As conflict on earth, in space, and in cyberspace becomes increasingly fast-paced and complex, the Pentagon’s Third Offset initiative is counting on artificial intelligence to help commanders, combatants, and analysts chart a course through chaos — what we’ve dubbed the War Algorithm (click here for the full series).
Conversely, AI can speak the ugly truths that human subordinates may not. “There are not many captains that are going to tell a four-star COCOM (combatant commander) ‘that idea sucks,’” Work said, “(but) the machine will say, ‘you are an idiot, there is a 99 percent probability that you are going to get your ass handed to you.’”
Before commanders will take an AI’s insights as useful, however, Work emphasized, they need to trust and understand how it works. That requires intensive “operational test and evaluation, where you convince yourself that the machines will do exactly what you expect them to, reliably and repeatedly,” he said. “This goes back to trust.”
Trust is so important, in fact, that two experts we heard from said they were willing to accept some tradeoffs in performance in order to get it: A less advanced and versatile AI, even a less capable one, is better than a brilliant machine you can’t trust.
“… it’s safe to conclude that AI will be a mandatory part of every new technology start-up within the next two years. It’s also safe to conclude that there won’t be a sector of economy untouched by AI…..”
Algorithm warfare is literally everywhere nowadays yet most people haven’t got the slightest idea what is going on or what they are being exposed to.
Most of us can relate to Allan Weisbecker’s example of how Yahoo mail served him an ‘associated’ advertisement when one day he mentioned “walking the dog” as he wrote an email.
“This one came up as I was signing ‘allan.’
Coincidence? Pu-lease. My point is the lightning speed with which Yahoo’s algorithm worked. Like two seconds was all it took to analyze ‘walking the dog’ then nail me with a dog-related ad – what shocked me was the speed, considering all the cyber-details that had to go through the system. This is what Yahoo uses on a casual daily basis. Imagine the algorithm NSA has grinding away at Fort Meade, to keep track of what you’re thinking and doing.”
The Algorithm of Jazz @Yale: Matt Griffith ’14 performs Artie Shaw Concerto for Clarinet
“… The reality is that the gap between mainstream and alternative media outlets has artificially been reduced by co-opting the alternative media and their audiences. Countless examples of this exist. At least 9 out of 10 alt media outlets are pretty much carbon copies of each other and have during the last 5 years been putting their weight behind government policies that would have been exposed and debunked years earlier.
For instance, the false war on islam terror is widely accepted now by guys like Alex Jones, Steve Quayle and Doug Hagmann. All of them are also buying into and spreading other zionist scams, lies and propaganda fluff. For sure these characters are the best of all to put on mainstream news broadcasts – where they belong. They go into suicidal funks when they can parrot Netanyahu’s insane waffling.
The conditioning was, it now seems, planned to climax all along when a type like Trump came into the White House. It is also at this very moment that all of this is being suggested right as zionist puppet Trump is “reshaping” the press room in Washington. How convenient. Likely the NSA algorithms didn’t see this one coming. Riiiight….
Shockingly, well – not really, Hodges’ suggestions are greatly welcomed by his following, when we observe the feedback he gets for it.
Well folks, wish Dave Hodges good luck. Wish him a fruitful career at CNN, ABC or NBC because that’s where he is planning to apply.
It looks like they have come full circle at the transparent alternative media. What once was a platform or niche for alleged dissent has now officially turned into a mergers and acquisitions business model…..”
a song composed by Artificial Intelligence – in the style of the Beatles
Hierarchical Temporal Memory algorithms for understanding asymmetric warfare
Conference Paper: (PDF Available) April 2009
There is a problem in combat modeling when it comes to accurately representing asymmetric warfare. The roots of this problem stem from the ways in which warfare has evolved over the last century from force-on-force combat to the network-centric warfare (NCW) that has emerged today in its most exemplary fashion in the Middle East, especially in the context of Joint Urban Operations (JUO). Therefore, this paper focuses on some of the previous attempts as a means to motivate the need for a new technique that understands the interactions on which an accurate representation of NCW rests. Given the difficulties of previous modeling attempts, this work then focuses on the profound impact that human behavior has on the modeling of NCW. Furthermore, with such attention to human behavior, the discussion of modeling NCW shifts to the human brain and its impact on behavior in such an environment. Thus the topic of this paper turns towards what results from neuroscience are useful for understanding NCW and how those facts can be translated into use on modern computers, via the use of hierarchical temporal memory (HTM) algorithms; finally, the inherent issues with such a task shall then be discussed.
