Uncategorized

Hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=0018RV34s7Da5182pp_QAD3byyJAc8Bbc0pivWR1SZomLQlCsHgFG_JVLT-uohNxqJxymwIskGfXapG0QzOf5EEEisg7Yk-eP5UVim1u5Q1_Z8%3D

Hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain

The hideous BAM in Obama: map your brain for your own good

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

First they map your brain. And by you, I mean everybody.

President Obama has just greenlighted a 10-year Manhattan Project for the human brain. I warned it was coming years ago.

The new billion-dollar enterprise is called BAM, the Brain Activity Map project. The fact that DARPA is one of the agencies involved tells you a great deal. DARPA is the cutting-edge military outfit in charge of new technologies for the Armed Forces. They want to create The Enhanced Soldier and all that that implies. Think “android.”

Behind the front of claims that BAM will create new therapies for mental disorders (for which no defining diagnostic tests even exist), the plan is to forward artificial intelligence (AI), which means creating a computer that works at least as well as the one inside your skull.

This is the technocrats’ wet dream: “We can now power up an artificial brain of such power and intelligence that it can make all crucial decisions for the human race from Central Planning.”

In the wake of Sandy Hook, other implications are also clear. BAM will be used to devise a Minority Report society, in which purported markers of future violence will be utilized to forcibly treat (with toxic drugs), contain, and prevent “predicted criminals” from carrying out fantasies percolating in their subconscious. Would those fantasies, if left alone, ever rise to the level of action? Irrelevant. Cast a wide net, in the name of Prevention.

Welcome to “expanded mental-health services.” You’re on a list? Oops. You must be treated. Here is your mandatory appointment slip. Yes, the drugs are highly toxic. Yes, they can and do cause you to commit horrendous acts of violence. But we don’t talk about that.

Of course, what I’m sketching out here is not happening by next week. But BAM is a giant step on the road toward this future. It’s far from trivial. The stated goal is the mapping of all neuronal activity in humans. This is science fiction coming alive now.

The American Psychiatric Association and Big Pharma are drooling with anticipation. This is precisely what they’ve been aiming for. Vastly expanded treatment options. More diagnoses. More drugs. More control.

BAM has been on the drawing boards for years. But after Aurora and Sandy Hook, the timing is right. The sub-text of BAM is: “People, we will protect you. We will gain access to the brain and re-channel it away from violence. You will be safe.”

BAM is the step before reconfiguring the brain, which is the long-term and underlying goal. These neuroscientists have no interest in the concept of freedom. They left that in the dust decades ago.

For them, the brain is merely a machine that needs a great deal of tweaking, because people are naturally mis-programmed, and corrections must be built into a new and better system.

Of course, “new and better” will pivot on non-scientific value judgments, masked behind masses of techno-speak. And you will have no input into the choice of values. You’re the experimental device; the neuroscientists are the operators.

Everyone who is anyone is on board for this one. The National Institutes of Health, private foundations, universities, drug companies. They’ll all wrangle a piece of the pie.

The White House is touting BAM as job-creation as well. Of course they are. Huxley left that out of Brave New World. “This is a wonderful way to bring up employment numbers. If we take the engineering of humans far enough, everybody can work.”

If you’re wondering what the hell the federal government is doing mapping the human brain, you’re back in the Stone Age. You’re probably interested in, what did they used to call it, oh yes, the Constitution.

Excessive interest in that moldy document probably has a correlation with certain brain activity, which can be mapped and charted. And then you’re on a list: “The subject shows typical neuronal dysfunction in sub-sector 254-A. This is the James Madison Disorder. Recommend immediate detention and treatment.”

“A new study from the BAM-plus group at Harvard has found a significant relationship between home schooling and an excess velocity in synaptic transmission. Such velocity surpasses recommended limits.”

Yes, it’s a joke. Right now. But we’re not just on the slippery slope. We’ve gone down the hill a few new miles, as of today.

Back when professionally praised scientific lunatics like Dr. Ewen Cameron and Yale’s Jose Delgado declared that the human being had no right to his own intrinsic personality, people thought such a notion was absurd. But now, the language is far more clever and densely obscure.

It’s quite possible, move by move, to propagandize inhuman research, with government press releases, right into the era of the “brain-adapted” population.

Just as the public has bought into the idea that all mental disorders spring from “chemical imbalances,” despite the fact that no normal level of balance has ever been established, so it will be easy to convince the population that the abnormal brain activity of 100 billion neurons can be measured, categorized, specified, and treated.

