stanford University engineering crew can perform perfect opposite-lock, tire-cooking, hands-off donuts at will for as long as the rubber lasts. Lead professor Chris Gerdes explained the rationale underlying this class project, timed to coincide with the fictional arrival on October 21, 2015, of the time-traveling Back to the Future DeLorean: “When we no longer have a human driver in the loop, we think that the automated vehicle should be able to harness the full range of vehicle operating capabilities to avoid collisions, even if this means going sideways a bit to stay on the road.” In other words, loading $60,000 worth of navigation gear, two powerful electric motors, and shrewd software into a 30-year-old sports car may have just fried Google’s autonomous eggs.
While on-demand drifting will likely remain in your dreams for the time being, cars programmed to perform other feats are now commonplace. Anti-lock brakes and stability control have been mandatory for years. Lots of cars sound an alarm, shake the seat, and/or nudge the steering wheel when you leave your lane without signaling. Adaptive cruise control that automatically maintains a safe distance from the car ahead is also widely available. Ten manufacturers recently committed to making automatic emergency braking standard across their entire lineups.
Brainless driving is closing in on us like a meteorite because of its potential to avoid accidents. Sadly, we are a nation of mediocre drivers, distracted on our daily journeys by dining, child rearing, makeup applying, and incessant texting. Driver’s ed. is a shadow of its former self, and few of us are able to use the accident-avoidance capabilities built into every new car. Our driving errors cause crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
To gauge progress on the path to brainlessness, we’ve gathered the four luxury cars that have done the most to purge human frailties from the acts of cruising, braking, and steering.
As usual, our test regimen is a balanced mix of on-road evaluations and proving- grounds tests. Other than noting which car can and which can’t steer you snugly against a curb, we skipped automatic-parking maneuvers. All these cars and many others on the market keep watchful eyes on your blind spots, a second form of artificial intelligence we’re taking for granted here. To verify that adaptive cruise control works to maintain a safe interval between your car and the one immediately ahead when an intruder barges into your lane, we used a foam-filled Volkswagen Golf decoy owned by Bosch to supplement our over-the-road observations. Our main focus was automatic lane keeping: how well these four early semi-autonomous cars guide you safely and securely while relying on their electronic wits instead of the driver’s hands, eyes, and judgment. Using a 50-mile mix of freeway stretches, rural two-lanes, and city streets, we tabulated exactly how many guidance interruptions were caused by broken lane marks, inconsistent pavement patches, intersections, and exit and entrance ramps. We also noted when a car lost the lane-keeping sense for no apparent reason. Then we ranked the four contenders according to the number of control lapses each test car experienced.
So cinch up nice and tight, because there’s going to be a lot of near misses.”
When my kids arrived and work become more prominent in my life, I gave up a love affair with cars and started to drive computers. I had my first Macintosh in the late 80’s, one of those cute little slanted colored cubes whose presumptive posture outperformed DEC stand-ups using LP-sized floppies for routine and simple tasks in the office, thus driving my superiors from the Boston high-tech world stark raving angry. Later versions put my kids through high school and college. I did re-invent myself when my son leased himself a brand-new Pontiac Trans-Am but drove himself right out of the car by ignoring the mileage restrictions and costs. I ended up owning it and driving it for nine years. I’m not sure I’ve ever been in a finer car on an Interstate highway, but I’m sure the Beemer folks would argue that point. But look here, and ponder the possibilities:
The Vehicle Performance Guidance section, aimed at the industry itself, outlines best practices for the safe pre-deployment design, development and testing of highly automated vehicles prior to commercial sale or operation on public roads. With the guidance, the U.S. Department of Transportation establishes its expectations of industry by providing reasonable practices and procedures manufacturers, suppliers and other entities should follow in the short term to test and deploy the vehicles. The policy asks automakers and tech companies to be able to prove that their semiautonomous and autonomous vehicles could meet a 15-point list of safety expectations before taking to the roads. They’re asked to document how they’re addressing issues like privacy, digital security, human-machine interface and ethical considerations—like whether to program a vehicle to hit another vehicle or a pedestrian in the event of a crash.
