BEHOLD: THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD PROBLEMS & HUMAN POTENTIAL • Risk of Eco-Accidents

“The Great Work” = Enabled by Climate Emergency

Source: http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/132519

Risk of Eco-Accidents:

NATURE: Abrupt and widespread discontinuities exist in the fossil record of fauna and are considered evidence of widespread mass extinction of species. These low frequency events have been attributed to fluctuations in sea level, reversals of the geomagnetic fields (exposing the earth’s surface to lethal radiation), impacts of the earth by very large meteors (putting tons of dust into the atmosphere cutting off photosynthesis) and supernovae (causing catastrophic but temporary climate changes). There are also a range of potential man-made ecocatastrophes, such as triggering an earthquake with a an underground nuclear explosion. In addition, there are other more fantastic possibilities. The sun will expand into a red star engulfing Mercury and Venus and melting lead on the Earth. The moon can fall to earth, a comet, a swarm of meteorites or a black hole could collide with the earth. The earth will eventually loose its atmosphere. A life form might evolve destroying all of humankind.

This is the source material for the United Nations Agenda 2030 – the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The carrying out of the implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is the partnership formed between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum known as “The Great Reset”…

See where this Masonic aptitude takes us…

Why COP26 Refused to Address Planned Obsolescence • Strategic Culture

Source: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/11/08/why-cop26-refused-to-address-planned-obsolescence/

Joaquin Flores

November 8, 2021


The ugly truth about cap and trade and all similar schemes is that they do not really reduce carbon emissions, if most other factors remain the same, Joaquin Flores writes.

The failure of the UN’s COP26 conference in Glasgow was spectacle of hypocrisy befitting of a moribund ruling class. These kinds of antics harken back to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, where its decadent ruling class was deadly out of touch with the causes of growing decentralization and dissatisfaction in the periphery. And so taking our historical analogy further, we may begin to unwrap an epochal catastrophe which today’s elite now faces.

The transition from the Roman imperial system, through the Carolingian period, into to the system of medieval Europe, saw a continual decentralization of power, and the evolution of slaves and serfs into land-owning peasants.

Boris Johnson arrives at COP26 by private jumbo jet ready to tackle other leaders on emissions

This economic decentralization was connected to localized power structures. Roman forts thereby formed the basis of the medieval system of castles, and the relative weakness of these lords and little kings correlated to an improvement in the rights and economic power of what became the small land-owning peasantry.

Therefore a method of re-introducing an element of centralization to these structures, to the Vatican in Rome, was the development of the Church and the refinement of its system of tithing from individual offering to an imposed and required tax, enforced by law and collectively. Significant theological and metaphysical questions and dissimilarities aside, here’s what’s critical:

The carbon tax system is a mystical system that cannot be justified by material sciences or concerns, and instead sits as a type of ‘new religion’ that the historical centres of capital have rolled out to justify a type of tithing upon increasingly sovereign and decentralized corners of the world.

Payment of tithing, like the carbon tax system, is an ideological project to maintain powers of a moribund economic system, after the decline of the physical structures of imperialism that held together the old empire.

The various carbon tax systems, (cap and trade CAP/ETS, etc.) are little more than a rehashing of a tithing system.

Like with the Church’s control over the scribes and monasteries, the new carbon cult relies upon its monopoly over the inherited centers of knowledge creation and distribution, to create a parallel reality which requires a payment into something which cannot be rationalized in either scientific or economic terms.

Likewise, one could argue that the influence of abstracted aims of the Church lent towards the management of high unemployment and inflation caused by this tithing tax, through the calling of crusades and counter-rational measures for dealing with plagues, which tended to account for the premature deaths of countless ‘worthless eaters’.

This very much parallels the gross neo-Malthusian solutions proffered by the elites in our day and age.

The amazing part of this? The entire catastrophe today can be avoided if planned obsolescence was eliminated as an economic practice.

It doesn’t matter where one stands on climate science – even a true believer would be forced to see the logic in eradicating planned obsolescence if the aim was carbon neutrality.

Carbon Reduction as Cover for a Sinister Depopulation Agenda

The fundamental issue driving the COP26 population reduction scheme which parades as ‘carbon reduction’, therefore, is the hard problem of overcoming planned obsolescence. This single issue, almost more than any other, is definitive proof that there is no real concern for the environment, and that the ruling class is purely focused on population reduction and the suppression of actual 3D printing and eradicating a real Fourth Industrial Revolution.

That last point may come as a surprise to many, who are following the talking points of Klaus Schwab and company, at the World Economic Forum, who have incorporated these terms into their neo-Malthusian agenda.

They use these words so that we cannot understand them, so we will not look right where they are hiding their real meanings and implications – in their mouths.

So in place, they use the words and phrases – 4IR, 3D printing, IoT – but in actuality they are trying to subvert these while other technologies, entirely coercive and centralizing in nature, are rolled out onto the suffering faces of the masses.