It’s science. It must be true. Science marches on. Science is the hand-servant of humanity. Greatest good for the greatest number.

The worshipers at the altar of big government who believe its function is that of a giving god will go along, gladly.

For those of that faith, BAM sounds right, and therefore it must be right. No thinking required.

What about the rest of us? A succinct “don’t touch my brain, mother****er” is a good start. It has a nice ring to it. I’m sure it correlates with quite healthy levels of neuronal activity.

Here’s a prediction. You can take it to the bank. On that day when BAM completes its vaunted mission, our esteemed leaders will manage to exempt themselves from brain scans that might reveal their own dark visions and objectives.

It might even be called The Obama Exception.

If you’re sitting in a pew on the Left and you don’t like that one, try The Bush Exception. Under his brilliant reign, we had the Teen Screen program, a maniacal project to test all children for mental disorders at a young age. It failed, and went out of business.

But BAM has a lot more juice. It aims to go the distance. It has the imprimatur of “hard science.” That’s the venue in which they cook up the biggest lies. The ones with real money behind them. And real Auschwitz experimenters.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Feds buying enough bullets for ’24-year war’

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/feds-buying-enough-bullets-for-24-year-war/

FEDS BUYING ENOUGH BULLETS FOR ’24-YEAR WAR’

WND EXCLUSIVE

Radio host warns: DHS preparing for prolonged riots in U.S.

Published: 3 hours ago

dhs_bullets

Federal, non-military agencies, noted radio host Mark Levin last week, have purchased enough ammunition recently to not only shoot every American five times, but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war.

The numbers are based on recent reports that put the total federal ammunition buy in the last 10 months at approaching two billion rounds.

“To provide some perspective,” Levin noted, “experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [Department of Homeland Security] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war!”

What do federal agencies need with all that ammunition?

The government’s only official explanation for the massive ammo buy is that law enforcement agents in the respective agencies need the bullets for “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions.”

The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns the DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection among Americans.

“I’m going to tell you what I think is going on,” Levin offered. “I don’t think domestic insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies, they play out multiple scenarios. … I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.

“I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared,” Levin said. “I know why the government’s arming up: It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection; it’s because our society is unraveling.”

Audio of Levin’s discussion on the ammunition buy can be heard below:

As WND reported, even major gun-rights organizations like the National Rifle Association have attempted to tamp down worries over the amount of ammunition, suggesting the number of bullets bought, spread out over five years and across all the federal agencies with armed agents – considering the number of rounds needed for training, qualification and service bags – isn’t exorbitant.

At the same time, however, others have wondered if billions of bullets isn’t too many to equip the sheer number of federal agents, what does that say about the number of federal agents?

“It’s not the number of bullets we need to worry about,” Jeff Knox, director of The Firearms Coalition, told WND, “but the number of feds with guns it takes to use those bullets.”

“There are currently more than 70 different federal law enforcement agencies employing over 120,000 officers with arrest and firearms authority, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data for 2008,” explained Knox in a recent WND column. “That’s an increase of nearly 30 percent between 2004 and 2008. If the trends have continued upward at a relatively steady rate, that would put the total number of federal law enforcement officers at somewhere between 135,000 and 145,000.

“That’s a pretty staggering number,” Knox continued, “especially when you consider that there are only an estimated 765,000 state and local law enforcement officers. That means that about one in seven law enforcement officers in the country works directly for the federal government, not a local jurisdiction.”

For years, WND has been at the forefront of reporting the growth in federal police power being dispersed across dozens of government agencies:

  • In 1997, WND blew the lid off 60,000 federal agents enforcing over 3,000 criminal laws, a report that prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark, “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”
  • Also in 1997, as part of a ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported on the armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program that had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.
  • WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of … paperwork.
  • WND further reported on a plan by then Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen into dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.
  • In 1999, WND CEO Joseph Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the founding fathers had
    nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.
  • Also in 1999 WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.
  • In 2000, Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the
    federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”
  • A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.
  • In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”
  • Most recently, WND reported that while local police have found themselves short of necessary ammunition, the federal government has been stockpiling billions of rounds for its non-military, non-FBI law enforcement officers.

Knox conceded in his column that good arguments can be made for the existence of a dedicated border guard and federal agencies to protect high-ranking officials, protect the federal currency and coordinate enforcement of laws regarding interstate commerce, and so forth.

“But bureaucrats who inspect the records of retailers and manufacturers have no business carrying guns and badges,” Knox opined, “nor do those who investigate white-collar crime for the Small Business Administration and the Department of Education.”