Page created January 20, 2017 – Last updated January 24, 2017
Algorithm warfareis a very complex topic that needs to be introduced to the world, not the least due to the present and future dangers that it poses.
Algorithm warfare includes more than just the deployment of analytical, defensive and conditioning or offensive (hostile) algorithms by commercial entities and government agencies. It is also about constantly creating floods of fresh mineable data; analyzing, exploiting and manipulating financial markets, perceptions and public opinions; and the eventual creation and deployment of self-perpetuating loops of algorithmic artificial intelligences that can steer a planetary populace on autopilot.
Although the basic concept of algorithms is understood by the general public, the advances and potential capabilities in the field are far less understood. It is therein that the dangers lay.
In our introductory articles [1, 2, 3, 4] the concept of algorithm warfare has already been explained with practical examples but a clear overview of who and what the major players are for instance, who the centerpieces are if you will, had yet to be created.
This page will also serve that purpose, to list those involved directly and indirectly. The longer the list becomes the clearer the bigger picture will become on where algorithm warfare is coming from and where it is heading.
“Psychological warfare (PSYWAR), or the basic aspects of modern psychological operations (PSYOP), have been … used “to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people.”
“… Israeli game theorists operate not from the Center for Morality or the Center for Justice but from the Center for Rationality. As modeled by Zionist war planners, game theory is devoid of all values except one: the ability to anticipate—within an acceptable range of probabilities—how “the mark” will react when provoked. Thus we see the force-multiplier potential for those who wage war with well-planned provocations and well-timed crises.
Israeli behavior is often immoral and unjust but that does not mean it is irrational. For Colonial Zionists committed to the pursuit of an expansionist agenda, even murderous provocations are rational because the response can be mathematically modeled, ensuring the results are reasonably foreseeable. That alone is sufficient for a people who, as God’s chosen, consider it their right to operate above the rule of law.”
“… already points to a future in which intelligence-gathering, assessment and military action, including the calculation of who can legally be killed, will largely be performed by machines based upon an ever-expanding database of aggregated information. As such, this transition to execution by algorithm is not simply a continuation of killing at ever greater distances inaugurated by the invention of the bow and arrow that separated warrior and foe, as many have suggested.  It is also a consequence of the ongoing automation of warfare, which can be traced back to the cybernetic coupling of Claude Shannon’s mathematical theory of information with Norbert Wiener’s wartime research into feedback loops and communication control systems.  As this new era of intelligent weapons systems progresses, operational control and decision-making are increasingly being outsourced to machines…..”
“…. When one poses the question, under what conditions is it morally acceptable to deliberately kill a human being, one is not, in this case, asking whether the law permits such an act for reasons of imminent threat, self-defence or even empathy for someone who is in extreme pain or in a non-responsive vegetative state. The moral register around the decision to kill operates according to a different ethical framework: one that doesn’t necessarily bind the individual to a contract enacted between the citizen and the state. Moral positions can be specific to individual values and beliefs whereas legal frameworks permit actions in our collective name as citizens contracted to a democratically elected body that acts on our behalf but with which we might be in political disagreement. ….”
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons program ever, won’t justify its price tag by outmaneuvering other jets (it can’t), flying particularly fast, or even by carrying munitions in a stealthy bomb bay. Instead, the U.S. military is banking on an emerging technology called cognitive electronic warfare to give the jet an almost-living ability to sniff out new hard-to-detect air defenses and invent ways to foil them on the fly.
While the specifics of the jet’s electronic warfare, or EW, package remain opaque, scientists, program watchers and military leaders close to the program say it will be key to the jet’s evolution and its survival against the future’s most advanced airplane-killing technology. In short, cognitive EW is the most important feature on the world’s most sophisticated warplane…..