The Model State Policy section seeks to reinforce that the traditional role of the states in areas like vehicle licensing and registration, traffic laws and enforcement, and motor vehicle insurance and liability regimes will continue when it comes to autonomous vehicle policy. NHTSA meanwhile will be responsible for federal motor vehicle safety standards, recalls and other enforcement measures, educating the public on safety and writing performance guidelines for industry.
NHTSA notes that it may be necessary for states to clarify the definition of “driver” in regulatory language, which could entail combing through multitudes of policies and state codes. The agency has already clarified for federal purposes that a car’s software can be considered a “driver.”
The insurance and liability issues could prove thorny for states as well. While some automakers have said they’ll take responsibility for any traffic crashes caused by their software, others have not.
NHTSA notes they will continue to exercise their existing regulatory authority through interpretations, exemptions, notice-and-comment rulemaking and enforcement authority. The agency can also identify safety defects and recall vehicles or equipment that pose an unreasonable risk to safety.
But the agency also indicates that existing regulatory tools may not be sufficient to ensure highly automated vehicles are introduced safely and to realize the full promise of the new technologies, so additional regulatory tools may be needed to quickly address the latest developments. Congress could be asked to consider new oversight powers for USDOT to approve vehicle designs before they come to market, give cease-and-desist orders in cases of imminent danger or require software changes for vehicles already on the road, for example.
Next up for the policy is a 60-day public comment period (read the process for submission here), which could yield significant changes. The policy is expected to be supplemented by a related report from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators later this year.
But as autonomous vehicle legal expert Bryant Walker Smith noted this week, none of this is intended to provide the final word on these issues by any means. “I would also expect that this guidance will be the starting point for more thoughtful legislative discussions—not only at the state level but also, for the first time, at the federal level,” he wrote in a blog post. “It will be interesting to see which developers carry the DOT’s implicit requests for new authorities and resources to Congress. The model state policy does not bind states, and some may well decide not to follow it. The performance guidance likewise does not bind developers of automated driving systems, but I would expect few of these developers to deviate from it. This soft guidance could become even more influential if states incorporate it in legislation, if … (NHTSA) considers it in the course of exemption or enforcement decisions, or if courts look to it to understand how a reasonable developer should act. In other words, DOT is establishing expectations.”
DOT officials also made it clear this week they plan to update these guidelines annually.
Furthermore, the guidelines call for states not to just dive in head first but to take a coordinated approach by identifying a lead agency on automated driving regulation and setting up a task force with representatives from offices of information technology, transportation, law enforcement and other relevant areas.
So while the NHTSA guidance has been greatly anticipated, it only kicks off a series of what are likely to be lengthy and complex conversations that will evolve in the years to come just as the technologies do that they will address.
Autonomous vehicles will be on the agenda at the CSG 2016 National Conference in Colonial Williamsburg. On Friday, December 9, the CSG Transportation & Infrastructure Public Policy Committee will convene for a session entitled “Realizing the Future: Changes for Transportation on the Horizon.” Among the speakers will be Chris Hendrickson, Professor Emeritus in Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and director of the university’s Traffic 21 Institute. In 2014, Hendrickson was the lead author on “Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: 2040 Vision,” a report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation that assessed the implications of the vehicles on the management and operation of the state’s transportation system including in areas like design and investment decisions, workforce training and driver licensing. We’ll also get a briefing on what the NHTSA guidance means for states and hear from the automotive industry about all the innovations that are on the way. Also on the agenda for the transportation committee: Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne will talk about how his state improved the processes by which it selects transportation projects and chooses which ones to tackle as public-private partnerships. And we’ll hear about what a new President and Congress could mean for transportation in 2017 and beyond. You can check out the preliminary agenda for the full CSG National Conference here and register for the meeting here.