Chris Knox, director of communications for The Firearms Coalition, told WND legitimate concerns about a police state stem from “a set of three intertwined problems,” namely, “militarization of local police, federalization of law enforcement (including local cops getting goodies from federal forfeiture actions) and the expansion of federal law enforcement, where nearly every agency has its own armed service, not just the Drug Enforcement Agency, but administrative agencies like the Department of Education.”

Give all those federal cops two billion bullets, Jeff Knox says, and now there’s cause for concern.

Uncategorized

Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001XqiOmN3J1DAfUb7-5jvLScxoG08jTxrXCVdPcqVscFU2W2nGa-_lD6gMxIDGbO942MOnzXB4LkrcAOQq2Fsb0BPyVL2_WHnkgPLiOqFQ-Hk%3D

Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

Facebook blocks Jon Rappoport’s articles

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

I became aware of the block and censorship a few days ago, soon after I wrote and published the article: “Ruthless State of the Union: current crime boss speaks.”

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/the-ruthless-state-of-the-union-the-current-crime-boss-speaks/

That article was about Obama, and it was also about every president as far back as Nixon. It mainly described the absurdities implied by Obama’s vague notion that “we all have to work together.”

Readers began letting me know they couldn’t Facebook-share my articles. This became: no one could share any article that included: “jonrappoport.wordpress.com.”

As a reporter for 30 years, I know a little about the 1st Amendment. Criticizing the president, or the medical cartel, or any number of other institutions I’ve taken on is par for the course. If some Facebook readers are marking these articles spam or abusive, they should think again.

Lots of people these days believe it’s part of the game to try to censor their perceived opponents. “Why debate or even allow a different voice? Let’s just block it out.”

Blocking the FB posting of my article links could also be part of the Facebook management purge of political activists, particularly those who defend the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership. This happened to a number of people at infowars.com last December, and it also happened at Natural News.

At the moment, I have a workaround in place, and my site and blog are working just fine, but the basic wider issue of blocking dissident opinion isn’t going away.

Some people have pointed out that Facebook is a private company, and therefore it has the right to define acceptable speech any way it wants to. This may be true, but blocking and censoring political viewpoints is a very bad policy. Claiming, for example, that Facebook is only for making and communicating with friends is a cop-out. If friends can’t share information about political realities, it’s a hollow situation.

Many reporters, including myself, came to the Internet because we were sick and tired of trying to convince editors at newspapers and magazines that our work should see the light of day. Editors routinely shot down (and still do) article ideas that wandered too far off the mainstream reservation.

That was the censorship we were leaving in the dust. Now, here it is again.

Every day, I read articles I don’t like. The idea of somehow censoring them would be absurd.

In this country (and other countries), we have people who believe in and support free speech. Then we have True Believers, whose cause in their minds outdistances any considerations about liberty. They would trample liberty at the drop of a hat to make the world over in their image. Finally, we have organizations who enter into covert political alliances to advance their own interests. These organizations also care nothing about the 1st Amendment.

Where is Facebook in all of this? Are they just a front for gathering personal information on a billion people? Are they just another wing of the vast surveillance apparatus that is operating from a playbook that wants androids instead of thinking citizens?

It’s time for the bosses at Facebook to step out into the light and explain, in detail, exactly how they block information and on what grounds. How are reports of spam and “abusive content” processed by their algorithms? What is their position on the 1st Amendment?

Failure to make this clear is evidence of purposeful concealment.

Perhaps an article I wrote and published last August, “Facebook, the CIA, DARPA, and the tanking IPO,” will help put this situation into perspective:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/Darpa connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17, it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.

Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. “Experts” are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.

All this, despite the fact that Facebook’s first posted revenue as a public company has exceeded analysts’ predictions, according to the LA Times.

This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play. It’s how heavy hitters gain control of a company. First, they drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize the public and even semi-insiders. As the stock continues to tank, they quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.

And they hold enough shares to exert more control over the company itself.

That is how Facebook will survive. Zuckerberg’s grip on Facebook will loosen.

The company is too important as a data-mining asset of the intelligence community to let it fall into disrepair and chaos. The CIA and its cutouts will save it and gain more power over it. It’s what they’ve wanted all along.

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

Now it’s time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively.

The media will play along, pretending the eventual upswing-recovery of Facebook stock happens for fundamental reasons connected to the company’s “better level of performance.” The media take this approach to every stock and every company, to avoid letting the public know how massive manipulation actually runs these trading markets.

End of the August 2012 article.