As we have shown in our work on planned obsolescence, nowhere is the subject of planned obsolescence directly confronted – either in Schwab’s “Covid-19: The Great Reset” (in fact the opposite is proposed), nor is it confronted in the SDG Agenda. There is an oblique reference to repairable products and longer product lifespans only on page 62 of the 250 page manifesto. This adds justification to our charge that among the points of the ‘Great Reset’ is a serious reduction in human population.

Global Fight-back – The UN and Beyond

The same technologies to create the three industrial revolutions in the imperial core, were later used by developing countries, to grow and improve their physical economy. But these efforts were conducted in fierce opposition to the centrally directed model of modernity; a centralism coming from the financiers of the City of London and conducted through the geopolitics of the so-called Washington Consensus.

While accurately understanding some of the mutually shared concerns among and between nations, the Agenda 2030 solutions offered stem from the same kind of thinking, and from the very same actors, which produced the problem itself. Why would anyone trust these solutions?

Again, there is nothing profound or rhetorical in that question. The right-thinking leadership of many developing countries entirely understands that point. They are frustrated by the gas-lighting that comes from this globalist institutions which enforce austerity measures which breed corruption and poverty, all while preaching that these same countries haven’t done enough to increase transparency and fight poverty.

Real sovereignty for the so-called global south is intimately tied to two related factors: import substitution industrialization using 3D printing, and a physical economy based in automated production of super-long life goods. This must up-end the present planned obsolescence paradigm with its intentionally shortened PLC (product life cycle). A functional bridge between here and there, is an increased focus on regional trade, which encourages regional cooperation and enlarges spatial conceptions of the sovereign towards a growing multipolarity.

Instead of focusing on this very obvious solution to a whole range of problems which are, generously speaking, fairly represented in the UN Agenda 2030 goals, we are being corralled down a path which unjustifiably focuses on climate change. But critics like Vance Packard in ‘The Waste Makers’ (1960) already saw the problem, and the solution.

We are therefore in a race towards next-generation productive technologies, like localized 3D printing (3DP) which ultimately work against globalized production, against interdependency, and the supply-line security problems, like war, that comes along with it.

The underlying rationale of globalized production, is the exploitation of low wage labor and the maintenance of endemic global inequalities. But as techniques of production improve, and more materials can be synthesized, the twin drivers of this paradigm – low-wage production and raw material extraction – are overcome together.

Ending planned obsolescence vs. ending climate change, represent two different paradigms. The first is connected to a forward looking paradigm reflective of a real and sustainable 4IR, and the second is a cynical ruse not only to limit the rational development of the physical economy, but also human horizons.

The synthesizing of materials eliminates the ‘carbon emissions’ produced by the entire present model of resource extraction, including those emitted by hundreds of millions of workers who generate otherwise unnecessary emissions upstream and downstream, globalized supply-lines, while the carbon footprint for material synthesis will ultimately be smaller. And this much matters only if a real problem is carbon emissions, which is arguable at best.

In other words, we can eliminate those emissions without eliminating the human beings, and moreover, without limiting the quality of life they enjoy. To the contrary, overcoming artificial scarcity in its present form would see a great improvement in quality of life and life expectancy.

And so the focus on improving hyper-efficient methods of globalized distribution is missing the point, if relatively equivalent investment into R&D can get better results in the arena of material synthesis. Synthetic materials are based on polymers which are stronger and longer-lasting than natural or regenerated materials, and lend towards longer lasting products.

What is more efficient than the most efficient delivery system? Not having to distribute it at all.

Nations are not Bound to Agenda 2030 by Force of Treaty

Are most UN member states really ‘all in’ with the climate change game? The vast majority of countries tied into the IMF/UN system of neo-colonialism, are simply waiting out the clock, as alternatives such as BRICS grow against the petro dollar.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), known also as Agenda 2030, use the language of post-colonialism to reinforce a new kind of neo-colonialism. The system behind this push being so-called ‘sustainability’ is what is actually unsustainable, and so developing countries see they simply need to bear with it until it finally implodes.

A lot of unrelated environmental concerns have been collapsed into ‘climate change’. And climate change has been dogmatically tied to carbon emissions. The primary issue then deals with carbon emissions, therefore, even though it is just a single goal (goal 13) among the 17 goals of Agenda 2030.

Seeing the UN graphic below, we can see that the following goals are actually all important matters: 6 (Clean water and sanitation); 7 (Affordable and clean energy); 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure); 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); 12 (Responsible consumption and production); 14 (Life below water); 15 (Life on land).

And so it’s of peculiar interest that 13, climate action (which is merely carbon emissions), is the guiding logic behind all of these, when in fact it is failure to address goal 12 (Responsible consumption and production) which represents the entire economic, social, and environmental cancer of this age, a danger so clear and present and yet rooted so deeply in this paradigm, that the IMF cannot propose a solution that can tackle this.

Goal 12 – responsible consumption and production – is the foundation of all the other goals, if we are to take them seriously. Not goal 13 – climate action – as that in fact goes in the opposite direction. This point will be underscored.