Autonomous vehicles and other emerging technologies bringing rapid changes to communities also will be among the issues discussed during Capital Ideas II, a two-day conference the organization Transportation for America will host in Sacramento November 16-17. CSG is pleased to be a promotional partner for the event, which will offer attendees a highly interactive curriculum of model state legislation, campaign tactics, innovative policies and peer-to-peer collaboration designed to help them advance successful state transportation policy and funding proposals. Just in time to get a jump on the 2017 state legislative sessions, Capital Ideas II (no affiliation with CSG’s magazine Capitol Ideas) will also examine how state departments of transportation are instituting reforms and how California and other states are leading the way in policy innovation. The latest tentative agenda for the conference is available on the T4America website. Registration is available here. For an idea of what the first Capital Ideas was like in 2014, you can read my coverage of the event here, here and here.
“… For months, federal regulators have been preparing to unveil regulations for testing fully automated cars, which garnered attention after a fatal crash involving a Tesla Motors Inc. car that was operating with its automated driving system activated. Rules were expected in July, but became embroiled in debate after the crash.”
“… Author Will Oremus cites a passage from a recent RAND study that envisions a couple of intriguing/worrying future scenarios:
“Imagine a law enforcement officer interacting with a vehicle that has sensors connected to the Internet. With the appropriate judicial clearances, an officer could ask the vehicle to identify its occupants and location histories. … Or, if the vehicle is unmanned but capable of autonomous movement and in an undesirable location (for example, parked illegally or in the immediate vicinity of an emergency), an officer could direct the vehicle to move to a new location (with the vehicle’s intelligent agents recognizing “officer” and “directions to move”) and automatically notify its owner and occupants.”
Situations like these raise countless questions about autonomous cars and the right to privacy. For example, do police need a warrant to search an autonomous car’s hard drive? The scenario is similar to that posed by “black box” recorders found on most modern vehicles, which can be accessed by law enforcement under certain conditions — but then again, maybe not. And if not, can police access all the data on the hard drive, or just some of it? Can they access it remotely, while the car is in use?
Throw in wearable devices, smartphones that connect to the internet via in-car routers, and many other always-on, always-connected technologies, and you see the problem. The minutiae of our lives are recorded via our constant interaction with apps and websites, email and social networks. If the police suspect someone of wrongdoing, why shouldn’t they be allowed to access that information in the interest of public safety?
Thankfully, part of the RAND study — which was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice — involved discussing these matters with a panel of experts in the fields of criminal justice and technology. The experts’ #1 priority at the moment involves creating a system of policies and procedures for dealing with autonomous cars. (If only they’d do the same for license plate readers.) Least important to them? Creating ways for police to take control of autonomous vehicles…..”
“… According to data fromStatisticBrain.com, there about 41 million speeding tickets issued each year on average. At an average fine of $152 per ticket, that equates to about $6.2 Billion in revenue nationwide from Traffic Tickets alone.
Having a fully autonomous car, as they’ve been reported, will effectively reduce the need for speeding tickets to ever be used again…..”
Vehicle makers might bear a greater share of liability as vehicles become more autonomous. Thus, the authors suggest, policymakers and manufacturers may want to seek risk-limiting measures that could include, for example, capping the liability exposure of manufacturers if they comply with government standards.
Citing the obstacles Uber and other ridesharing firms have faced with taxis and regulators, the report suggests that “negatively affected stakeholders”—including taxi and truck drivers, insurers, and personal-injury and traffic litigation lawyers—”may exert significant pressure on public-policy makers to protect their interests.”
The report says policymakers “may need to develop mitigation strategies to soften the blow on the stakeholders that suffer the greatest disruption.”
“… No battle plan, they say, survives the first contact with the enemy. And in this case, the enemy is us — the messy, chaotic, mentally ill, undocumented, angry, frustrated, overworked, underpaid, teeming masses of humanity. No sane person can think that autonomous cars can survive in that environment. It’s them or us in a fight to the death for control of the American road.
I’m not such a narcissistic egomaniac that I don’t realize that many, many intelligent people have pondered this question before today and likely come to conclusions that are better-informed but substantially similar to what I’ve described above. So you don’t have to worry about autonomous cars sharing the roads with human drivers and being subject to all of the hazards we’ve discussed. Rather, you can rest assured that our right to drive will simply disappear whenever it suits our West Coast tech elite. If we’re lucky, this unilateral takeover will only happen in places where population density and wealth make it easy, like San Francisco.