People might ask, “Then why, Rappoport, do you use Facebook at all?”

That’s a legitimate question. My answer is simple. Since I began working as a reporter in 1982, I’ve used every possible opportunity and venue to put my information out there.

There’s a big difference between that and overtly supporting all those venues.

When I admire a writer, broadcaster, or organization, I say so, and I have. Even then, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they say or stand for.

That’s a a distinction with a meaning. It’s exactly the distinction I’m asking Facebook to clarify: what will they allow, whether they agree with it or not?

Do I expect them to spell it out in sufficient detail? No. But then that means something, too.

None of this will change one iota of what I write or say.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001uhMSa17EQAdnNYJ1f_DuOvt-ZHh3j0s6WMcLLBOYPXOKkeBoKVC_T05PxcbvGa4Ah3JVP7OyblcxZWmBENasGCB0To_yN_jcUkKQxqaOWFM%3D

Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

Can you trust the new brain with an IQ of 7000?

by Jon Rappoport

February 16, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve been forcing myself to read gushing statements about the march of artificial intelligence (AI) and how, in the near future, we will have “the source code of the brain,” and computers will be able to do whatever the brain can do, except much, much faster.

I’ve been reading about the day when we humans will somehow merge with the machines.

I think the technocrats who promote these notions were raised on comic books, and they haven’t really moved on from that phase.

What ever happened to the old phrase, “garbage in equals garbage out?” Was it too telling and real?

Take the idea that some day, tiny nanobots will patrol the body making adjustments and normalizing errant functions. Forget for the moment all the damage these little scouts could cause. Just focus on the quality of the information by which they would make moment-to-moment decisions.

Currently, by the most conservative mainstream estimate, the medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year. (See B. Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”).

Of these deaths, 106,000 per year are directly caused by FDA-approved medical drugs. Each one of these drugs was studied, and the results of the studies were published in mainstream journals. This fact alone indicates massive fraud in the clinical trials of the drugs.

Then consider that for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there exist absolutely no physical diagnostic tests. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans. The very definitions of these so-called disorders are adjudicated by sitting committees of psychiatrists, who consult menus of behaviors.

Then consider that the major infectious diseases in the West were already on the decline before vaccines or antibiotics had been introduced, and yet vaccines were hailed as the overriding reason for that decline.

These are just several general categories of fraud, misinformation, disinformation. So the question becomes: who exactly is going to program those wonderful little nanobots before they enter the human bloodstream in the near-future, and what medical information are they going to have access to?

And what kind of moron would assume that, just because artificial intelligence will have the ability to process enormous amounts of data about the body, it will process the right and correct and truthful data?

By extension, when it comes to AI solving political or economic or social problems on a massive scale, why should we assume the information AI is deploying will be correct and right and true, and why should we assume that these problems are stated and formulated, in the first place, according to underlying ethical values that we agree to or share?

Just because a computer can be built that works faster than the brain, and on more platforms, why on earth should we then infer that it is operating from a storehouse of information that is relevant or useful?

And as far as human brains “merging with machines,” why don’t we leave that mishmash idea to the Borg and the Star Trek crew?

The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia.

Deep Blue beat the world’s best chess player.

A computer can analyze the poetry of an author and then generate its own poems in that style. Rather poorly.

Do these feats imply something so significant that we want to put our future in the cores of computers? For that matter, if there is some holy-grail source code for the brain, why should we believe possessing it and using it, or even improving it, would qualitatively improve the solutions to our biggest problems as a species?

There are simple and basic laws of logic involved here. You can compute from now until the end of time, but your deductions are always going to proceed from premises, and those premises are going to predetermine direction and ethical values that color the end results. Computers don’t do Right and Wrong in any absolute sense. Never have, never will.

Even more important is the system or mechanism for allowing AI to dominate our decisions. Who is in charge? Who rules? Which humans hold the off-on switches on the machines? Who programs the machines’ premises? Who can, if necessary, use force to make the global population comply with what AI decides? And what are these humans’ motives?

None of such matters are mitigated by “more intelligent machines.”

The technocrats are actually playing a shell game with us. They’re showing us a vast array of quantitative and qualitative improvements in what computers can do, and they’re substituting that for wisdom. They’re redefining wisdom. They’re omitting the whole argument and debate about what kind of society we want to live in. They’re hucksters and hustlers and con men.

When faced, for example, with the problem of how to feed the world, computers would already be biased in favor of certain outcomes, and they would also be biased toward the basic notion of universal distribution of resources. Who made that choice? The humans deploying the machines from behind the scenes.