Read “interaction” in that context to mean the critical moment when an adversary, perhaps a single lowly radar operator, detects a U.S. military aircraft on a covert operation. That moment of detection is the sort of world-changing event that happens, literally, in the blink of an eye.
Just before the study came out, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, established the Adaptive Radar Countermeasures program to “enable U.S. airborne EW systems to automatically generate effective countermeasures against new, unknown and adaptive radars in real-time in the field.”
The goal: EW software that can perceive new waveforms and attacks as quickly and as clearly as a living being can hear leaves rustle or see a predator crouching in the distance, then respond creatively to the threat: can I outrun that? Can I fight it? Should I do anything at all? It’s a problem of artificial intelligence: creating a living intelligence in code….”
“What we’ve done with the 5th Generation [aircraft] is the computer takes all those sensory inputs, fuses it into information. The pilot sees a beautiful God’s eye view of what’s going on. […] It’s a stunning amount of information.”
“… Algorithms are not just determining who lives, but also who dies. The Defense Department, taking advantage of incredible advancements in autonomous technologies, is increasingly advocating for self-flying drones. The hope is that machine learning and better algorithms can reduce the human error in drone-based assassinations, potentially allowing these technologies to make the decision to shoot without human intervention.
“… There is an objective quality about the computer that is lacking in a human being, even though they are both ultimately political. It is just that the human seems political at the time the decision is made, while the algorithm was political when it was designed and implemented…..”
“… There is a belief that moving such decisions away from humans and into the machine-learning black box is the solution to many of our political problems. That is precisely wrong. We aren’t avoiding the politics of our decisions, but rather giving up human agency itself to allow the computer to make it for us. This is the fundamental difference between first and second generation algorithms.
Developing policies in our society is the forcing function to ensure that we come together, debate, and ultimately work toward a usable consensus on how we want our government to function. The more we give up on those sorts of arenas for debate, the more we will increasingly find that our society simply cannot work together whatsoever.
Algorithms will not save us. They cannot make the decisions we have to make any easier, and in fact, can massively increase the level of polarization that takes place in our country. Using an algorithm in immigration to predict economic performance may sound like a way to avoid a hard debate about immigration, but that is precisely why it is so dangerous. Who exactly do we want to allow into our country? Computer code can’t make us content…..
I still believe that when the algorithms themselves are part of the political debate, we can increase the efficiency of government while also improving the lives of citizens.
Ultimately, we live with each other in a human society. We should never give up our seat at the table in order to allow the algorithms to just do their work. The data we allow them to use and the models we allow them to calculate should all be areas where humans have a voice. Our politicians need to see the algorithm as where politics is increasingly centered, and engage with them accordingly.”
“HOW DOES ONE ARRIVE AT THE OFFICIAL FBI CODE NAME ‘PENTTBOM’ (PENTAGON/TWIN TOWERS BOMBING INVESTIGATION) WHEN ONLY AIRPLANES WERE USED TO DESTROY THE TWIN TOWERS AT THE WTC AND PARTIALLY THE FACADE OF THE PENTAGON? IN OTHER WORDS: HOW DOES ONE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORD ‘BOMBING’ MUST BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROMINENT CASE’S CODE NAME?”
For this occasion the comment section will be opened below.
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.
Writing, like war-gaming, is a strong and effective approach to thinking. War-gaming allows you to try a tactic or a strategy using a method that will do no harm. No one dies; pieces get put back into the box. I’ve saved as many of the pieces as I could from all those war-games I used to play; I’m an INTP, according to the test that the shrink insisted I take, and being an INTP means that I pack away “stuff” on the chance that it will be of some value again. It will be of value very soon as the large empty table in the family room next to my office will become the playground of my kindertotten who just discovered Monopoly, one of whom has re-written the rules of Checkers (with the help of his cousin) such that “king me” has been extended into “Ace me” and “Joker me”.
A Joker is a stack of three checkers topped by a pawn. These guys are naturally deeply into free play already; imagine what will happen when they discover John Boyd. But I digressed…
Writing allows you to work something out on paper too, and if it doesn’t work, you simply crumple the paper up or delete and grab a clean screen.
Blogging is like writing. It allows you to gather a lot of information about what’s going on in the world out there and see if you can make something of it.