All of this seems so terrible, so why did the majority of UN member states sign on? In fact, Agenda 2030 is not a treaty, it is non-binding and not a criteria for UN membership, and its provisions are not enforceable through the mechanism of treaties between sovereign states. Rather, it was reached ‘by consensus’, whatever that means. What has been constructed as Agenda 2030 presents an outline at best, using input from many UN member states, of what they ‘could’ agree to someday.

Therefore, many countries will make their own sovereign announcements about reaching this part, or that part, of the various goals. This will receive a lot of press, much of it misleading, because these were decisions these countries make on their own. Many of these already overlap with their own national agenda (poverty reduction, clean water, gender inclusiveness). But they do so on their own accord, and this point is critical.

Predatory multinationals like to use provisions on 2030 to place the spectre of global governance and shared goals as justification for policies which undermine the economic and sovereign foundation of developing countries.

But the 17 goals of Agenda 2030 (SDG) represent merely a ‘plan of action’, which countries are not obliged to separately from various accords and treaties which they might presently or later agree to, or which multinationals may attempt to unilaterally impose as a condition of trade, (often backed by the IMF) but which carry their own names and legal details.

Many of the concerns that these goals address are the right ones for countries to be focusing on, and therein lies the rub. Just like with the 4IR, Agenda 2030 turns these on their head, and cynically misdirects them towards a neo-Malthusian genocide.

The ugly truth about cap and trade, and all similar schemes to enforce this globally, is that they do not really reduce carbon emissions, if most other factors remain the same. Among the other factors required for this scheme to approximate ‘working’, is to reduce population size. Note that this is not to reduce the rate of population growth, but to reduce the total human population in absolute terms.

In other words, at the heart of the 17 SDG for 2030, the primary source of carbon footprints are human beings.

Overcoming this Paradigm’s Problem

Just like with the human development indexes, and broader economic concerns, Agenda 2030 seizes upon legitimate concerns for the environment, human exposure to carcinogenic materials, birth defects, and clean air and water.

But these become subsumed under the heading of global warming (or, in explaining cooling spells, ‘climate change’), in such an incoherent way that one cannot speak about the legitimate concerns without being forced to answer for climate change.

Innovations that potentiate a 4IR, like 3DP, contain much potential. But there are already existing solutions to the production/income and distribution/purchase cycle plaguing humanity in the face of the rapid automation process underway.

These solutions are as simple as using higher quality parts to substitute the ‘planned to break’ parts in already existing products, all other factors of production being left untouched.

Indeed, we hold that while there are hypothetically limits to growth, the biggest limitation at present is limited thinking about what growth looks like and what new possibilities and discoveries it holds.

Taken together, we can see that overcoming the wastefulness of economies of scale is not the problem which the elite’s conception of Agenda 2030 is aimed at. They want to preserve some type of system of subsidized commodity production, perhaps making products less sturdy, and commonly shared through a drone-delivery rental system.

This would decrease product lifespan while also requiring less goods to be produced, connected to the rental system and a lower total human population.

In some tenacious balance between population reduction and flimsy rental goods, the WEF proposes that this will result in a net decrease in carbon emissions. In looking at the second part of that balance, we can conclude that the population reduction must be significant in order to justify the net reduction claim.

Instead, we maintain that ‘two heads are better than one’, that the increase in human population has a multivariate, non-linear effect towards improvement not only of the human experience, but its positive interrelation with the entire noosphere.

The author can be reached at FindMeFlores@gmail.com

Tricks of the Trade: Structuring Events and Transactions Around a Nonprofit’s Reception of a Charitable Contribution to Mask Conflicts of Interest and the Capitalization of Nepotism

By: Muunyayo

Note: these four diagrams I made for the purpose of this demonstration are used in a zoomed in presentation further into the blog post.

The Bottom Line:

Upon disbursement of the cash proceeds to an NPO to meet the pledge of a charitable contribution by another business entity, the round-robin begins in terms of the pass through of that very cash within the realm of the Nonprofit(NPO) world and it’s vendors, creditors, donors and beyond. And I am going to show you how charitable contributions made to these tax exempt NPOs generate more than just virtue signaling clout (for donating to “a good cause”) and a tax deduction to be used to offset taxable income for the entity making the donation. The following is a simple diagram of the clockwork-like movement of the cash donation (as you read on, you will be blown away how this – with all of its conflicts of interest) – is achieved through the manipulation of regulatory compliance loopholes that are exploited in a manner to such a tactful, involved degree – that the IRS simply does not have the investigative capacity to detect and investigate conflicts of interest that arise between related parties.

The following diagram is the simplistic summary of the dissection of the anatomy of how this round-robin of the cash donation made by the for-profit entity (earning them an income tax benefit) – how this cash quite literally returns to them during the ordinary course of business operations:

Note here that we have a conglomerate making a donation to an NPO, the NPO has rent to pay, its rent is paid to a separate conglomerate. The first conglomerate – the one that made the donation – performed consulting services for the landlord of the NPO. In essence – the donation has moved in circular direction, right back into the coffers of the source of the donation. The IRS (as well as the Attorney General’s offices at the state level) call this a conflict of interest. This chart is a primer, to illustrate to the reader a simple view of what is at play. I am going to show you the innards; the guts, of how this is pulled off.