Is feeding the world an issue that should be solved top-down? Computers don’t answer that question. Humans do. And humans—specifically the ones in charge—make spectacularly wrong choices, according to the wishes and judgments of many people—many people who already know that placing a decision of that magnitude in the hands of a few oligarchs is a recipe for disaster.

Who will decide how to program the basic assumptions of super-brain computers on the issue of climate change? With what “science” will these computers be initially infected? Who decides what the valid and the invalid science is?

Any beginning student in a logic course quickly learns to distinguish between ethical values and data. Neither computers nor brains determine values based on information alone, no matter how quickly they think, no matter how much data they can access.

A person or a machine with an IQ of 7000 can’t be trusted to install values for others. That’s why we have this troublesome thing called freedom. That’s why we have a fundamental principle that you are free to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t interfere with another person’s freedom. Any system that countermands this basic principle, simply because “it can think better,” is a tyrant, whether it is composed of flesh or metal or some synthetic.

NBC news recently did a glowing feature on advanced cell phones that, in the hands of doctors, can carry out a huge array of medical tests on patients. The doctor was enthusiastic. The patient was enthusiastic. The reporter was enthusiastic. It was a virtual love fest.

No one bothered to ask about the meaning, utility, or dangers of the tests themselves. That issue was swept off the table.

Who cares? It’s technology. It has to be good. If the patient’s test results indicate he should be treated with a highly toxic drug, so what? That’s a minor blip on the screen. We should all celebrate the technological breakthrough. Pour the champagne. Forget about the patient.

Some day, up the road, a human will be sleeping in his bed at night. The tiny bots circulating in his body will suddenly decide he needs a drug. They will either release the substance without his knowledge, or a robot sitting next to the bed will lean over and give him a quick shot. Done.

What? He ended up in the hospital next afternoon? Well, whatever the reason, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the little bots or their programming or their method for accessing the vast clouds of data in virtual space. No, those functions are all brilliant and boggling and wondrous. It must have been something else.

A person walking down the street will be picked up by a hundred cameras and other surveillance devices. It will be adjudicated, in a matter of a few seconds, that he’s missed his latest series of a dozen vaccine boosters. At the next corner, a mini-drone, barely visible to the naked eye, will descend on him and give him a quick jab. Or his next meal will magically contain food engineered specifically to deliver the mandated vaccines.

Greatest good for the greatest number. Already decided and programmed.

Is it better to have separate nations with their own armies, or should we have one giant planetary force? Let the AI decide. How? On what basis? There are always value judgments that underlie these questions, and computers don’t suddenly create values unless they’re told to do so. Only in comic books or pulp science fiction novels do advanced races with very high foreheads come down and demonstrate wisdom based on IQ.

There is no evidence that, if you took a general like Julius Caesar and somehow shoved his IQ up off the charts, he would suddenly change his value judgments. Henry Kissinger hasn’t.

If you built a machine that could access every single datum acquired in 100,000 years of human history and store them all on the head of a pin; and if that machine could rearrange all these data in a trillion different patterns in a few minutes; and if that machine could then generate decisions that answer any question put to it, what would you really have? You would have, at best, sheer opinion on the most important matters facing the human race.

Technocracy is selling a myth of intelligence, a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the smartest brains (coincidentally resembling those of the technocrats) would cross a threshold, beyond which intelligence would become something else, something very different: machines that have “higher access” to “the best moral values.”

Perhaps the most avid and famous proponent of a technocratic future is Ray Kurzweil, acclaimed inventor, author, businessman. He describes the event he calls the Singularity:

“Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated…”

Among the effects of this unprecedented development?

“…the exponential rate of technical progress will create within 40 years an Internet that is a trillion times faster than today’s, a global media, a global education system, a global language, and a globally homogenized culture, thus establishing the prerequisites for the creation of a global democratic state, “Globa,” and ridding the world of war, the arms trade, ignorance, and poverty…Billions of people will be influenced by the ‘best’ ideas that the planet has to offer. People’s minds will be influenced powerfully, so that today’s nationalist mentalities will be gradually transformed into tomorrow’s globist mentalities…”

And just what are these “best ideas” that billions of people will voluntarily accept? The ideas expressed in, say, Plato’s Republic? Or instantaneous 3-D holographic “you are there” porn? Small decentralized organic farms or some Monsanto plan to disseminate GMOs from the sky all over the planet? A three-branched government with rigorous checks and balances, or taking the points on the Jets vs. the Rams? A healthy clean diet or a hundred vaccines by the age of three?