A lot of people have been trained and taught that one shouldn’t put writing or blog entries out into the world that haven’t been perfected, proven, polished. Many of us from our own places of perspective, education, training, and self-image tell ourselves and each other that that written output over there is incorrect, lacks critical thinking, or is [insert here you favorite form of pejorative dismissal].
But writing and blogging can be a place where outlandish new ideas are put out into the social milieu in a way that enables further correction, re-construction, more game-playing, re-writing. They get other people to think and say “No, that’s not right because…” or maybe “that might be right; here’s another piece of confirmatory data” or, better yet, “that analysis needs to be re-jumbled and it will tell you this”.
People often don’t know what to make of what I say. People have not known what to make of me since I was a toddler. I’m used to it.
Are those hundreds of millions forty-caliber hollow-point rounds intended for the forthcoming Earth-based war with extra-terrestrials?
Extra-terrestrials? Aliens? You don’t mean to say that you believe in aliens now, do you?
I’ve always been agnostic. I’ve never seen one, nor a unidentified flying anything. But some pretty smart people are suggesting that the topic deserves our attention.
“When investigating financial fraud you encounter a force field that protects it across the board. It’s a matter of policy, it’s built into the structure. It has had an enormous support from a lot of people.”
Catherine Austin Fitts, Secret Space Program conference 2014
Here’s a very long (almost four hours) videotape presentation by Steven M. Greer, M.D., founder of The Disclosure Project, on the deep state and extra-terrestrials. It was filmed at the “workshop held on Nov 21, 2015 in Washington DC. This expose includes: how secrecy is maintained; lists of bases and corporations involved; documents; how the black budget is funded; the connection between drug running and the secret gov’t , how these unacknowledged special access projects work and much more. He discuses disclosure, ufo sightings, EBEs, CIA, NSA, FBI, NSA first contact and more.”
It’s almost four hours long. It’s been left on autoplay; look down to the right for what’s beyond Greer.
given what some suggest about the probability/possibility of life off the planet and extra-terrestrial presence (in history and currently) on the plant, a search engine was asked to cough up the highest-ranking items found when asked about extraterrestrials on earth.
“… when official public announcement of the extraterrestrial presence occurs, “they will be the ones introduced to Earthlings; ’Oh, by the way, we want to welcome our neighbors from the Pleiades, who by the way have been here since [the beginning of Earth] time, but [are] actually living in our place, date, space and time.’” “They are the diplomatic corps.”
In a speech before the European Parliament discussing the consequences of the Brexit vote, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, made the stunning comment that he had spoken about it to “leaders of other planets.”
The official transcript released by the European Commission has been edited to remove the reference to “leaders from other planets”. The transcript now reads:
J’ai vu et entendu et écouté plusieurs des dirigeants. Ils sont très inquiets ….
“I saw and heard and listened to several executives. They are very worried …”
Yet, when one listens to an audio loop of what Junker’s actually said, he very clearly includes the phrase “dirigeants d’autres planets,” which translates as “leaders of other planets,” as pointed out by native French speakers discussing Junckers speech, and also by Google Translate.
A Global Robotic Transportation System is Almost Here
Here’s some thinking on the robotic transportation system that’s headed our way. I believe it will arrive far faster than everyone suspects.
The shift to robotic transportation is already underway. Tens of thousands of cars are self-driving already and millions more are on the way. Millions of self-flying and self-navigating drones were sold this year alone. This revolution is even reaching the industrial level.
All of these robotic vehicles are largely disconnected or they are using their own proprietary means of networking their activity. In order for robotic transportation to explode, it will need a simple protocol for coordinating this network in a decentralized way. That’s already underway, although with very little of the importance I would allocate to it given the immensity of its potential impact. It appears to be on the right track though. Early indications are that this standard will be as simple and decentralized as TCP/IP (any extraneous detail on it, will slow its implementation and utility).
Once this scalable decentralized standard is developed, it will do for air, sea, land, and undersea transportation what the Internet did for the movement of data and in about the same amount of time. The change will be rapid as billions of robotic vehicles rapidly connect to this global grid providing things like (these are consumer examples, but you can extrapolate some military applications based on them):
• Free car transportation. Order a self driving car on your cell phone, it’s there in less than 5 minutes to pick you up. It will likely be free. How so? The value of selling services to the person in the vehicle is far greater than the cost of providing the service (electric self-driving fleet vehicle are very inexpensive).