Globalization and the Financialization of the US Economy

The business community at large, both Wall Street and ‘Main Street”, has undergone radical, disruptive change at an exponential rate in the last 30+/+ years. Globalization is the term that sums it up best. Through globalization, the world has witnessed the evisceration of the middle class (small businesses swallowed up by the likes of Walmart), the funneling of financial capital poured into and under control of the BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street holy trinity of fuckery, the fiat-based world reserve currency, the USD, rely more and more to its Petrodollar tether -and we have begun to see the multipolarity (China-Russia-Iran-Syria asymmetrical defense against Neo-Liberal policy), the exportation of manufacturing and industry labor from the US to areas across the globe – further erasing America’s middle class.

The global financial system has a billion guns firing rounds at the encroaching outside world attempts to get close to any reform. And the system’s ammunition supply is eternal.

We have also learned (beyond the 2008 financial crisis) of the elaborate schemes of the greedy Think Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, where some $65 BILLION disappeared in thin air. Then Enron’s labyrinth of subsidiary “variable interest entities” that kept the SEVENTH MOST VALUABLE company on the planet afloat until the charade came crashing down like a lead zeppelin and with it wiped out employee benefit pension funds. It is also of extreme importance to note how Arthur Anderson LLP, Enron’s financial statement auditor, in an aggregation of rogue behavior of which the sum forced the firm (then one of the “Big Five” global public accounting firms) to lose its licenses as certified public accountants in all 50 states here in the US. Funnily enough, the remnants of Arthur Anderson LLP is now known as the global risk management behemoth Accenture (yes that Accenture – one of Klaus Schwab’s “yes men” for the Great Reset project.

The global financial Rabbical class does not face repercussions from the regulatory compliance federal agencies (ie IRS, SEC) as it has continued where 2008 left off – only this time, circa current year, since the likes of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, HSBC, Citigroup, etc have adapted to the preferences of Twitter Blue Checks – sponsoring, promoting and injecting charitable contributions into the SJW causes of BLM, LBGTQ+++ and “ESG” (Environmental, Social, Governance) disclosures to their results of operations, much to the delight of the Church of the Woke, to Davos and to shitbags like Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Skate, Time Magazine, AOC, GQ Magazine, The View, CNN, Nancy Pelosi, NASA, Code Pink, countless genderfluid queers (since the aforementioned financial institutions human resource policies on diversity mirror the sentiments of the book “White Fragility.”

Globalization has left the world unrecognizable to the eyes of someone from 1954, if that person had a time machine and came to 2021 and saw the delights of Clown World’s Piss Earth and all of its glory. We know these things. The objective of this bog post is to demonstrate little known (to the ordinary people) some of the financial chicanery that is heavily capitalized upon by the global financial philanthro-capitalist elite.

The True Beneficiaries of Tax Exempt Paradigm

Since the financial institutions and private equity firms, in aggregate, through the process of gradualization, have procured enough shares in the companies of the S&P 500 that they have a material ownership in these businesses when viewing this financial mafia as a collective. Classic weapons of momentum based trading are rigged to work in their favor. For instance, speculation, arbitrage, futures, options, other derivatives – the movement of these mechanisms are often driven by a predetermined course of action put in play by the major shareholders, more over, by the institutions that own and operate the financial capital infrastructure that investment activity is conducted upon.

Ownership and Cumulative Voting

An aspect that the the shoddy, shitty, oven-tier “financial reporting” done by the likes of shitlib websites like Quartz, Buzzfeed, Slate, Salon, Mother Jones – how even Business Insider, NY Times, Washington Post, etc – even CNBC Financial News spends very little emphasis on the non-financial advantage that a large stake of ownership of shares in a publicly traded company affords the owners: VOTING – that is, each share represents a vote in the direction of the affairs on the company in a process called cumulative voting. The scope of what types of changes in the direction of a company are decided at shareholder quorums is far too detailed to examine for the sake of this exercise. One of the typical critical outcomes of a shareholder total vote is the appointment of the Board of the Directors.

Primary Distinction: For-Profit v Nonprofit

  • A for-profit business carries out business operations with the objective to maximize shareholder wealth. In a for-profit company, the objective of conducting business operations is to maximize shareholder wealth. Through the cumulative, shareholder voting, the Board of Directors is appointed. Keep in mind that the majority shareholders (who can coordinate alliances with other significant shareholders who share the same vision for the immediate direction of the company both have invested in) a Director can be elected who is actually one of those shareholders or who works on behalf of those very shareholders). Thus we have a consortium of investors with an a shared philosophical vision of how the company partially under their ownership should be run.
  • A nonprofit business carries out business operations with the objective of supporting its “Mission Statement.” The Mission Statement is the formal and specific reason for the NPO’s creation in the first place. The Mission Statement is the humanitarian/charitable/etc cause the NPO is serving. For example, the objective of helping people that are homeless to obtain access to food, medical services, temporary shelter and ultimately a place to call home – this is the Mission Statement of the NPO. The NPO is in operation to achieve the Mission Statement.

