Tag Archives: AI

AI framework

AI framework


Artificial Stupidity: Learning To Trust Artificial Intelligence (Sometimes)


on July 05, 2017 at 2:26 PM

In science fiction and real life alike, there are plenty of horror stories where humans trust artificial intelligence too much. They range from letting the fictional SkyNet control our nuclear weapons to letting Patriots shoot down friendly planes or letting Tesla Autopilot crash into a truck. At the same time, though, there’s also a danger of not trusting AI enough.

As conflict on earth, in space, and in cyberspace becomes increasingly fast-paced and complex, the Pentagon’s Third Offset initiative is counting on artificial intelligence to help commanders, combatants, and analysts chart a course through chaos — what we’ve dubbed the War Algorithm (click here for the full series).

But if the software itself is too complex, too opaque, or too unpredictable for its users to understand, they’ll just turn it off and do things manually. At least, they’ll try: What worked for Luke Skywalker against the first Death Star probably won’t work in real life. Humans can’t respond to cyberattacks in microseconds or coordinate defense against a massive missile strike in real time. With Russia and China both investing in AI systems, deactivating our own AI may amount to unilateral disarmament.

Abandoning AI is not an option. Never is abandoning human input. The challenge is to create an artificial intelligence that can earn the human’s trust, a AI that seems transparent or even human.

“Clausewitz had a term called coup d’oeil,” a great commander’s intuitive grasp of opportunity and danger on the battlefield, said Robert Work, the outgoing Deputy Secretary of Defense and father of the Third Offset, at a Johns Hopkins AI conference in May. “Learning machines are going to give more and more commanders coup d’oeil.”

Conversely, AI can speak the ugly truths that human subordinates may not. “There are not many captains that are going to tell a four-star COCOM (combatant commander) ‘that idea sucks,’” Work said, “(but) the machine will say, ‘you are an idiot, there is a 99 percent probability that you are going to get your ass handed to you.’”

Before commanders will take an AI’s insights as useful, however, Work emphasized, they need to trust and understand how it works. That requires intensive “operational test and evaluation, where you convince yourself that the machines will do exactly what you expect them to, reliably and repeatedly,” he said. “This goes back to trust.”

Trust is so important, in fact, that two experts we heard from said they were willing to accept some tradeoffs in performance in order to get it: A less advanced and versatile AI, even a less capable one, is better than a brilliant machine you can’t trust.

More here:  http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/artificial-stupidity-learning-to-trust-the-machine/ 

source of featured graphic:








Music and Artificial Intelligence (1993)

by Chris Dobrian







“… it’s safe to conclude that AI will be a mandatory part of every new technology start-up within the next two years. It’s also safe to conclude that there won’t be a sector of economy untouched by AI…..”

https://medium.com/@johnrobb/how-the-ai-revolution-creates-new-work-b523986a0886 [this is the framework, by John Robb: a very good read]

war is work work

featured image:

A soldier holds a PD-100 mini-drone during the PACMAN-I experiment in Hawaii.



war is work work 



War Without Fear: DepSecDef Work On How AI Changes Conflict


on May 31, 2017 at 4:02 AM

APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY: “Brothers and sisters, my name is Bob Work, and I have sinned,” the Deputy Secretary of Defense said to laughter. There’s widespread agreement in the military that artificial intelligence, robotics, and human-machine teaming will change the way that war is waged, Work told an AI conference here Thursday, “but I am starting to believe very, very deeply that it is also going to change the nature of war.”

“There’s no greater sin in the profession” than to suggest that new technology could change the “immutable” nature of human conflict, rather than just change the tools with which it’s waged, Work acknowledged. (He wryly noted he’d waited to make this statement until “my boss, the warrior monk, happens to be out of the country”). But Work is both a classically trained Marine Corps officer and the Pentagon’s foremost advocate of artificial intelligence.

“The nature of war is all about a collision of will, fear, uncertainty, and chance, Work said, summarizing Clausewitz. “You have to ask yourself, how does fear play out in a world when a lot of the action is taking place between unmanned systems?”

Human fallibility is central to Clausewitz and to classic theories of war as far back as Sun Tzu. But if machines start making the decisions, unswayed by fear, rage, or pride, how does that change the fundamental calculus of conflict?

“Uncertainty is going to be different now,” Work went on. While he didn’t use the utopian language of millennial Revolution in Military Affairs — whose promise to “lift the fog of war” with high-tech sensors failed utterly in Afghanistan and Iraq — Work did argue that computerized decision-making aids could help commanders see with greater clarity.

“Clausewitz had a term called coup d’oeil,” Work said, essentially a great commander’s intuitive grasp of what was happening on the battlefield. It’s a quality Clausewitz and Napoleon considered innate, individual, impossible to replicate, but, Work said, “learning machines are going to give more and more commanders coup d’oeil.”

That said, uncertainty isn’t going to go away, Work said. We could guess the capabilities of a new Russian tank by watching it parade across Red Square; an adversary’s new AI will only reveal its true nature in battle. “Surprise is going to be endemic, because a lot of the advances that the other people are doing on their weapons systems, we won’t see until we fight them,” Work said, “and if they have artificial intelligence then that’s better than ours, that’s going to be a bad day.”

Chaos Theory

Introducing artificial intelligence to the battlefield could create unprecedented uncertainty. The interactions of opposing AIs could form an increasingly unpredictable feedback loop, a military application of chaos theory.

“We’ve never gotten to the point where we’ve had enough narrow AI systems working together throughout a network for us to be able to see what type of interactions we might have,” Work said. (“Narrow” AI refers to programs that can equal human  intelligence for a specific purpose; “general” AI would equal human intelligence in all aspects, an achievement so far found only in sci-fi).

So what’s the solution? In part, Work said, it’s the cautious, conservative Pentagon processes widely derided as obstacles to innovation. In particular, he pointed to “operational test and evaluation, where you convince yourself that the machines will do exactly what you expect them to, reliably and repeatedly.”

One crucial restraint we want our AIs to follow, Work emphasized, is that they won’t kill a target without specific orders from a human being. “You can envision a world of general (artificial) intelligence where a weapon might make those decisions, but we certain that we do not want to pursue that at this time,” he said.

“We are not going to design weapons that decide what target to hit,” he said. That doesn’t mean a human has to pull the trigger every time: “We’re going to say when we launch you, you can hit one of these five targets, and oh by the way, here’s the priority that we want to service them in; and if you don’t find the fifth target, you don’t get to decide if you’re going to go kill something else. You will either dive into the ocean or self-destruct.”