• Drone delivery. The local farmer delivers fresh eggs to you every day via drone delivery. Small package delivery via drones that pick up and deliver small packages. 5 miles in ten minutes for $0.25 a delivery. New industries explode by using this network as a platform.
• Perpetual nomads. People live in their self-driving vehicle (RV with a twist). They travel at night while sleeping, jumping from place to place to get a charge, enjoy the locale, and get supplies.
Embedded here is a short video to get a taste for how different a robotic transportation network would feel. Although this video is a bit over the top, it’s safe to say that robotic transportation will be much faster, cheaper, and safer (1/10 the fatalities). For example, with robotic vehicles nobody would have to stop at a 10×10 intersection, they could just interleave at full speed.
John Robb Twitter: @johnrobb
PS: Of course, all of this is for naught if the US isn’t in the lead on setting this standard and quick to implement it nationally. If this doesn’t happen. If the US lets the bureaucracies at the DMV and the FAA slow this effort down, the US will likely lose the entire robotic transportation industry to the place that does. Think about this; what would the US and the Internet look like today if the FCC had allowed the telcos to crush the early Web, and it started in China or the EU instead? How would this impact national defense? << this is something that Bob Work needs to focus on….
Posted by John Robb on Thursday, 10 March 2016 at 04:19 PM
How does a global transportation system become a robotic transportation system almost overnight?
The answer is clip-on robots.
Robots (and their sensors) that you simply clip onto the driver’s seat of the vehicle.
It sees what the driver/pilot/captain would see, both outside and in. It uses the same controls to control the vehicle. It hears the same things.
Simple. Effective. Inexpensive. Fast.
[Embedded here] is an example of clip-on robot that can ride a motorcycle from Yamaha. [Watch this; it could be talking about a human being as well.]
This approach gets around the need to rewire vehicle. Rewiring, as every engineer and mechanic knows makes things difficult. Simply, if you open up the control panel of a vehicle to modify it, the costs of installation go up exponentially and the regulatory burden (testing, certification, authorization) becomes insanely heavy.
It also gets around the problem with replacing existing vehicles with new, specially outfitted vehicles. That will only accelerate once the value of the new transportation system is demonstrated.
NOTE: This is very similar to how the big installed base of PCs were automagically converted “overnight” into Internet computers by simply adding a modem and some software…
This conversion will also be fairly inexpensive. All of the tasks associated with driving, flying and sailing can be accomplished using cameras and microphones. Although useful and increasingly affordable, complex sensors like LiDARs aren’t required due to rapid advances in deep learning (Musk and Tesla are betting on this approach).
At the rate things are going, we’ll see clip-on driving/flying/sailing systems in the mainstream within a decade Once that happens, the costs, benefits (1,000% safer than self-driving), etc. of these systems will make them ubiquitous soon thereafter.
PS: Clip-ons are asymmetric. For example: Clip-ons could potentially turn any vehicle into a VBIED. They also allow a military that is behind to catch up fast with better funded institutions (think: how wireless phones allowed countries to leapfrog over wired infrastructure).
Game ON: the end of the old economic system is in sight
Google is a pioneer in limited artificial general intelligence (aka computers that can learn w/o preprogramming them). One successful example is AlphaGo. It just beat this Go Grandmaster three times in a row.
What makes this win interesting is that AlphaGo didn’t win through brute force. Go is too complicated for that:
…the average 150-move game contains more possible board configurations — 10170 — than there are atoms in the Universe, so it can’t be solved by algorithms that search exhaustively for the best move.
It also didn’t win by extensive preprogramming by talented engineers, like IBM’s Deep Blue did to win at Chess.
Instead, AlphaGo won this victory by learning how to play the game from scratch using this process:
• No assumptions. AlphaGo approached the game without any assumptions. This is called a model-free approach. This allows it to program itself from scratch, by building complex models human programmers can’t understand/match.