And the “global democratic state?” I’d like to see how the elections of a president and legislators work for the whole of Earth (including the recount after a charge of fraud is leveled by one citizen in southern Argentina).

If presidential debates in the US, targeting the lowest possible common denominators among the voting public, are filled with vapid generalities, I can only imagine the global debates: a few smiles, a few grunts, a few assurances that “we’re all in this together.”

One language for all the world? Sure, why not? Let’s wipe out the memory of what a few thousand years of hundreds of languages have produced.

And don’t worry. All over the planet, “the people,” newly brilliant, will rise up and overthrow their dictators, just as they did during the vaunted Arab Spring, where the crucial presence of cell phones and Facebook was touted as the lever that forced democratic breakthroughs. You remember that Spring: a promoted hoax designed to hide yet one more elite power play.

Greater insight into ethical values based purely on speed and range of information processing is really a quasi-religion. It uses the notion of IQ as the Prophet. It promises that, as the people have access to more and more data, they will naturally and inevitably choose the right values and the right data, because that’s what IQ does, once it passes through a certain upward level.

You can forget about elite power players exerting control over the population of Earth from above because, as in the Marxist formulation, these Rockefellers and Warburgs of the past will simply wither away, no longer needed.

I’m happy to learn that. I can relax now. We can all relax. The great day is coming. It will be brought to us by a multi-platformed brain, using its neuronal substrate to reach out and connect with nonbiological libraries of truth.

What were we worried about?

I’m sitting here talking to you and you’re talking to me, and you’re in Bombay and I’m in San Diego, and we’re seeing each other in high-res 3-D holographic brilliance, as if we’re in the same room. And as we talk and access skies full of clouds of relevant data in mere instants, we’re both coming to accept the best ideas and the best values and the best language and the best government, and we’re kicking the ass of the old world and rushing into the New, and life will be different forever, and I know it and you know it, so what else do we need?

My molecularly enhanced IQ is 7000 and so is yours, so we’re on the same precise page. That’s all the human race was waiting for all this time.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Ecologists Urge Government To “Move Beyond Existent Levels Of Public Permission” | Explosive Reports.Com

http://explosivereports.com/2013/02/15/ecologists-urge-government-to-move-beyond-existent-levels-of-public-permission/

Ecologists Urge Government To “Move Beyond Existent Levels Of Public Permission”

Gallery

Carbon

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
February 15, 2013

“(…) governments can and even should move beyond existent levels of public permission in order to shift norms, allowing public sentiment to later catch up with the regulation.”

In a peer-reviewed paper put out by the American Institute of Biological Sciences titled “Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges” (available ahead of print), to be published in the march 2013 edition of BioScience, a group of well-known scientists calls on government and scientists to start with the planned social engineering of “norms” and “values” in regards to environmental policies.

The objective, according to the authors, is that these engineered “norms” must work their way into existing ones so finally environmental policies will be accepted without reserve. A sustained campaign, in other words, with government and scientists working together as to gradually create changes in behavior so environmental policies will be more easily accepted over the course of some time.

“Life scientists could make fundamental contributions to this agenda through targeted research on the emergence of social norms”, the group asserts.

“Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems. Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion alone are insufficient.”

One of these proposed alternative approaches include more environmental regulations from the top down with the aim of conditioning the public to accept an increasing governmental control over personal behavior. The paper continues by saying that the best way to alter existing behaviors is through persuasive government regulations “such as penalties, regulations, and incentives” in order to “achieve significant behavior modification.”

“Effective policies, then, are ones that induce both short-term changes in behavior and longer-term changes in social norms”, the authors indicate.

Anticipating that regulatory interventions by government are sure to create resistance among the target population, the scientists express confidence that their recommendations “can be carried out in a way that abides by the principles of representative democracy, including transparency, fairness, and accountability.”

The way government may go about it, they argue, is by on the one hand “managing norms” through “such things as advertising campaigns, information blitzes, or appeals from respected figures”. The other aspect involved is the use of financial incentives and disincentives:

“Fines can (…) be an effective way to alter behavior, in part because they (like social norm management) signal the seriousness with which society treats the issue.”

By extension, the authors asses that behaviors and values will “coevolve” alongside increased government control in the form of state regulations and “fines”:

“A carbon tax might (…) prove effective even in the face of near-term opposition. What needs to be assessed is the possibility that behaviors and values would coevolve in such a way that a carbon tax—or other policy instrument that raises prices, such as a cap-and-trade system—ultimately comes to be seen as worthy, which would therefore allow for its long-term effectiveness”

“The probability of a boomerang effect from such appeals is low (except in the most avidly antiauthoritarian subpopulations).”