The problem with such self-imposed restrictions, of course, is that they put you at a disadvantage against adversaries who don’t share them. If we build our military AIs until we can predict their behavior in testing, will our enemies be able to predict their behavior on the battlefield? If we require our AIs to get permission from slow-thinking humans before opening fire, will our enemies out-draw us with AIs that shoot first and ask humans later?

The Civilians Speak

“If one country restrains itself to not develop artificial general intelligence or living AI….adversaries would have an incentive to develop more complex adaptive machines that would be out of control,” because it could give them a crushing advantage, said David Hanson, CEO of Hanson Robotics. Even outside the military field, Hanson said, “many companies are aspiring to make really complex adaptive AI that may not entirely be transparent and its very value is in the fact that it’s surprising.” AI is potentially more powerful — and profitable — than any other technology precisely because it can surprise its makers, finding solutions they’d never thought of.

That’s also why it’s more dangerous. You don’t need a malevolent AI to cause problems, just a childishly single-minded AI that doesn’t realize its clever solution has an unfortunate side effect — such as, say, global extinction. Blogger Tim Urban lays out a thought experiment of an AI programmed to replicate human handwriting that wipes out humanity in order to maximize its supply of notepaper. In one experiment, Oxford University scholar Anders Sandberg told the APL conference, a prototype warehouse robot was programmed to put boxes down a chute. A surveillance camera monitored its progress so it could be turned off when appropriate — until the robot learned to block the camera so it could happily put all the boxes down the chute. It sounds like an adorable three-year-old playing, until you imagine the same thing happening with, say, missile launches.

We’re a long way away from an AI smart enough to be evil, said venture capitalist Jacob Vogelstein: “What’s much more likely to kill us all than an intelligent system that goes off and tries to plot and take over the world is some failure mode of an automated launch system (for example), not because it has some nefarious intention, just because someone screwed up the code.”

“It’s very hard to control autonomy, not because it’s wild or because it wants to be free, (but because) we’re creating these complex, adaptive technological systems,” Sandberg said. Indeed, the most powerful and popular way to make an AI currently is not to program its intelligence line-by-line, but to create a “learning machine” and feed it lots of data so it can learn from experience and trial and error, like a human infant. Unfortunately, it’s very hard with such systems to understand exactly how they learned something or why they made a certain decision, let alone to predict their future actions.

“It’s generally a matter of engineering how much risk and uncertainty are you willing to handle,” said Sandberg. “In some domains, we might say, actually it’s pretty okay to try things and fail fast and learn from experience. In other systems, especially (involving) big missiles and explosions, you might want to be very conservative.”

What if our adversaries are willing to throw those dice? Work has confidence that American ingenuity and ethics will prevail, and that American machines working together with American humans will beat AIs designed by rigid authoritarians who suppress their own people’s creative potential. But he admits there is no guarantee.

This is a competition,” Work said. “We’ll just have to wait and see how that competition unfolds, and we’ll have to go very, very carefully.”


This story is part of our new series, “The War Algorithm.” Click here to read Colin’s introduction.







US President Donald Trump has launched another bitter broadside against Germany in the latest spat between the White House and Berlin, after he described her refugee policy as “catastrophic” and castigated Germany for failing to pay its way within NATO.




Ukraine and Russia are embroiled in conflict, and this time the battlefield is Twitter. The topic of argument is the heritage of a princess that died nearly a thousand years ago.

The two nations have been passive-aggressively sniping at one another with memes and gifs, an incident that has captured the amusement – and relief – of the internet. Better for nations to fight over Twitter than with guns and bombs, seems to be the common sentiment.



“Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper claimed in an interview that Russians are “almost genetically driven to” manipulate and infiltrate as an explanation for his concern about alleged Russian interference into the US presidential election and alleged ties between Trump senior advisor Jared Kushner and Russian officials.

Clapper was asked by NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd if he knew about communications between Kushner and Russian officials. “I will tell you that my dashboard warning light was clearly on and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community: very concerned about the nature of these approaches to the Russians,” Clapper replied.

“If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically, [are] driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned.”

In so many words, Clapper admitted he believed in a genetic predisposition of Russian people to lie, manipulate and misrepresent…..”








David Swanson is “an author, activist, journalist, and radio host, director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is a Lie  and War Is a Crime. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.”

On May 27th, he published an article, widely mirrored by others, entitled Obama in Hiroshima Paints a Peace Sign on a Bomb.  I read the article; you can too. The title is apparently metaphoric.  I did a cursory search for images of the ceremony in Japan and came up with little in the way of paints, paint brushes, or peace signs. I thought maybe the wreath had a certain design. Move your coffee off your desk and click on the link below. 


I appreciate the commentary on the seeming and obvious duplicity or hypocrisy in Obama’s acts and words. I’ve posted similar statements at my news blog Occurrences.

Meanwhile Japan seems to have veered back into militarism, at least covertly.

Not yet posted in Occurrences, off last night’s RiceFarmer.blogspot news links, is Chuck Spinney’s. article at Consortium News

I’ve extracted the core information from Spinney’s lead into Cockburn’s interview of Truman historian Alperovitz.


“President Obama’s administration is planting the seed money for an across-the-board-modernization of nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and support systems that will cost at least a trillion dollars (more likely $2 trillion to $3 trillion, IMO) over the next 15-30 years.

While its details are shrouded in secrecy, public information is oozing out (e.g. see this link). Present information now suggests this program includes: a new ballistic missile launching submarine; a new strategic bomber; a new land-based intercontinental missile; a new air-launched cruise missile; modernization of and adding precision guidance to the B-61 “dial-a-yield” gravity bomb; modernization of strategic ballistic missile warheads; upgrades to the sea launched ballistic missiles; a massive upgrade to the surveillance, reconnaissance,  command, control, and communications systems needed to manage nuclear warfighting; continuation and upgrades to ballistic missile defense systems (rationale: gotta have a “shield” to protect the aforementioned “swords”); modernization of the nuclear weapons laboratory infrastructure; and the increasingly demanding problem of nuclear weapons facilities cleanup (e.g. Hanford).

Given the highly evolved nature of the domestic politics driving defense spending (i.e., the domestic operations of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (I described this in “The Domestic Roots of Perpetual War”), history shows the golden cornucopia of this nuc “bow wave” or programs will quickly evolve into an unstoppable tsunami of front-loaded and politically engineered contracts and subcontracts that will grow over time to overwhelm and paralyze future Presidents and Congresses for the next 20-30 years….”