If we’re unlucky, however, the new order will simply be imposed upon us nationwide, the same way that Mr. Clinton imposed urban-focused gun control on rural towns where nobody’s committed a violent crime since before the Taft administration. If that day comes and the “Red Barchetta” scenario becomes law, you can rest assured that any power you have to vote or protest against the situation will have been thoroughly neutralized well ahead of time. You can, however, always pick up a rock.”
John Bonnefon, a psychological scientist working at France’s National Center for Scientific Research, told me there is no historical precedent that applies to the study of self-driving ethics. ‘It is the very first time that we may massively and daily engage with an object that is programmed to kill us in specific circumstances. Trains do not self-destruct, no more than planes or elevators do. We may be afraid of plane crashes, but we know at least that they are due to mistakes or ill intent. In other words, we are used to self-destruction being a bug, not a feature.’
Perhaps there could be an emergency switch that lets the driver take back control. But then the vehicle isn’t really autonomous at all, is it?. Perhaps the real ethical problem was removing the driver’s autonomy in the first place…
Max, in the comments section, says,
“There’s no way to create “ethical software” good enough to replace human judgment…”
Yves Smith says “the hype regularly exceeds reality”.
Subgenius, in those same comments, asks
“Can the image data be accurately and rapidly processed to a greater degree of accuracy than can be achieved by the human visual cortex?”
“… Part of the problem is that so little energy is focused on properly training drivers. In most states, obtaining a driver’s license is a mere formality. Being more accretive with driver’s education, higher standards on driving tests and renewals, and strict enforcement of the rules of the road, basically washing out those who have no business being behind the wheel, would do a great deal to improve driver safety.”
Which brings us full circle to Brock Yates, whose “plan floated years ago was an anathema to politicians and the general public, who viewed driving an automobile on highways as a supreme act of egalitarianism. Nowhere on earth was the constitutional mandate that “all men are created equal” more relevant than on the open road. This, regardless if the driver were a half-blind octogenarian doddering along the streets of Boca Raton or an Indianapolis champion running on an empty interstate.
Still, the notion that driving skills are directly related to physical and mental capacity does pertain, regardless of politically correct dogma. Perhaps the idea of drivers’ licenses tiered to aptitude behind the wheel ought to be reexamined.
For openers, vehicular capability in terms of tires, brakes, suspensions, etc., has been elevated to amazing heights in recent decades, permitting even the cheapest Kia or Hyundai to safely exceed posted 65-to-75-mph interstate limits.
Second, it has been proved to the point of tedium, based on statistics from the German autobahns, that vastly higher speeds can be safely maintained, presuming elemental laws (sobriety, lane discipline, etc.) are rigidly enforced.
Moreover, tiered licenses, based on experience and training, exist in virtually every other form of transportation. Pilots are licensed for everything from puddle jumpers to multiengine jets. Boaters in many states need licensing that escalates as the vessels get larger. Truckers, chauffeurs, taxi drivers, police officers, and others use special operators’ licenses, yet the vast motoring public trundles out onto the highway each day by the tens of millions with no special qualifications. In the context of blind jurisprudence, each man or woman is essentially as qualified as the next. Other than restricted licenses for drivers 15 or 16 years of age, depending on the state, there are no differences in the licenses being issued to a paroled felon, an outpatient psychopath, a drunk, or a healthy, socially responsible average citizen….”
What Brock was talking about, what my own driving experience has told me, is that you can’t discount, excerpt out, or disregard the human factor. Recently my wife and I “piloted” our new autonomy-in-training Nissan to a town about 25 miles away for dinner and a movie. The route was going to take us cross-country. While she waited for the new bank manager-in-training to figure out how to get a routine task done (it took about 45 minutes), I went out to program the vehicle’s navigation system for the addresses of both the restaurant and the movie theater. I don’t need those devices; I have a pretty good map in my head. Ever read up about the tests that London cabbies have to pass?
When I was a probationary firefighter, much of my classroom training was spent looking at street maps with all the names removed and answering rapid-fire questions. “The call is for a fire at such-and-such address; find it on the map.” “You have a medical emergency here; it’s 2:30 PM. What route will you take?” “Nope, not that way. School just let out and tehre’s school busses cluttering up the intersections here, here and here.”