After the paper continues listing examples of past “information blitzes” which have proved to be a success, they stress that government (and the scientific community) should “move beyond” public consent when it comes to top-down regulations imposed on the American people:

Some have argued that regulations are inherently coercive and cannot or should not exceed implied levels of public permission for such regulations. An alternative viewpoint is that governments can and even should move beyond existent levels of public permission in order to shift norms, allowing public sentiment to later catch up with the regulation”.

The paper is concluded with three distinct recommendations to scientists and governmental agencies:

“(1) the greater inclusion of social and behavioral scientists in periodic environmental policy assessments; (2) the establishment of teams of scholars and policymakers that can assess, on policy-relevant timescales, the short- and long-term efficiency of policy interventions; and (3) the alteration of academic norms to allow more progress on these issues.”

By admitting they are willing to “move beyond existent levels of public permission” to push ahead with draconian environmental policies, these prominent scientists (among whom we find two Nobel laureates and one Paul Ehrlich) have proven their willingness to deceive the American population in order to fulfill an international agenda.

About these ads

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this.

February 15, 2013 Leave a Reply

Uncategorized

New study: are we all living in the future now?

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=4tixiugab&v=001s0rRepf3dPYdg0W413zpav0f6LCblcI5qI4IbooY6xUWhYVbfLdnFjgYjArFk—Fzfx2qRkJFZV1R_Jb4j2e3Dm7g4fi2oyLGZNopyANRM%3D

New study: are we all living in the future now?

New study: are we all living in the future now?

By Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2013

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

A recent Bonn University study suggests we may all be living in a virtual simulation. If a pixel-lattice that forms the background of this universe is presenting us with an all-encompassing “television picture” of reality, then the whole space-time continuum could be a rigorously designed artifact.

But another study, this one using a small number of meditators, pushes our understanding even further.

Dean Radin, the author of two groundbreaking books on controlled paranormal experiments, The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds, spoke at a January conference, Electric Universe, in New Mexico. He described his recent pilot study on time and precognition.

A small group of advanced meditators who use the “non-dual” technique, were tested. While meditating, they were subjected to random interruptions: a flash of light and a beeping sound. Measuring their brain activity, Radin found that significant brain changes occurred BEFORE the light flashes or the beeps.

A control group of non-meditators were tested in exactly the same way, but their brain measurements revealed NO such changes.

In other words, the brains of the meditators anticipated the timing of the unpredictable interruptions.

The future was registering now. This, of course, opens up another way of thinking about time.

Serial time, the idea that, in this continuum, we experience a smooth progression of moments, with the present becoming, so to speak, the future, is the conventional view. But suppose that is a grossly limiting and sketchy premise?

Suppose that, for those who can be aware of it, the future is bleeding into the present? It is making an impact “before it happens.”

The non-dual method of meditation seeks to eliminate walls between “now and then, you and I, here and there.” It has also been studied by Zoran Josipovic (New York University). In 2012, Josipovic and colleagues found that, for non-dual meditators, two areas of the cerebral cortex, loosely labeled “external” and “intrinsic,” shifted their operating basis.

These two areas of the brain, long known for their independence from each other (if one is switched on, the other is switched off), both began operating with significantly less “antagonism.”

If time is deeply rooted in perception, Dean Radin’s study indicates that this even extends to the future. If people can register the impact of the future now, then our notions of time are up for grabs.

So are conventional concepts of cause and effect, which rely on chains of events moving like trains from the past to the present. We need to consider that causes can sit in the future and produce their effects in the present.

In which case, what is the future? It certainly is an expanded territory that extends beyond our normal view of it.

In correspondence with me, Dean Radin offered further information about his study:

“All participants knew that they would receive a light flash, an audio tone [beep], both, or none. In one condition they didn’t know when these would occur or what type of stimulus. In another condition they knew when it would occur but not what. In all cases no one, including experiment[ers], knew what the next stimulus would be because we used a true random number generator to select it on the fly.

“The conclusion of the study was that the reported subjective experience of exceptional spaciousness, or timelessness, reported by some advanced meditators, appears to be objectively correct. That is, their subjective sense of ‘now’ appears to expand substantially, and our experiment indicates that this was not an illusion.”

I then asked Dr. Radin how closely correlated the light flashes and audio tones were to the brain changes in the meditators. His answer was stunning. The brain changes occurred 1.5 seconds before these interruptions. And the changes obviously occurred even though the meditators didn’t know when the interruptions were coming.