More Financial Napalm

To continue, the lesser known yet highly abused financial weapons of Wall Street include the use of insider information, lobbying to persuade and gain political clout, exotic derivatives (which are no different than gambling, frankly). In the private equity realm there are constant hostile takeovers, mergers/acquisitions/divestures, the use of litigation to seize the intellectual property of businesses that are the targets of takeovers. Allow us not to omit the off-shore treasury mechanisms that are employed as standard operating procedure in circumventing income tax liabilities and also in shielding the identities – through a network of dormant corporate entities connected to other dormant entities- the true owners of business operations engaging in questionable business ethics.

Well of course they are! That’s exactly how the financial ruling class became and maintains their stature as the financial ruling class – manipulation of loopholes, bending the interpretation of business laws – this is what the high powered international litigation attorneys are paid for…to protect the actions of the BlackRocks, the Bains and the Boston Consulting Consulting Group from being penalized.

With regards to the weapons of financial capital, the weapons cache has no end.

The Nonprofit Organization (NPO), too is a Weapon of Financialization courtesy of Globalization. How did this happen?

The nonprofit business entity is another one of these weapons, it is well known, that for-profit corporations, wealthy individuals, “philanthropists” will make charitable contributions to tax exempt organizations that will serve the aim of appearing to “support noble causes” in tandem with generating an alleviation of income tax liabilities – “charitable contributions eligible for tax deductions.” It is here that I will illustrate to you a much more potent explosivity that the realm of nonprofit world provides to its participants.

Brief Outline of the Nonprofit (NPO) and Tax Exemption

The NPO gains an income tax exempt status because it is a business operation that is for a charitable cause. The NPO is operating for the common good, therefore, imposing income tax stipulations would hinder the ability of the NPO to serve that purpose.

There is a common misconception that the NPO is “nonprofit” because it does not “make any money.” This is not the case – the NPO most certainly generates profits, however, there are no owners of the NPO. There are no shareholders.

Structuring the Weapon Deployment

In this example, there are three primary business entities involved:

  1. The Charitable Contributor: a For-Profit professional services parent company – the company holds the ownership of two specific subsidiary operations,one a business advisory firm, the other a risk management firm.
  2. Receiver of the Charitable Contribution: Nonprofit Entity (with Tax Exempt status.)
  3. For-profit property investment parent company – the company holds the ownership of three subsidiaries; a real estate holding company, a property management company and a valuation firm.

The above diagram indicates the basic organizational charts and layout of the three entities.

Sequence of Events and Transactions:

In my professional experience as an auditor of the financial statements, it was quite common to see interplay between the different businesses, as one would serve the other in the capacities such as vendor, creditor, client, landlord, etc. I have placed numbers next to each KEY EVENT – of which the first conflict of interest sets in motion a manipulative scheme which intertwines “Related Parties” that ultimately conduct transactions with one another.

Structuring the Rogue Events (arrangements)

The diagram illustrates the flow of events (of which underlying assumptions will be explained below in further detail:

Diagram: Events (decision making capacity shifts, obligations created, contracts executed):

  1. The Property Investment conglomerate owns and operates it’s three subsidiary operations. The subsidiary of focus here is the Valuation Co. The underlying assumption is that each specific operation has its own Executive Management group, which answers to the Board of Directors at the parent level. An Executive from the Valuation Firm is appointed to the Board of Directors of the the Risk Management subsidiary of the Professional Services Conglomerate.
  2. The Board of Directors makes the broad based decisions about the best direction for the business entity to take. This includes decisions about Charitable Contributions – if to make them, to which Nonprofit to make them to, the amount to donate, etc. It is not a secret that nepotism plays a most significant role in terms of which NPO is selected as the beneficiary of a charitable contribution. Two benefits realized by the donor by making the donation are:
    • Income Tax Deduction for the fiscal year.
    • Virtue signaling clout by supporting charitable cause.
  3. In the example I have illustrated, we have see that the management executive of the Valuation Co has joined the Board of Directors of the Professional Services Conglomerate. With nepotism a factor, with persuasive efforts, this Executive has gotten the Board of Directors to make the charitable contribution to the particular nonprofit. The process here will include alot of back channel communications – in order to avoid documentation of the gleaming conflict of interest that will arise from the following arrangements.
  4. The grant letter with the pledge to make the grant can contain a provision that the proceeds of the grant must be used for the rent of office space for the NPO. This is a temporarily restricted form of revenue for the NPO.
    • It is, again, during the back channel communications that there is a determination made in advance that in order for the NPO to recieve this charitable contribution, it must sign a lease agreement for office space with the subsidiary “Real Estate Holding Co”
    • Notice thru the direction of the red arrows that the Executive from the Valuation Co (subsidiary of the Property Investment Conglomerate Parent Company) had been instrumental in bringing this deal into the fold.
    • The major conflict of interest is that he is on the Board of Directors of the company making the charitable contribution. A stipulation of the use of the cash disbursement that will come from the contribution is that the funds must be allocated towards the eventual lease payments made for office space – office space owned by the Real Estate Holding Co, which is owned by the same parent company as the Valuation Co. the Executive comes from!!!
  5. Finally, there is a consulting agreement entered into between the Property Management subsidiary of the Property Investment Parent Company and the Business Advisory firm of the Professional Services Parent Company making the charitable contribution.
    • The flow of the charitable contribution to be transacted in the first place (due to the Executive from the Valuation Co presence on the Board of Directors of the Risk Management subsidiary of the Professional Services Parent Company ) is going from the Professional Services Parent Company, to the NPO, to the Real Estate Holding Co – a subsidiary of the Property Investment Parent Company.
    • The consulting agreement has the Business Advisory Firm performing services for the Property Management subsidiary of the Property Investment Parent Company (which through the consolidation of subsidiaries into the parent company, is in essence the recipient of the rents received from the NPO).