• Big Data. It then learned the game by interacting with a database filled with 30 million games previously played by human beings. The ability to bootstrap a model from data removes almost all of the need for engineering and programming talent currently needed for big systems. That’s huge.
• Big Sim (by the way, Big Sim will be as well known as Big Data in five years <– heard it here first). Finally, it applied and honed that learning by playing itself on 50 computers night and day until it became good enough to play a human grandmaster.
The surprise of this victory isn’t that it occurred. Most expected it would, eventually…
Instead, the surprise is how fast it happened. How fast AlphaGo was able to bootstrap itself to a mastery of the game. It was fast. Unreasonably fast.
However, this victory goes way beyond the game of Go. It is important because AlphaGo uses a generic technique for learning. A technique that can be used to master a HUGE range of activities, quickly. Activities that people get paid for today.
This implies the following:
•This technology is going to cut through the global economy like a hot knife through butter. It learns fast and largely on its own. It’s widely applicable. It doesn’t only master what it has seen, it can innovate. For example: some of the unheard of moves made by AlphaGo were considered “beautiful” by the Grandmaster it beat.
•Limited AGI (deep learning in particular) will have the ability to do nearly any job currently being done by human beings — from lawyers to judges, nurses to doctors, driving to construction — potentially at a grandmaster’s level of capability. This makes it a buzzsaw.
•Very few people (and I mean very few) will be able to stay ahead of the limited AGI buzzsaw. It learns so quickly, the fate of people stranded in former factory towns gutted by “free trade” is likely to be the fate of the highest paid technorati. They simply don’t have the capacity to learn fast enough or be creative enough to stay ahead of it.
PS: Isn’t it ironic (or not) that at the very moment in history when we demonstrate a limited AGI (potentially, a tsunami of technological change) the western industrial bureaucratic political system starts to implode due to an inability to deal with the globalization (economic, finance and communications) enabled by the last wave of technological change?
PPS: This has huge implications for warfare. I’ll write more about those soon. Laying a foundation for understanding this change first.
Posted by John Robb on Saturday, 12 March 2016 at 01:12 PM |
“Last summer, an atomic bomb detonated in a city on the U.S. Eastern seaboard, killing tens of thousands and plunging the nation into despair. As first responders and the military grappled with the aftermath, elite teams of scientists raced to analyze the blast for clues to precisely what kind of bomb had gone off and who bore responsibility for the act.
That was the premise of an exercise—the first of its kind—held in July and August 2015 to test a new network of sensors that would collect data during a surprise nuclear strike. The Mighty Saber simulation was a sobering acknowledgment of many experts’ belief that an attack on U.S. soil is more likely than ever—yet tracing responsibility would be far harder than it was during the Cold War, when the chief threat was annihilation by the Soviet Union.
“The scenario has changed,” says Thomas Cartledge, a nuclear engineer with the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. “Now, if you see a mushroom cloud go off in New York City, you won’t know who did it, or what kind of weapon they used.”Possibilities include a warhead diverted from the U.S. arsenal or smuggled into the country by terrorists, or a bomb delivered by an enemy state such as North Korea, which has threatened to nuke the White House.
The conceivable need to unmask a perpetrator and mount a response is propelling the emerging area of postdetonation forensics. “Someone’s going to get the pointy end of the stick. You want to make sure the right entity gets it,” says Howard Hall, director of the Institute for Nuclear Security at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He and other nuclear detectives are devising new sensors, manufacturing artificial fallout to hone analytical techniques, and studying how the glass formed in the furnace of an atomic blast would vary depending on the nature of the bomb and the city where it detonated.”
Although postdetonation forensics may well finger a bomb design, that knowledge by itself wouldn’t always unmask the perp. A gun-triggered uranium bomb, for example, could be fashioned by any of a number of terrorist outfits with modest technological expertise, such as the Islamic State group, providing they can lay their hands on several kilograms of highly enriched uranium. That’s “where intel comes in,” Hall says. But to have any chance of unraveling the details of a nuclear attack, investigators have to lay the scientific groundwork—while hoping it will never be needed.”
In case there was ever any doubt, the Justice Department declared war on Apple on Thursday.