The debate about bombing Japan into submission will continue; if you want to drill deeply and follow along with the US military/executive branch, read The Image Before the Weapon: A Critical History of the Distinction between Combatant and Civilian, by Helen M. Kinsella (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2011).  I don’t want to mislead you into thinking that I’ve read it.  I haven’t.  But I did read the review of it by a Fellow in the Thinking Matters Program at Stanford University; it is encapsulated here: image before weapon review  






“The atomic bombs killed several hundred thousand people, many instantly in the nuclear fire, many later with burns, injuries and radiation sickness, and still many others, over the years, with cancers and birth defects. These deaths continue to this day. Like most of the cities bombed in World War II, the majority of the inhabitants were women, children and the elderly.

Before the war began, bombing cities was considered an act of total barbarism; there were no “conventional bombs” and it certainly was not considered “conventional” to target civilian populations for mass destruction. But this ideal was shattered early in the war, and eventually all sides engaged in mass bombing raids against cities and civilians.

After the Nazis conducted their massive bombing raids against London, the British retaliated by developing incendiary bombs, fire-bombs designed to burn down cities. British and American bombers dropped these bombs on 5 German cities, killing hundreds of thousands of German civilians in Hamburg, Dresden, Kassel, Darmstadt, and Stuttgart. In March, 1945, the U.S. fire-bombed the city of Tokyo, killing at least 100,000 people.

By the time the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, 50 million people had already died in World War II. The bombing/murder of civilian populations had occurred so many times that it was no longer even regarded as unusual. I believe this is perhaps the greatest tragedy of the war, and it set the stage for the Cold War and the nuclear arms race that followed.

When you view these images of Hiroshima, remember that there is a good chance that a nuclear weapon may now be targeted on your own city and home.”



In Occurrences, I’ve also routinely posted the back-and-forth intensifying stand-offs between Russia and the US, and the Chinese-US Pacific/South China Sea naval confrontations. 

If the moves by Obama noted by Spinney don’t get us into a massive thermonuclear exchange, they’ll bankrupt us. 

You can play the home version of thermonuclear exchange here: http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearexplosionsimulator/ 


Much has been said about the role of the Christian fundamentalist and Dominion movements within the US and particularly within the US military, especially the US Air Force. I hope degrees in divinity and theology are not required to have a coherent and common sense conversation about  the basic realities of nuclear tactics and strategy.

But what struck me is the metaphorical peace sign in Swanson’s title. The peace sign is no simplistic hippie fawning. Flowers whose stems have been tossed down the muzzles of weapons is enough symbolism. Fake blood poured by Catholics on nuclear technology works as well. We need somehing that can transmit the meaning of an awful outcome that we can still barely conceive, even half a century beyond the events that were studied, filmed, and researched.  A lot of literature has been crerated about the real and supposed effects of the detonations of modern weapons, even the small battlefield or neutron bombs that pretend to make their use acceptable. The world will not see and often are not allowed to see the horrors of the use of phosphorus or depleted uranium, so certainly we will not be allowed to talk about the effects of the kinds of advanced weapons systems both sides either boast about or rush to manufacture. 

It is a truism that no weapon has been made that hasn’t eventually been used.

If I’m wrong about this, name it. 

So I am not amused when I see Swanson drop a reference to the peace sign so blithely. You see, it is suggested by some that the peace sign is a sign of Satan. It is associated with Socialists and Communists. According to that source, it was the Teutonic rune of death, used to signifiy hatred of Christians, and is associated with Masonry. But maybe that’s a reference from a bunch of crazies. 

The author of this peaceday.org web page has extended “an open invitation over the last twenty years for anyone to show me any proof the peace sign was used” before 1958. 

“… the Peace symbol surfaced on letters from the Direct Action Committee against Nuclear War in its original form as early as March 1958. Bertrand Russell was a member of this committee and, through his writings, has left us with an unmistakable history of when, where and who created the Peace Sign. Here are quotes from letters Bertrand Russell wrote in response to H. Pickles from Lichthort Verlag who wrote to complain that the peace symbol was a death symbol because the arms pointed downwards. Russell’s reply: “I am afraid that I cannot follow your argument that the ND badge is a death-symbol. It was invented by a member of our movement as the badge of the Direct Action Committee against Nuclear War, for the first Aldermaston March. It was designed from the naval code of semaphore, and the symbol represents the code letters for ND. To the best of my knowledge, the Navy does not employ signallers who work upside down.’’

“Gerald Holtom [sic] is in fact widely credited with the design of the nuclear disarmament symbol (aka the peace symbol). The earliest reference I could find is in American journalist and playwright Herb Greer’s “Mud Pie” (London: Parrish, 1964). Mr Greer has since written to me to corroborate my facts. A little before the first Aldermaston march at Easter 1958, Holtom showed up at the offices of “Peace News,” in London, with drawings for banners and the symbol: “On a purple square was superimposed a white circle with a purple cross inside it, or almost a cross. The arms had slipped and were drooping against the lower sides of the circle. Holtom had made the design by combining the semaphore letters N and D: N for nuclear and D, naturally, for disarmament.” (P. 30) Holtom was a commercial artist with, it seems, a “visual aid factory”. Greer told me that he put his factory in Twickenham to making “lollipop signs” marked with the droopy cross. In correspondence through email he added, “I was actually there on and before the first Aldermaston March for which it was created. I visited Holtom, I saw the original sketches and discussed it with him. The reason for the symbol being upside down (D over N) is that semaphore is a military code. Upside down, anti-military.” For a much later account by a famous march organizer who witnessed Holtom’s presentation, see Michael Randle, “Non-Violent Direct Action in the 1950s and 1960s”, in Richard Taylor and Nigel Young, _Campaigns for Peace: British Peace Movements in the Twentieth Century_ (Manchester: Manchester U. Press, 1987), p. 134. The symbol was to appear at either end of banners stretching from one side of a streetful of marchers to the other.”

Now you may say is there anything else you can tell us about the Peace Sign?? Of course!!

“From a design point of view, it is interesting to note that the original sketches are preserved at the School of Peace Studies, Bradford University (ibid., p. 159). The original symbol wasn’t just sticks in a thinly bounded circle. The ends of the “arms” and “legs” thicken and splay out noticeably as they approach the circumference. And the circle itself is thick — when it has an outer edge. (Thus there are at least 2 designs.) You can see the original symbol on the banners and “lollipops” of the marchers in plates in another book by Taylor, “The Protest Makers” (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980). The thickening itself has two versions: in one, all the straight strokes are thickened; in the other, only those in the lower half of the circle. Both are amply represented here in literature preserved by Bertrand Russell from his days at the head of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Committee of 100. Some are eminently scannable, too. The original designs are much nicer than what might be termed the sanserif abstraction that took over the banners by 1961.”