In the late 60’s, I foresaw a dashboard vehicle navigation systems — GPS was still a closely-guarded miltiary secret back then — by envisioning an in-dash microfiche HUD projection system to assist ambulance drivers in situations when time was of the essence and making a wrong turn could mean life and death. Most vehicles do not yet have HUD displays, and using a GPS-based navigation system is still fraught with problems.
I could have gotten to the town wiht the restaurant and theater on my own by driving the lengths of the rectangle on Interstate highways, but I like back roads and the navigation system — not yet voice-activated-or-responsive so it has to handled by the front-seat passanger if you wish to drive safely — thought a cross-country approach made sense too. Halfway there, it took me in circles twice because it could not clearly see (or dictate) the route through a Y-intersection linked into a rotary. I had to turn it off — my wife calls hers Hentrietta and is used to screaming at it— and turn onto a road with which I was already familiar. I found my own way to the town, and then my wife — who’d been to the restaurant with friends — got me the rest of the way.
If you want further examples of this phenomenon of the human mind in the machine, consider seeing the movie we saw after dinner:
New rules of the road for robot cars coming out of Washington this week could lead to the eventual extinction of one of the defining archetypes of the past century: the human driver.
While banning people from driving may seem like something from a Kurt Vonnegut short story, it’s the logical endgame of a technology that could dramatically reduce — or even eliminate — the 1.25 million road deaths a year globally. Human error is the cause of 94 percent of roadway fatalities, U.S. safety regulators say, and robot drivers never get drunk, sleepy or distracted.
Autonomous cars already have “superhuman intelligence” that allows them to see around corners and avoid crashes, said Danny Shapiro, senior director of automotive at Nvidia Corp., a maker of high-speed processors for self-driving cars.
“Long term, these vehicles will drive better than any human possibly can,” Shapiro said. “We’re not there yet, but we will get there sooner than we believe.”
Regulators are accelerating the shift with new rules that will provide a path for going fully driverless by removing the requirement that a human serve as a backup. Earlier this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognized Google’s self-driving software as the “driver” in its fully autonomous test vehicles, eliminating the need for a person to be present.
This week, technology industry veterans proposed a ban on human drivers on a 150-mile (241-kilometer) stretch of Interstate 5 from Seattle to Vancouver. Within five years, human driving could be outlawed in congested city centers like London, on college campuses and at airports, said Kristin Schondorf, executive director of automotive transportation at consultant EY.
The first driver-free zones will be well-defined and digitally mapped, giving autonomous cars long-range vision and a 360-degree view of their surroundings, Schondorf said. The I-5 proposal would start with self-driving vehicles using car-pool lanes and expand over a decade to robot rides taking over the road during peak driving times.
“In city centers, you don’t even want non-automated vehicles; they would just ruin the whole point of why you have a smart city,” said Schondorf, a former engineer at Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV. “It makes it a dumb city.”
Autonomous vehicles could cost America 5 million jobs. What should we do about it?Los Angeles Times. The hype here reminds me of electric batteries for cars circa 1992. The vision of the future then was that all-electrical cars were coming soon, starting with local delivery fleets like Fedex and bus services, since the 100 mile per charge limit wouldn’t be a problem (they could go back to their garages and charge overnight). Did this happen? No. And the other impediment, charging stations for passenger cars, is no closer to reality than in 1992 (and there were other too-cute-by-half fixes, like charging stations that would swap in charged batteries for depleted ones so as to minimize driver downtime). The short problem here is we don’t have the infrastructure (as in roads) that autonomous cars require and we aren’t getting them any time soon.
**** **** ****
Zack Kanter over at Quartz thinks driverless vehicles will kill millions of jobs, all within ten years. And he’s wrong.
Ok, ready? I should probably start out by saying I have a few pre-existing biases. The first is that I normally love Quartz and what they do, and the second is that I don’t have an enormous amount of respect for people who generally try to predict what will happen a decade from now, if not further out. Mostly because if they’re wrong, no one will remember, so no one will call them out on it, and if they’re right (which they rarely are), the one doing the predicting will be the one doing the trumpeting. And even if they are wrong, most people tend to remember the prediction nostalgically as if it was a big joke, like the flying cars of Back to the Future Part II, or the guy who dismissed the Internet as a bunch of hooey in Newsweek.