The following diagram is the path of the cash proceeds – once disbursement of the charitable contribution has been made. The path of the cash proceeds follows the same route as the preceding events(arrangements) only green arrows are used to designate the fact that cash is now on the move.

Finally, we see that the entity that made the charitable contribution has not only wound up as an ultimate beneficiary of the arrangement – having cash it donated having a destination within the very coffers of the point of origination. We also see that the contribution itself generated an income tax benefit (taxable income deduction) that will be able to be utilized at the time of filing the annual income tax return.

Conclusion: all three top level entities benefit:

  1. Property Investment Conglomerate:
    • Procures Board of Directors position on a major Professional Services Conglomerate’s upper echelon. This is the type of networking that allows for the type of related party transactions with glaring conflicts of interest to persist and persist – to the point they become normalized and overlooked by the regulatory compliance outfit designed to prevent these arrangements (the IRS).
    • In having it’s Real Estate Holding Co have one of its properties rented out by the NPO, this covers the costs associated with the operation and the attainment of the equity in the office building (we assume there is a mortgage being paid on the office space).
    • By leasing office space to the NPO, it is scoring it’s virtue signaling clout hosting a “worthy cause” – which in the world of NPOs, curries good favor with the potential of procuring other NPO tenants in the future.
    • The services rendered by the Business Advisory Firm of the Professional Services Conglomerate enhanced the operations of the Property Management subsidiary, resulting in another value add.
  2. NPO (Tax Exempt):
    • The NPO has established a relationship with a new charitable contributor, which is the most vital aspect to the going concern. The NPO is reliant upon grants, contributions, donations and minor service fees earned as forms of revenue to carry out it’s mission statement for the fiscal year.
    • The tendency in the realm of NPOs is that once serious For-profit business operations are making charitable contributions to an NPO, it is a rule of thumb that in the future more and more reputable entities will take an interest in the making charitable contributions as well (and keep in mind the clandestine inner-deals arranged by the parties involved – THIS IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FEATURE OF THE NPO! THE ABILITY TO STRUCTURE ROGUE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF CHARITY!!!)
  3. Professional Services Conglomerate:
    • What more needs to be said here? The company made a charitable contribution (which as a bonus has afforded them a year-end income tax deduction) – the cash proceeds went round robin and through the structure of subsidiary operations and consolidation of the operating results of those subsidiaries – the charitable contribution disbursed by them literally went round robin and wound right back in their pocket.
    • All the while, they earned the virtue signaling clout, they learned the racket inside and out and to top it off they will get an additional income tax liability reduction at year-end.

These types of arrangements exists throughout the entire NPO world. It is a subject rarely ever discussed – for many and most of the current “Fortune 500/Davos” types are in on it ….not just in on it….they pioneered this craft.

Made in America. Meticulously planned and carefully executed inter-related events and transactions that purposely manipulate and abuse the landscape of the tax exempt business world.

The ride never ends….

Lügenpresse!!! New York Times Attempting to Attribute Recent Storms to “Climate Change”

This is an example of the Virus-Cyber-Climate emergency fear mechanisms at work. The New York Times is part of the mainstream media apparatus, which is one of the tentacles of the globalist, Zionist, technocratic oligarchy that wishes to instill the FEAR into ALL OF YOU. It’s latest iteration comes:

This is the article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/us/cape-cod-noreaster.amp.html

A few quotes from the article:

Officials in the area had moved quickly to prepare for the nor’easter, in part scarred by the intensity of several storms this summer that exposed the region’s vulnerability to extreme weather events made more frequent and intense by climate change.

from NY Times article

And this quote:

Someday maybe we’ll just have a regular rainstorm. We don’t seem to get those much anymore,” Joseph Fiordaliso, who leads New Jersey’s utility board, said at a news conference on Tuesday, adding, “Climate change is real, and we have to work to mitigate as much of it as we possibly can.”

from NY Times article

These storms – and storms themselves have been in existence since FOREVER. Whether one ascribes to Christian doctrine, or to perhaps one is well acquainted with the Celts, amongst many others I could write here, storms have been in existence since ancient times.