Dave Dionisi points out that the peace sign most of us are familiar with “combines a circle, a vertical line, and downward sloping lines.  Throughout history the peace symbol was not always used in the spirit of love and service to humanity. For this reason, the Teach Peace Foundation does not use the peace symbol.” 

That teachpeace link goes on describe the Gerald Herbert Holtom source/design story as a popular explanation and notes the fact that Bertrand Russell “supported Holtom’s claim and aggressively promoted the arms down symbol. The arms down peace sign made its first public appearance in the United Kingdom during the 1958 Easter weekend Direct Action Committee anti-nuclear march from London to Aldermaston. Russell was the march organizer responsible for placing the arms down peace symbol on buttons and banners.” 


“Russell’s interest in the peace symbol becomes visible when you know he was a member of the British Fabian Socialist Society, a secret society advocating a New World Order. Russell wrote in his book The Impact of Science on Society that a “Black Death” or bacteriological warfare would be helpful every generation to cull the population. One of Russell’s frustrations was war had proved to be disappointing in dramatically reducing populations.3 When you realize Russell supported both communism and peace without God, his alignment with all the New World Order tenets becomes visible. Specifically, he wanted to abolish God, abolish representative government, abolish private property, abolish food independence, abolish the family, and abolish most people as part of his anti-Christian crusade…..”

“Russell’s primary interest in the symbol was to communicate defeat, despair, and disrespecting Jesus. Secret societies advancing the Great Plan enjoy seeing people, especially young children, wearing the peace symbol with the arms down because in their Luciferian religion they believe deception produces a dark energy helping to pave the way for the Antichrist.

American journalist and playwright Herb Greer adds support for the Holtom explanation. He reported, “I was actually there on and before the first Aldermaston march for which it was created. I visited Holtom, I saw the original sketches and discussed it with him.”

Ken Kolsbun, author of the book Peace: The Biography of a Symbol, reported that Holtom expressed regret in not designing the peace symbol with the joyful lifting of arms towards the sky.5 For most of Holtom’s life he would draw only the upright peace symbol….”


Holtom’s wish that the peace symbol connotation of despair be changed to joy is illustrated by the picture on the right. When the peace symbol is inverted the letter “N” becomes the semaphore code for “U” which could mean “universal” disarmament or the less popular but courageous “unilateral” disarmament.7

While it appears reasonable that the modern day peace symbol comes from Gerald Holtom, this logic fails to address the fact that the symbol has been used for evil both in modern times and for thousands of years.

This same symbol was used by Hitler’s 3rd Panzer Division from 1941 to 1945. The regimental 3rd Panzer Division symbol. Soviet, Polish, and Hungarian citizens, having suffered from the Nazi massacres, undoubtedly struggled with Holtom’s use of the symbol as a thoughtful way to communicate peace. The symbol can also be found on some of Hitler’s SS soldiers’ tombstones.8 Another flaw in the Holtom creation story is the use of the symbol as an anti-Christian symbol by the Saracens as early as 711 A.D.9  For the Saracens, the image placed on their shields symbolized the breaking of the Christian cross.

For some the broken cross was equated to a satanic symbol known as the raven’s craw or witch’s foot. While Holtom may not have known the historical meaning of the peace symbol, Bertrand Russell was a historian and member of the Fabian Society. A 1970 article in the American Opinion magazine claimed Russell knew the historical occult meaning and intentionally selected an “anti-Christian design long associated with Satanism.”10

The fifth and final Roman emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, Nero (born Lucius Domitius Ahenabarbus 37 – 68 AD), is remembered in history for persecuting Christians. Nero’s rule was so wicked he even had his mother executed. The First Roman-Jewish War (66 – 70 AD) started during his reign and today the term “Nero Cross” is the symbol of the “broken Jew” or “broken cross.” The most famous person believed to be crucified by Nero was the Apostle Peter. To symbolize humility and unworthiness in comparison to Christ, Peter requested that he be crucified with his head toward the ground. As a result of Peter’s death the upside down cross was used by early Christians as a positive symbol for peace.

The symbol of the upside down cross changes its meaning when the person on the upside down cross is no longer Peter but Jesus. Anti-religious and satanic groups use the “Nero Cross” or inverted “Latin Cross” to symbolize everything opposite of Christianity. Today this is clearly illustrated by “black metal” or heavy metal music lyrics and imagery that communicate anti-Christian sentiments.11 An album cover for the black metal group, Mayhem, is shown on the left. The first letter “M” in “Mayhem” and the last “m” depict the upside down cross. In addition to musicians, film makers have reinforced the notion that the upside down cross is an anti-Christian symbol as illustrated by The Omen in 1976 and The Exorcism of Emily Rose in 2005.

The symbol has also been used to communicate support for communism. Bertrand Russell once said: “There is no hope in anything but the Soviet way.” Governments–both those who supported communism and those opposed to it–have perceived benefits in aligning the peace symbol with communist ideology. For people like Bertrand Russell, the author of the 1927 essay Why I Am Not Christian, the symbol represented not only a pro-communism meaning but peace without God.12


The confusion about what the modern day peace symbol means is further clouded by the founder of the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey. LaVey used the symbol as the backdrop for his altar.13 Rudolf Koch’s Book of Signs explains the downward pointed fork represents the death of man.14 Placed in the circle the symbol means the total death of all people which is the exact opposite of what Holtom worked to prevent with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

While the anti-God, communist and death of man arguments are far from representative of the majority of people that carry or wear a peace symbol, they can frustrate the sincere efforts of peacemakers.

Today because many people carry the symbol without understanding the history, we miss an opportunity to address historical uses and move forward to reclaim the symbol for good.15 The Focus Fusion Society is honoring Holtom’s by putting the peace symbol arms up.16

Unfortunately even the upward arms peace symbol is not problem-free. For example, the white racist group, National Alliance, uses the upward arm symbol shown on the right.17

When you see the peace symbol, with the exception of groups specifically promoting violence, the person displaying it is attempting to communicating a message of love. Rather than use the arms down or arms up peace symbol, communicating love with kindness is recommended.”

Sources for and additional information about Dave Dionisi’s article are at the link: http://www.teachpeace.com/peacesymbolhistory.htm 



Hands down, though, the recurrent problem is the devastatingly stupid expansionist funding and support for, and planning for the use of, nuclear weapons. 