But I will boldly dismiss the prediction that autonomous cars will completely change our world in just 10 short years as a bunch of hooey….
California Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a bill that for the first time allows testing on public roads of self-driving vehicles with no steering wheels, brake pedals or accelerators. A human driver as backup is not required, but the vehicles will be limited to speeds of less than 35 mph.
The legislation applies only to a pilot project by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority at an autonomous-vehicle testing facility at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station, and at a San Ramon business park containing public roads.
At the “GoMentum Station” in the former naval facility, Honda has been testing self-driving cars, and the firm Otto Motors, a division of a Canadian robotics company, has been working on autonomous trucks. The Transportation Authority has said Google and Apple have expressed interest in using the facility.
While the technological feasibility of autonomous vehicles is being demonstrated by Google, Audi, Volvo, Bosch, and Continental, important obstacles such as high costs and the lack of a legislative framework remain in place. On the other hand, the multiple benefits of autonomous vehicles in terms of safety, cost savings, and efficiency, as well as positive impact on the economy and society as a whole, are driving research and development efforts globally. With ADAS-type features already being implemented on a wide scale, the next step for autonomous vehicles will materialize in the next decade. Fully autonomous, self-driving, robotic vehicles will start appearing between 10 and 15 years from now. The disruptive effects of autonomous driving are only just being discovered and its transformative impact on the auto industry and society as a whole will be huge with car sharing and declining vehicle ownership being two of the main exponents.
This study covers autonomous vehicle classification and types, use cases and applications, technology, main players and initiatives, impact and benefits, and remaining challenges and issues. Comparisons, analogies, and lessons to be learnt from other industries such as aviation and rail are briefly described. The report also provides forecasts for autonomous vehicle shipments and technology value per type and region for the next 20 years.
Table of Contents
1. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES TYPES AND CLASSIFICATION
1.2. NHTSA Classification
1.3. Freescale’s View on Autonomous Driving Evolution
1.4. ABI Research Classification
2. SPECIFIC AUTONOMOUS DRIVING USE CASES
2.1. Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC)
2.2. Drive Trains or Platoons
2.3. Automated or Self-parking
3. USER SEGMENTS FOR AUTONOMOUS DRIVING
3.1. Teenage and Young Drivers
3.2. Elderly and Impaired Persons
3.3. Large Families
3.5. Public and Private Transportation
3.6. Delivery Fleets
4. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
4.2. Machine Vision
4.5. Digital Maps
4.6. Location Technologies
4.9. Wi-Fi Direct
4.10. Computing Platform
4.11. Software Algorithms
4.12. Electronically Controllable Electric Power Steering, Throttle, and Brakes
4.13. HMI and Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS)
4.14. Autonomous Vehicle Technologies Diagram
5. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ECOSYSTEM
5.11. University of Oxford
5.12. Dutch Automated Vehicle Initiative (DAVI)
5.15. AutoNOMOS Labs
6. BENEFITS AND IMPACT OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
6.4. Convenience and Efficiency
6.5. Infotainment, Driver Distraction, Smartphone Integration, and HMI
6.6. Vehicle Ownership Decline: Car Sharing and Crowdsourcing
6.7. Public and Private Transportation
6.8. Insurance Telematics
6.10. Economic Impact
6.11. Impact on Society
7. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
7.1. Legal Framework and Liabilities
7.4. V2X Penetration
7.5. User Awareness and Acceptance
7.7. Mixed Environments
7.8. Cost and Pricing
7.9. Aftermarket Solutions
8. AUTOMATION IN OTHER INDUSTRIES
8.3. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
1Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Region, World Market, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
2Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, World Market, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
3Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, World Market, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
4Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, North America, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
5Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, Europe, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
6Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, Asia-Pacific, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
7Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, Rest of the World, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
8Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, North America, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
9Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, Europe, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
10Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, Asia-Pacific, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
11Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, Rest of the World, Forecast: 2012 to 2032