Prosecutors demanded that a federal judge force Apple to unlock San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone in a brief that bristled with so much venom that Apple’s top lawyer, Bruce Sewell, said it “reads like an indictment.”
When the DOJ said Apple got itself into this mess in the first place:
This burden, which is not unreasonable, is the direct result of Apple’s deliberate marketing decision to engineer its products so that the government cannot search them, even with a warrant.
2. When the DOJ mocked Apple for suggesting it cared about its customers’ rights:
Instead of complying, Apple attacked the All Writs Act as archaic, the Court’s Order as leading to a “police state,” and the FBI’s investigation as shoddy, while extolling itself as the primary guardian of Americans’ privacy.
3. When the DOJ accused Apple of subverting the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, and democracy:
Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights: the courts, the Fourth Amendment, longstanding precedent and venerable laws, and the democratically elected branches of government.
4. When the DOJ tried to belittle Apple and its supporters for being alarmist about totally irrelevant things, like privacy and security:
Apple and its amici try to alarm this Court with issues of network security, encryption, back doors, and privacy, invoking larger debates before Congress and in the news media. That is a diversion. Apple desperately wants — desperately needs — this case not to be “about one isolated iPhone.”
5. When the DOJ insisted it was being nice, and could just take whatever it wanted if it felt like it, and said it in the snidest way possible:
For the reasons discussed above, the FBI cannot itself modify the software on Farook’s iPhone without access to the source code and Apple’s private electronic signature. The government did not seek to compel Apple to turn those over because it believed such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labor by Apple programmers.
6. When the DOJ suggested that Apple wouldn’t face all these terrible burdens if it didn’t help so many criminals and terrorists:
Next, Apple argues that the Order is unduly burdensome because, if it complies here, it is likely to face other AWA orders in the future. By accumulating its hypothetical future burdens, Apple suggests that because so much criminal evidence is hidden on its warrant-proof iPhones, it should not be compelled to assist in gathering evidence related to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. Apple is wrong.
7. When the DOJ said the All Writs Act has never been and could never be abused because judges are so awesome:
As the decades since New York Telephone have shown, as indeed the centuries since 1789 have proven, courts’ exercise of power under the Act does not lead to a headlong tumble down a slippery slope to tyranny. That is because the Act itself — by relying upon the sound discretion of federal judges and by being subordinate to specific congressional legislation addressing the particular issue — builds in the necessary safeguards.
Sewell, Apple’s senior vice president of legal and global security, was outraged.
“In 30 years of practice, I don’t think I’ve seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case,” he said.
“For the first time we see an allegation that Apple has deliberately made changes to block law enforcement requests for access. This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it.”
Who sets that policy? Who keeps it intact, despite new legislators and Presidents exiting and entering office?
Who keeps pushing new economy-destroying trade treaties, like the upcoming TPP? Who demands that these treaties must be ratified?
A number of groups—but one group has been virtually forgotten. Its influence is enormous. It has existed since 1973.
It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).
In a minute, I’m going to print a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission.
I discovered the conversation in the late 1980s, and ever since then, I’ve been looking at it from various angles, finding new implications. Here, I want to point out that the conversation was public knowledge at the time.
Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.
But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.
The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.
And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself a covert agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House, a willing pawn, a rank con artist, a hustler. He had been plucked from obscurity and, through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.
To boil down the 1978 conversation between the reporter and two Trilateral Commission members, and the follow-on response:
“The US has been taken over.”
Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.
* Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary
* James Jones, National Security Advisor
* Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee
* Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence
Several other noteworthy Trilateral members:
* George HW Bush
* Bill Clinton
* Dick Cheney
Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”
In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller:
“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Okay. Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through-the-looking-glass—a conversation between reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”
NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.
NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.
NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.
This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried.
US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.
Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.
From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.
How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.
And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.
What kind of order?
One planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”
The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual, like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama. They had new trade treaties on the planning table. Obama was tasked with doing whatever was necessary to bring those treaties, like the TPP, home. To get them passed. To get them ratified. No excuses.