The image that comes to mind is five people lined up in an interlocking daisy chain perhaps not unlike the alignment of the symbol itself, each person’s right hand extended in a reach to the back of the head of the person in front of them, pointed at the middle of the brainstem, each holding a Glock automatic loaded with a .40 hollow-point ACP in the chamber, safeties off, practicing synchronized rhythmic breathing in the hopes that no one twitches. Bathroom and meal breaks are allowed so long as each person hands off the weapon to his or replacement. 

Other images come to mind of the types of exercises routinely and repeatedly undertaken by entry-level aikido students to practice grappling, movement, and weapons defense and take-away techniques. 

The most vivid “image” that arose from the text above is the one that suggests unilateral disarmament. 

What happens when one combatant puts down their weapon before the other?

Most people with military or police training would tell you that would be suicidally stupid. (See Put Down Your Gun and Step Away.) 

Everybody sees the other as evil, dangerous, cowardly.

Spiritual breakthrough is often describined as what results when you have seen that everything and everyone is the same thing.  

In aikido, situational awareness for combatants is made of foreign concepts like the techniques and practices of bowing, metsuke, ma-ai, and the like. These are forms of heightened awareness and heightened regard for the Other.


I am no sensei. 

I am not qualified in any sense to talk about this thing they call the discipline of the spirit of harmony.

But getting combatants to practice synchronized abdominal stress-reducing breathing might be a good start. Every aikido session begins and ends with meditation.

And what little I know about aikido is that its entire purpose is the expression of love

iron men

iron men

Many have suspected Israel controls ISIS. The computer of Netanyahu Chief of Staff Mandi al-Safadi was allegedly hacked, showing communication with ISIS members.






Many have suspected Israel controls ISIS. The computer of Netanyahu Chief of Staff Mandi al-Safadi was allegedly hacked, showing communication with ISIS members.

Israel controls ISIS.

Many have long suspected the connection, given that ISIS serves the Zionist agenda so well, but now we may have more proof. According to Veterans Today, hackers were recently able to get access to several months of personal computer data and mobile phone calls of Israeli Chief of Staff under Netanyahu, Manzar (Mandi) al-Safadi. The hack allegedly revealed that al-Safadi had been communicating and cutting deals with many Lebanese personalities and Syrian opposition figures who cooperated with Israel in the Syrian crisis. The hackers allegedly found information which helped them to gain “valuable intelligence on Israel’s supports for terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq.” (Note: I have been unable to personally verify the claims of hacking by reading the documents, since Google translator says the page is too large to translate).

The ISIS Game is Up

For those paying attention, we have been inundated with clues that the whole ISIS phenomenon is a massive fraud. In a Freudian slip Obama recently stated that “with the additional steps I ordered last month, we’re speeding up the training of ISIL forces”. ISIL is another of ISIS’ many names. Earlier in the year, there were reports that Israel was attending to wounded ISIS soldiers in Israeli hospitals. The spin put on that by the Zionist-owned press was that Israel was so generous and magnanimous that it even cares for its enemies, a ridiculous lie designed to cover the fact that Israel controls ISIS. Even the alleged head of ISIS, Al-Baghdadi (accused of being a Mossad double agent), died in an Israeli hospital!

What about this piece of information that ISIS is another name for the Mossad, i.e. that it stands for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service? What about reports coming from Iraq that Israel controls ISIS, gives them weapons and fights alongside them as revealed by Luke Rudkowski in Israel Joining ISIS?

The ISIS game is up. The official narrative is simply far too much to believe.

As Bernie Suarez humorously writes:

“According to U.S. “intelligence sources” mouthpieces, ISIS has [professional camera and image editing software and skills] including social media capabilities. Amazingly, these covered-face killers have unraveled the secret of how to outsmart every world power including the U.S. Empire with regard to every form of communication. They have stomped out the U.S. military, NSA, CIA, NATO, U.N. and the intelligence of Israel, U.K. and every other nation that surrounds them …”

“ISIS is so close to Israel, they may attack Israel any given day … The big Israel attack would gain them all the PR and Marketing they need … The irony gets even crazier here. According to U.S. politicians pushing the ISIS psyop narrative, ISIS is not only unwilling to attack Israel, which they could do in a day or two, they instead prefer to make plans to travel all the way to the other side of the world to attack the world’s most powerful Empire of all time. Yes, they would rather risk getting caught, imprisoned or killed traveling halfway around the world than to go for an easy quick strike at Israel.”

How ISIS Helps the Zionist Regime of Israel

It’s very clear that ISIS serves the Zionist agenda well. That alone has been the giveaway to know that Israel controls ISIS. Just look what ISIS does. ISIS terrorists run around the Middle Eastern Islamic countries, beheading, killing, raping and pillaging, stealing land and resources, overthrowing and dividing sovereign nations and – most of all – setting Muslim against Muslim. And as ISIS runs around the desert like a headless chicken, the Western public gets thoroughly conditioned to believe in the threat of Islamic terrorism, with the added assistance of Israeli front groups like SITE (Search for International Terrorist Entities) who produce clean-cut, green-screen and entirely fake beheadings.

Meanwhile, miraculously, ISIS never seems to threaten Israel. You would think that Israel would be a logical target of hatred for a group of extreme Muslims out to form their own State or Caliphate. Yet Israel never gets attacked or touched. ISIS does, however, foment tremendous and horrific infighting among Muslims and weaken many Islamic nations, so that they are too disconnected to unite together to stand up to real threat in the region – Zionist Israel, financially owned by the Rothschilds and militarily backed by the US.

Israel, the Missing Piece of the Puzzle in the Middle Eastern Crisis

Israel is the missing piece of the puzzle. Israel controls ISIS and many other aspects of geopolitics, being the personal country of the Rothschilds, the richest family on Earth.

Just as a reminder, Israel:

– Has continuously expanded its territory by stealing land, eradicating villages and committing genocide against a sovereign people (the Palestinians);

– Has infiltrated the governments of almost all the major countries of the world, e.g. USA, Britain, France, Germany, Australia and Canada (as well as the United Nations) to the point where it dictates their foreign (and sometimes even domestic) policy;

– Attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 (even though the US and Israel were supposed allies at the time) with unmarked aircraft;

– Was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 false flag operation;

– Has consistently lied and exaggerated the threat of the Iranian nuclear intentions, while harboring a nuclear arsenal of its own, and refusing to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;

– Is behind the invention and creation of radical Islam, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia and the demonization of Islam.