I’ve been alive since 1979 and we have had a shit-ton of storms since then in New England. I’ve lived in New England for some 32 of my 42 years (living elsewhere in the world for work purposes the other ten years – of which storms occured in those places I lived too)…

The Great Reset is meme’ing any/all weather events as abnormalities that are due to “climate change”.

Just so all of you know, the idea of using climate change (an environmental emergency) was conceived by the globalist consortium known as the Club of Rome, I’ve written about them here:

I have also shared information on my blog about MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, yes him, as he stated in 1996 that the possibility of an environmental emergency would we manipulated to usher in a New World Order:

With the hoax of a climate change emergency, they will ultimately tell you the earth will burn up beneath your feet if you do not surrender your rights to private property ownership. If the sheep give in to this? Well, they will find a new home in the smart cities grid (one of the clearcut objectives of Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals). Through this barrage of propaganda, soon enough the people will be begging for a breathe of fresh air from an eye dropper and Rabbi Klaus Schwab makes that decision.

If you think I am being obtuse then I suggest you return to watching Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow, or David Rubin and Ben Shapiro, whatever keeps you comfortable.

The NY Times is under control of the global financial system. How? Through:

  • Ownership of stock (equity)
  • Stock ownership affords VOTING RIGHTS
  • The Voting Rights are utilized at shareholder meetings
  • At these meetings is where major issues of the viability, financial well-being and other important matters are brought up and voted upon
  • It is at these meeting that members of the Board of Directors are appointed
  • Presence on the Board of Directors – a shareholder can be appointed to the Board (ie a financial institution from BlackRock, or Goldman Sachs, or Comcast, or a private equity firm – can become a Director)
  • Directors are responsible for appointing the Executive Management (ie CEO, CFO, COO) which carry out operations of the business entity
  • Take a look at the current NY Times Board: https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/

I wanted to make a simple blog post therefore I did not cut and paste the BoD here but from the page I can tell you these truths about the Directors:

  • Mostly Jewish
  • Ties to these companies:
    • Facebook
    • Microsoft
    • Google
    • Verizon
    • JP Morgan
    • Aspen Institute
    • GoDaddy
    • Harvard College
    • Columbia University
    • Ernst & Young LLP
    • Clinton administration
    • A slew of venture capital and private equity firms

Have a look at the Board of Directors yourself:

https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/

It is also important to note here that the New York Times in it’s history has had Directors, Executives, Editors, Journalists and other employees that have been members of the globalist one world order La Kosher Nostra type of organizations like the World Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith. Also the spooky groups like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. And the Think Tanks like the CFR, Brookings Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, Christopher Lloyd Foundation (yes 88mph that Christopher Lloyd), Atlantic Council, etc.

And please keep in mind the networking that occurs amongst the NY Times with the entire industry.

This is how Climate Change Emergency becomes the weapon!!!

The entities I listed are all members of the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum was founded by Klaus Schwab. The World Economic Forum entered into a partnership with the United Nations in June of 2019, a strategic partnership. What was the intent of this partnership?

To summarize; The partnership was created in order for the World Economic Forum to carry out the implementation of the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, contained within Agenda 2030. The realization of Agenda 2030 is underway under the scheme called The Great Reset.

This blog post I wrote gives tremendous detail. I put alot of effort into it. Please read it if you want to discover the recent origins of The Great Reset:

I am 42 years old and it is commonplace to have Nor’easter storms. They have occured throughout New England and the northeast portion of the United States (and also affecting Canada – and other places) since – since FOREVER.

The Jew York Times is meme’ing together the phenom known as nature with their climate hoax. Storms have been happening since forever!!

Every storm = climate change. Because the Jews say so.

Lügenpresse!!!

7-Eleven Breached Customer Privacy Collecting Images of People’s Faces — TechNadu

Australia’s Information Commissioner conducted an investigation on 7-Eleven for collecting sensitive information without people’s consent. They used the camera on tablets customers were taking a survey on to photograph them. 435 more words

7-Eleven Breached Customer Privacy Collecting Images of People’s Faces — TechNadu

Gab Response to the ADL • from CEO Andrew Torba • October 11, 2021

Source: https://news.gab.com/2021/10/11/gabs-response-to-the-adl/

A hit piece was published this morning in the Washington Post and Newsweek based on a “report” published by the ADL. The report highlights how people post Gab links on Twitter that the ADL doesn’t like.

Twitter is so low on our referral source traffic list that it doesn’t even register in our top 15 sources of traffic. Yet that’s what the ADL targeted because they have no power anywhere else. 95% of our traffic is direct, meaning we don’t depend on Google, Twitter, Facebook, or anyone else. People come directly to Gab.