Radin’s remarks offer us a major point: these meditators were expanding their consciousness of the present moment, so that it included the future.

Therefore, we would be interacting with far more than this continuum is supposed to represent.

Such a framework of understanding travels far beyond modern ideas about the makeup and laws of the physical universe. It implies more than merely a holographic or pixel-based cosmos. It speaks to titanic capabilities on our part.

Of course, having sunk to a state in which we navigate in an amnesia about ourselves, we look at these ideas with skepticism. We pretend we are trapped in a container-continuum of space and time, as Einstein and others have fleshed it out.

What if this is not the case at all? What if we are trying to resolve our problems within a highly narrow context, when in fact the ultimate solution—the only one that will finally satisfy us—depends on us waking up to what we are?

Like recovering our political freedom, the journey to re-establish our greatest hidden capacities is a magnificent enterprise. We no longer need to consign ourselves to dreams of comic-book heroes. We would be the heroes.

When I first read Dean Radin’s breakthrough book, The Conscious Universe, I was floored. Far from merely recounting anecdotes of paranormal phenomena, Radin was proving that decades of well-formed and well-conducted published laboratory studies, in the areas of telepathy and psychokinesis, revealed that these human capabilities exist.

He had performed a staggering feat. He had shown the science was valid.

It remains for other branches of the scientific community to catch up, to admit their consensus about reality is provincial, distorted, and pathetically behind the times. They are now the Roman Church of old, denying Galileo and Bruno. They are the flat-earthers, fearing that to sail in a straight line too far will drop them off the edge of a giant dinner plate into emptiness.

Consider what could be the most astonishing extension of Dean Radin’s work: suppose that for those elements of the future that aren’t yet planned or on the drawing boards at all, people can still register their presence in advance. Then we would be talking about the human capacity to reach out into a vacuum, a nothing, and still “bring back” what is going to happen.

If we all added up those moments in our lives when we suddenly and inexplicably knew what was about to occur, and then it did, we would have a significant number. What if we were foreseeing events not scripted on any possible chart? What if we were going beyond time altogether and correctly discovering “something in nothing?”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Uncategorized

Expert: Combat Terrorism With “Highly Drastic” Population Control | ExplosiveReports.Com

http://explosivereports.com/2013/02/13/expert-combat-terrorism-with-highly-drastic-population-control/

Expert: Combat Terrorism With “Highly Drastic” Population Control

Gallery

france_for22_33831593

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
February 13, 2013

Geopolitical writer: Want to reduce the threat of terrorism? Implement “highly drastic” population control.

In a Foreign Policy article titled “Mali’s 2.5 Percent Problem“, political writer and former Chatham House fellow Roger Howard calls for “new and highly drastic” population control measures in Mali to reduce the “terrorist threat”. Howard writes:

“(…) in the aftermath of the Algerian attacks and the insurgency in Mali, expect to hear an overwhelming silence about the population issue . . .The taboo that continues to surround the issue of population control needs to be cast aside. New, and highly drastic, means of curbing the rate of growth have to be devised and put into practice if this dire threat to regional and international stability is ever to be averted.”

To make his argument, Howard suggests that geopolitical “unstable” situations are in effect caused by population growth. Therefore, he argues, “highly drastic” population control policies in war-torn Mali should be put in place to avert a “threat to regional and international stability.” In other words: avert terrorism by fundamentalists by implementing mega-terrorism (population control).

Howard, who has made a name for himself writing articles on geopolitics for many international newspapers and is a Chatham House member, is also an editor connected with the UK based population control advocacy group Population Matters: a cesspool of conservationists and environmentalists describing humanity as locusts and calling for worldwide population reduction in the name of the earth.

Follow this line of reasoning through, and every possible problem will be solved if only population control is implemented: want to reduce victims of drunk driving? Reduce human numbers. Looking to cure cancer? Reduce the birthrate so less people will die as a result of it. As the case of Roger Howard clearly illustrates, modern crypto-eugenic consensus will provide the solution of population control for any and every calamity that may arise.

For example, several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Ban Ki-moon’s top advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs’ protégé, Matthew Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. In which the case is made that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well… eradicate humans.

“We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud”, Bonds wrote.

“(…) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.”

“This model”, Bond continues, “is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptible for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time.”

If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease- problem solved:

“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?”

Or, to frame this question as Howard does, can fertility reduction be an integral element of a terrorism eradication campaign?

About these ads

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this.

February 13, 2013 Leave a Reply