Given all that and much more, how much of a surprise is it that Israel controls ISIS too?

The ISIS Psy-op Has Come Unravelled

Much like the single Islamic terrorist bogeyman Osama Bin Laden, and the Islamic terrorist group bogeyman Al-Qaeda, ISIS is another psy-op (psychological operation) designed to prop up the failing and fake war on terror. We know that the Bushes were close buddies with the Bin Ladens; we know that Al-Qaeda was a CIA creation and literally means “the database” in Arabic. Remember what Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said:

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . .”

ISIS is the latest installment of deceptive propaganda, but it’s not working. Many have seen right through it. We know, with proof, that Israel controls ISIS. How long until a critical mass realizes it and looks instead at the real puppet-master Israel?



Iron Man, Not Terminator: The Pentagon’s Sci-Fi Inspirations


on May 03, 2016 at 1:28 PM

WASHINGTON: “When most people when they hear me talk about this, they immediately start to think of think of Skynet and Terminator,” said the deputy secretary of defense. “I think more in terms of Iron Man.” The Pentagon wants artificial intelligence, said Bob Work, but it doesn’t want “killer robots that roam the battlefield” without human control.

Instead, Work said told an Atlantic Council conference, citing half-a-dozen science fiction stories from Iron Man to Stark Trek to Ender’s Game, the goal is something like the JARVIS software that runs Tony Stark’s fictional super-suit: “a machine to assist a human where the human is still in control in all matters, in all matters, but the machine makes the human much more powerful and much more capable.”

A Marine Corps artilleryman turned national security intellectual, Bob Work is lead architect of the Defense Department’s high-tech “offset strategy,” which seeks to offset the always superior numbers and growing technological sophistication of Russia, China, and other adversaries by developing new tools and tactics. While electromagnetic railguns, lasers, hypersonic weapons, and more are all being funded and developed, artificial intelligence has increasingly become the unifying idea of the offset.

“The Third Offset is really kind of simple at its core,” Work said. (The first offset was nuclear weapons, the second smart weapons). “It basically hypothesizes that the advances in artificial intelligence and autonomy [are] going to lead to a new era of human-machine collaboration and combat teaming.”

Smart weapons of a sort have been around since 1943, when the Germans launched the first acoustic homing torpedo and first radio-guided missile. But there’s no precedent for artificial intelligence, which means many of the people who’ve thought hardest about it aren’t strategists or scientists, but science fiction writers.

“People have been thinking about this for quite some time and you can learn very interesting things [from] A lot of the stuff that you read in science fiction,” Work said.

So what is Work’s favorite food for thought? Besides Iron Man and Terminator, he praised the Atlantic Council’s “Art of Future Warfare” project (to which I contributed a fictional Russian invasion of Estonia) and promised to read the next anthology of offset strategy-themed stories. But he also identified an array of sci-fi classics, from multi-media franchises like Iron Man to relatively obscure texts like the Bolo stories, “one of my favorite book series.”

Air Force officer and diplomat turned author Keith Laumer‘s best-known stories concern the Bolos, gigantic robot tanks with planet-shaking weapons. The twist is that Laumer’s artificially intelligent war machines are loyal, moral, and honorable — often more so than their human masters, which drives much of the conflict in the series. Work singled out the loyal way Bolos work with and for human officers as a model for real-world artificial intelligence to aspire to.

Work also extolled Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game — “I didn’t think was all that good of a movie but it was a heck of a book” — for its depiction of a commander directing far-flung forces via computer networks. The story also shows the psychological toll that even such abstract, remote warfare takes on those who lead it.

Worse yet, in Ender’s Game the commanders are pre-pubescent children picked for their adaptability and agility of mind. As the pace of technological change accelerates, Work wondered aloud, will we need to take Ender as our model and have “younger and younger and younger commanders?”

In addition, Work cited David Weber’s space-battles stories — a kind of sci-fi version of Admiral Nelson and Horatio Hornblower, where the commander’s personality is crucial to victory. He also invoked John Ringo’s Posleen stories where future soldiers, like Iron Man, wear powered armor that not only protects but boosts their strength, speed, and senses. (This trope originated with Robert Heinlein’s novel Starship Troopers, which bears almost no resemblance to the film of the same name).

Then there was Star Trek, the mothership that made science fiction (relativel) mainstream in American culture. Work cited William Shatner’s famously cantankerous captain for his willingness to get creative and break the rules when necessary, as when Kirk hacked the Star Fleet Academy simulator to win the unwinnable Kobayashi Maru scenario.

“I don’t believe that the commander who listens to the machine all the time is going to be the best commander,” Work said.

Sometimes, he continued to laughter, “it’s going to be like James T. Kirk on the Kobayashi Maru where he says, okay, I understand the rules of the game, but I’m going to change the rules.”

What future military training — and reading science fiction — needs to teach young officers, Work said, is “never ever believe that the computer is always going to be write. Trust your judgment — and then we have to train them to operate [in that environment] and to cheat if necessary.”




Posted in False Flag Operations, Rise of the Machines, Technology, UFOs


If you’ve got nothing to hide, why worry about warrantless mass surveillance? One reason among many: The people who have access to your private communications may not have your—or your child’s—best interest at heart.

NextGov reports that officials at a recent Intelligence and National Security Alliance symposium in Chantilly, Virginia discussed the widespread storage of child pornography on NSA and other military computer systems. Daniel Payne, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Service, reportedly said that “the amount of child porn [he sees on government devices] is just unbelievable.” An NSA official agreed, saying “what people do is amazing.”

It’s often difficult for us to pinpoint direct, personal harms from warrantless dragnet spying. Sure, policies like those established after 9/11 may threaten democratic, open society, freedom of speech, and due process. But for many of us, drawing a direct line between the erosion of democratic norms and our day-to-day lives can be challenging, if not impossible. It’s not hard, on the other hand, to imagine a government employee using his access to warrantless surveillance data to fish for bath-time photos of our naked children.

Don’t forget: The surveillance systems Snowden exposed may seem too big to comprehend, but the individual people behind them are just as real (and flawed) as you or me.

According to these officials and older reports, sexual abuse of children is rampant in the military and intelligence worlds. That’s yet one more reason why we shouldn’t ever give government institutions and the people who run them nearly limitless power to exercise in the dark.





“… ‘A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy-Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts, — a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments.’ . . .”