That’s why, months ago, when anti-TPP criticism and rhetoric was reaching a crescendo, when Obama was seeking Congressional fast-track approval of the treaty, he was in a sweat and a panic. He and his cabinet were on the phones night and day, scrambling and scraping for votes in Congress. This was the Big One. This was why he was the President. To make this happen.
His bosses were watching.
These men run US policy, when and where it counts. They don’t tolerate failure.
This is also why, after Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America. He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy—Obamacare.
Why? Because he never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008. That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office. He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards. But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans? Not on the TC agenda. Not in the cards.
It was counter-productive to the TC plan to torpedo the economy further.
It still is.
Now you have deeper background on the source of the political/media establishment’s panic and hysteria about Donald Trump. That establishment has received its marching orders. Take Trump down.
As far as the Trilaterals are concerned, it doesn’t matter whether The Donald is just blustering and bloviating about bringing jobs back to America, creating new prosperity, and “making America great again.” What matters is, he is raising the issue forcefully, out in the open. And huge numbers of people are responding. They’re confirming that the Obama economic recovery is a lie.
Trump has opened up an unprotected front in the war to sink the US economy. Suddenly, his supporters, like shock troops, are pouring through.
The censorship blocking discussion of the true state of the union has been cracked.
The genie must be put back in the bottle.
But by whom?
What Presidential candidate can now convince the people that all is well, good jobs are plentiful, and the country is prosperous again? Who can float that absurd lie and make people believe it?
Maybe she should come right out and say: “You know me. I love wars. Put me in the Oval, and I’ll launch more wars than you can shake a stick at. And then you’ll see some goddamn prosperity. Everyone has a job in a full-bore wartime economy.”
“… “We should learn the lessons of past disasters and not repeat them,” said Ben Smilowitz, executive director of Disaster Accountability Project. “In the five years since Fukushima, we had an opportunity to prepare communities for the unexpected. More than 100 million Americans are at risk because local authorities have failed to plan accordingly.”
Elias sent an e-mail blast out on the topic of Jade Helm ’15 which reads in part as follows:
Readers who are pressed for time may just skip my four installments in a series of articles on JADE HELM 2015, and simply get the Rush Dose straight-up by clicking < here > for a pure treasure of anticipatory research by a Mystery Lady called “D.J.“, who gave John B. Wells his second home-run show of the year when, (following Patrick Wood’s performance with his Technocracy Rising presentation on the show a couple of months ago), she recently appeared on J.B. Wells’ “Caravan To Midnight” with a gift of solid psychic gold for all who want to know the real threat embedded in the military’s exercise called…
JADE HELM 2015
Yes, “D.J.” figured it out and laid it all out on Caravan To Midnight, and John B. Wells was once again an excellent, warm, and obliging host. The world is better for that, so here’s my Salute! to both John B. Wells and “DJ”.
Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: Our church is at war. We are under attack from an old enemy. The Illuminati. They have struck us from within and threatening us all with destruction from their new god Science.
“The lines between the military and the government have not been blurred; they have been removed.”
[Let’s have a panel discussion with Alfred McCoy, Michel Chussodovsky, Joachim Hagopian, Stewart Gaither, James Fetzer, John C. Whitehead and Edwin Viera Jr. on the topics discussed by “D.J.”and John B. Wells and what they mean for the continent of North America, global warfare in general, and how they interact and merge with issues surrounding global trade, TPP, and the current crisis of Grecian dominos.]
For decades the US federal government has largely been secretly financing both its black ops as well as its elaborate construction of underground cities and highways with billions in profit from its illegal but highly lucrative international drug smuggling trade. Those who are rich and powerful enough all over the world have their contingency plans in preparation for Planet X’s arrival, for nuclear war, for any end of the world scenario. Intentionally kept in the dark like always, the global masses will be the last to know and the first to die. In the face of such a disturbing prospect of a future, there is still time to prepare – connecting with those you care about and love.”
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer.
West Coast Evacuation Due to Fukushima Radiation Is Possible – ABC News 15 Nov 2013 Nuclear Engineer Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, confirmed that ocean currents are carrying the radioactive water to the West Coast. “There are several hundred tons of radioactive water that are pouring into the ocean at the site every day,” Makhijani said. According to a study published in the Journal Deep Sea Research 1, it will begin arriving this March. (Video)