Editors’ Note: It is appropriate to announce in advance that these three blogs will undergo some change in the not-too-distant future. I speak mostly of Occurrences, but also its siblings The Sullen Bell and BoyDownTheLane

While I will continue to be interested in news and politics, and will probably remain active in writing about them, transition is upon us, and me in particular. 

The world of social media and the Internet is undergoing significant centralization and compression; one lone individual canot have much impact against the combined weight of the US government and its corporate/intel complex, the social engineering thrusts of the Tavistock crowd, or the stupidly unwavering commitment to warfare and other forms of militancy. 

The continuation of a news aggregating entity like Occurrences must involve others, higher IT skills, some automation, more voices, the next higher level of creativity and interaction, fresh ideas, sale of the web site(s), or abandonment. 

I invite suggestions and input via the contact pages at any of the three sites.

the UFO economy

the UFO economy 

“When you’ve got a US$100 trillion of hardware flying around the planet, 

that is pertinent to the manufacturing base of the planet!”




See also:


America 2020: Creative Freedom or Mechanized Tyranny?



[&&]{**}[##] [&&]{**}[##] [&&]{**}[##]




0:01 Episode Intro

2:36 Effect on Society of Robotics

11:58 Future of American Middle Class

18:20 Dangers to Perception of America in Trump Circus Candidacy

23:00 Symptoms of Entrainment Technology Being Used – Catherine Anecdote

33:31 The New Infrastructure Being Planned

41:09 DJ Asks Catherine if American Middle Class Can Be Saved

44:58 GMO As The Foundation For a New Currency

47:32 Elite Trying to Make Children Grow into Automatons

52:25 Covert Intel Groups Legally Attack and Intimidate Catherine for Eleven Years

1:02:04 The Necessity of Seeing Things as They Are

1:06:59 Geopolitical Trends: The Harvesting of Greece by Mr. Global

1:12:22 America 2020 and the UFO Economy

1:19:45 Intense Confluence of Events and Decisions for the Fall

1:25:28 The False Recovery and Illusion of Economic Recovery

1:30:10  The Danger of Gloom and Doom Fear Porn in Corporate and Alternative Media

1:35:43 Shunning as a Tool to Deal with Corrupt Groups in Finance, Media and Politics

1:44:42 The Insidious Nature of Common Core to Allow Corporations and Intel Software to Control Young Students

1:47:10 The Divine Field as the Hidden Power in Humanity

1:47:38 While Discussing Council on Foreign Relations Strange Electronic Voice says ‘Slave’ at 1:47:43 (no tech explanation)

1:55:54 Catherine Reflects on Decision to Oppose the NWO and Mr. Global

1:58:36 Psychological Scientific Study on Psychopathic Individuals Embedded in Politics

2:02:06 Why an Average Person Finds Evil Corruption Hard to Fathom

2:05:09 Private Corporate Armies and Technological Control

2:07:49 Secret Space Program Conference Upcoming Presentation on the Space Economy

2:12:26 NASA and the Public Space Program Went Black and Private Corporate Space Interests Rose

2:14:50 Closing Thoughts for the Powerful Episode



Previously posted here 15 months ago; read the comments.




Want more?:

Dark Journalist: Richard Dolan: UFOs & The Breakaway Civilization (Part One, 80 minutes)


Dark Journalist & Richard Dolan: Strange UFO Encounters & Intelligence Connections (Part Two, 60 minutes)




source of featured image at top: http://thedailycoin.org/?p=17886 



Humanoids, TransEvolution, the individual (re-posts)

The Evolution of Humanoid Robots Now Includes “a sense of self”

Thursday, March 19, 2015 13:49

(Before It’s News)

This is an update to the chronicle detailing the evolution of humanoid robots (with videos) 


Nicholas West

Activist Post

In the age of computers, things evolve exponentially. In just a few generations robots have gone from a scientific fantasy, to a playful curiosity, to entering the battlefield to replace and/or augment their human counterparts.

We are already at the point where we have to consider what the next step of robotic evolution looks like. According to robotics engineers, it appears that at some point in the near future the next step could very well be whatever the next generation robot chooses for itself.

Just late last year it was posited that the humanoid robot was poised to take a leap from a mere facsimile of human behavior to one that futurists suggest will not only walk like a human, but will possess self awareness, as well as a full range of high-tech computational spectrum analysis and capabilities . . . and emotions.

That day has apparently now arrived.

The chronicle below charts the advancement from the rudimentary, through the downright creepy, and toward today where, according to the final video from New Scientist, we see that the new generation of iCub humanoid robot can in fact determine its own goals and exhibit emotional behavior and language skills that so far have been exclusively human.

So far, development in humanoid robots has been limited to their physicality. A level of advancement has now been achieved that it is leading to serious concern about the economic impact of humans being outsourced to robots for tasks as diverse as service, manufacturing, nursing, housework, yard maintenance and full-fledged agricultural duties. Some are predicting that robots of all types could fully replace humans by 2045. Artificial intelligence is now advancing to a point where a new type of brain can be offered to compliment the relatively menial tasks of modern-day robotics, hinting at the next stage of evolution.

It is typical of any science with military applications to evolve in a dual- or even multi-use fashion. For example, humanoid robots were initially advertised as a study in how to benefit those who have lost limbs; and, indeed, this has been a noted benefit. However, the real money — the black budget money — goes into applications which can be downright frightening.

Enter DARPA, which had already been working on its own projects, but through its Robotics Grand Challenge has spurred a huge influx of inventors looking to receive DARPA funding to offer the next generation of humanoids. The Challenge has been couched in the comforting language of “disaster response” research, but what is emerging seems to be capable of far more than that:

The primary goal of the DARPA Robotics Challenge program is to develop ground robotic capabilities to execute complex tasks in dangerous, degraded, human-engineered environments. The program will focus on robots that can utilize available human tools, ranging from hand tools to vehicles. The program aims to advance the key robotic technologies of supervised autonomy, mounted mobility, dismounted mobility, dexterity, strength, and platform endurance. Supervised autonomy will be developed to allow robot control by non-expert operators, to lower operator workload, and to allow effective operation despite low fidelity (low bandwidth, high latency, intermittent) communications. (Source)

From the task section:

The specific tasks are:

1) The robot will maneuver to a open frame utility vehicle, such as a John Deere Gator or a Polaris Ranger. The robot is to get into the driver’s seat and drive it to a specified location.

2) The robot is to get out of the vehicle, maneuver to a locked door, unlock it with a key, open the door, and go inside.

3) The robot will traverse a 100 meter, rubble strewn hallway.

4) At the end of the hallway, the robot will climb a ladder.

5) The robot will locate a pipe that is leaking a yellow-colored gas (non-toxic, non-corrosive). The robot will then identify a valve that will seal the pipe and actuate that valve, sealing the pipe.

6) The robot will locate a broken pump and replace it.

The robot will be teleoperated, at least at the supervisory level. DARPA will control the communications bandwidth and latency, in order to make the task more difficult and force higher levels of autonomous behavior. If necessary, this control over communications will be used to discriminate performance levels between competitors and select a winner.


The goal of this Grand Challenge is to create a humanoid robot that can operate in an environment built for people and use tools made for people. The specific challenge is built around an industrial disaster response.

The current array of robots designed over the last few years to match human capability demonstrate what is listed above, and then some:

PETMAN: An anthropomorphic robot designed for testing chemical protection clothing. Its range of motion allows it to balance, walk, crawl, and even climb stairs, while also having the ability to simulate human physiology such as sweating. (Source)



[A very large snip…. please read the entire article at the link, as it includes the fifteen videos totaling over 37 minutes, plus graphics and multiple links….]



It appears that all of the components are coming together which are leading to the possibility of a true terminator robot. And once these humanoid robots merge with fully autonomous intelligence, we will have witnessed the next stage of evolution toward the full Transhumanist dream of The Singularity – the moment when computer intelligence surpasses that of humans to such an extent that humans become practically redundant.

Robots already have transformed our human world and are rapidly evolving. If The Singularity is reached, in tandem with military funding and direction, we can expect the darker version of science fiction to rise above any notion of attaining human freedom and leisure on the backs of our machine counterparts.

I find it ironic that these sentient robots are only made so by injecting them with humanity. But we are continuously bombarded by the global elite with the message that humanity is the core problem. The fact is that robots are nothing without the boundless potential that resides within the human brain; nothing but a computer doing fancy tricks that imitates us. True, we have a long way to go to reach our full potential and mitigate our self-destructive tendencies, but a complete replacement of our species at this juncture appears to be short-sighted and is obviously artificial.

How much of this technology should be embraced, and how much rejected? Now is the time to set the boundaries….




Timeline of humanoid robotics:


Updated 3/19/2015 


{**}[##][&&] [&&][##]{**}

“… It’s part of the vastly expanding operation aimed at the individual.

The “modern” position is, we’re all one great big group.

Rimbaud was just redoing Shelley. Dylan Thomas was adding a few exhibitionist touches to Shakespeare, who was aping Sophocles. Plato was mimicking generations of Egyptian high priests. Socrates was staging dialogues based on arguments between cave men.

And if we could climb into a time machine, we could travel back to the age of the Neanderthals and see that Neanderthals were stealing thoughts after listening to what ants and gorillas and cabbages were saying.

Yes, it’s all spiritual collectivism, and we’re melting down into one cosmic goo-glob, and it’s marvelous.

“It’s all information” is the code phrase. Ideas, thoughts, sentences, books; nothing is original, nothing is new; we all “share” information floating in the collective consciousness; the individual invents nothing.

The move to wipe out the entire concept of the individual and erase it from human consciousness is a propaganda op. It is far easier to wield control over a group.

It therefore comes down to the individual vs. the goo. So be it.

Actually, if anyone cares, “the people” is a convenient term for “every INDIVIDUAL.”

This has been lost in translation. It has been garbled, distorted, just as the proprietor of an old-fashioned carnival shell game distorts the audience’s perception with sleight of hand.

Are “the people” one group? Well, that’s the ultimate Globalist formulation.

However, from the point of view of the free individual, things are upside down. It is HIS power that is primary, not the monolithic corporate State’s…..

For several decades, the pseudo-discipline called “social science” had been turning out reams of studies and reports on tribes, societal groupings, and so-called classes of people. Groups.

Deeply embedded in the social sciences were psychological warfare specialists who, after World War 2, emerged with a new academic status and new field of study: mass communications.

Their objective? The broadcasting of messages that would, in accordance with political goals, provoke hostility or pacified acceptance in the masses.

Hostility channeled into support of new wars; acceptance of greater domestic government control.

Nowhere in these formulas was the individual protected. He was considered a wild card, a loose cannon, and he needed to be demeaned, made an outsider, and characterized as a criminal who opposed the needs of the collective.

Collective=robot minds welded into one mind…..

In the planned society, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run and operate and propagandize the mass.

In order to affect the illusion of individual success, as a kind of safety valve for the yearnings of millions of people, the cult of individual celebrity emerged. But even there, extraordinary tales of rise and then precipitous fall, glory and then humiliation, were and are presented as cautionary melodramas.

This could happen to you. You would be exposed. You would suffer the consequences. Let others take the fall. Keep your mind blank. Do nothing unusual. Shorten your attention span. Disable your own mental machinery. Then you’ll never be tempted to stand out from the mass.

The onrush of technocracy gears its wild promises to genetic manipulation, brain-machine interfaces, and other automatic downloads assuring “greater life.” No effort required. Plug in, and ascend to new heights.

Freedom? Independence? Old flickering dreams vicariously viewed on a screen.

Individual greatness, imagination, creative power? A sunken galleon loaded with treasure that, upon closer investigation, was never there to begin with.

The Plan is all that is important. The plan involves universal surveillance, in order to map the lives of billions of people, move by move, in order to design systems of control within which those billions live, day to day.

But the worst outcome of all is: the individual cannot even conceive of his own life and future in large terms. The individual responds to tighter and control with a shrug, as if to say, “What difference does it make?”….”



{**}[##][&&] [&&][##]{**}


The Coming Age of Human Deconstruction

Arguing that the race to better humankind is about to go to a new dimension as a result of a nanotechnological revolution, this enthralling read purports that the depth of progress and technological development is such that people in the very near future may no longer be fully human. TransEvolution discusses the transition from human to someone—or something—new and different and the increasing trend of implementing prosthetics, organ implants, bionic eyes, hearing aids, and other technological augmentations.

Humans are capable of doing things they never imagined would be possible 20 years ago, and the rapid growth of this trend is nowhere near its end. But do the benefits of these advancements come with a price? Is humanity in danger because of this domination of science and technology? Bestselling author Daniel Estulin describes his vision of the future in which he believes the elite will employ their Promethean plans.


humanoids, self-awareness, emotions, language skills, AI, black budgets, DARPA, autonomous mobility, anthropomorphic physiology, the Singularity, the individual, collectivism, information, social sciences, mass communication, TransEvolution