The ADL is an anti-Christ, Anti-American, and Anti-White hate organization. They should be registered as a foreign agent under Foreign Agents Registration Act for their operation in the United States on behalf of foreign interests in Israel.

The ADL is a Jewish organization that serves the interests of Jews and of Israel. Stating this fact isn’t even remotely controversial nor is it “hateful.” In fact the ADL openly boasts about these facts, but because a Christian man dares to say these things out loud the ADL cries “anti-Semitism!”

Remember the time I responded to the ADL with “Jesus is King” and they called it “thinly veiled antisemitism?” If you believe Jesus is King, as I do, the ADL will call you an “anti-semite.” Who cares? Let them. Their shame words only have power if you let them. Don’t apologize for anything. Double down.

I often wonder if this repeated pattern of the ADL smearing and attacking good Christian people as “anti-semitic” is a result of their profound Christophobia or if it’s just merely an expression of their Jewish privilege.

The ADL can call me and Gab whatever shame words they want, but they can’t say I’m wrong. The real problem for them here is that I don’t answer to the ADL. I answer only to the King of Kings my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Period. They hate Him first, and therefore they hate me too as He said they would. (John 15:18)

The ADL can try and pressure Twitter to censor Gab all they want, but they will never stop the signal of the 20 million people and growing who are using Gab’s services each and every month. Gab will never bend the knee to hateful extremist organizations like the ADL.

In the United States of America people have a God-given right to speak freely, to exercise religious liberty, and to protect their bodily autonomy. Reminding people of these rights is not “misinformation.”

If the ADL doesn’t like the rights we have in America, a Christian nation, then perhaps they should move to Israel which is one of the most vaccinated countries on earth and a noted covid hot spot.

Finally, the January 6th Capitol Riot hoax has been widely debunked including by the FBI who found “scant evidence that the Jan. 6 event at the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.”

The ADL and anyone else who demands that Gab censor legally-protected political speech on the internet can go pound sand.

Jesus Christ is King

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Only Jesus Saves

New Lawsuit Seeks To Reveal Extent Of The FBI’s Domestic Political Spying Campaign • NATIONAL JUSTICE

By: Eric Striker • Monday September 20, 2021

Source: https://national-justice.com/current-events/new-lawsuit-seeks-reveal-extent-fbis-domestic-political-spying-campaign

The Cato Institute is taking the FBI to court for its refusal to provide over a thousand documents on its domestic political surveillance program.

The public interest lawsuit seeks to force the FBI and Department of Justice to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made last year for 1,082 pages of documents related to legally dubious domestic intelligence gathering operations of political and civil society groups from 2013 to 2020.

Patrick Eddington, who is spearheading the effort, has so far published evidence of the FBI engaging in non-predicated “assessments” of conservative groups such as Concerned Women For America and organizations linked to the Palestinian cause like the Muslim Justice League. Eddington has reason to believe that what has been uncovered so far is only the tip of the iceberg.

The branch of the FBI responsible for providing FOIA documents responded to Eddington’s request in June 2020. The lawsuit states that while agreeing to comply with their legal obligations, the FBI has yet to produce a single document related to the request and told Eddington that he would have to wait five and a half years to see the files.

It should be noted that Cato’s legal efforts focus primarily on the methodology used by federal agents to decide which groups to target, not specific details on the particular groups they have targeted.

Evidence so far suggests that there is no objective oversight over the FBI’s activities in defense of civil liberties and that it operates more as a rogue political enforcement group instead of a law enforcement agency subject to typical checks and balances.

Following the 2016, the FBI decided to polarize public opinion for and against it, siding with liberals — who hold most of the institutional power in the US — who supported them during their attempted coup d’etat against Donald Trump, Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

The winds are starting to turn against them, however. The Larry Nasser scandal, where FBI agents engaged in a systematic cover up to protect a serial child molester, is only the latest embarrassment for the disgraced organization, with calls to depose director Christopher Wray growing.

Interestingly, both Democrats and Republicans in the House are increasing scrutiny on the out-of-control secret police force. While the mainstream media has typically refused to cover FBI shootings critically, the recent killing of a man in Oakland by an FBI agent under dubious circumstances is beginning to gain attention in some national outlets.

Snordster – Gratitude

“Possibly the emotion I experience most often is gratitude. Sometimes it goes on for a length of time and I discover many other things in the process. It is as if Gratitude is a room, dimly lit. As you stand there your presence begins to emit more and more light and to reveal more and more of the contents of the room. Gratitude has attendants and handmaidens; joy, serenity, a feeling of awesome protection. I don’t notice these things initially. If my gratitude goes away too soon I do not see to the further reaches of the room. It takes a while for the dynamo to wind up and bring on the full orchestra of sights and sounds.

I’ve been in the presence of realized masters and it is evident to me, as it is to most people in the room, that there is something different about them. Probably one of the finest talents a person can acquire is to become a ‘trained observer’. In order to be a trained observer one needs to relinquish pre-conceived assumptions and natural prejudice because they taint the quality of your research. It could be said that when the gravity of our assumptions begins to outweigh our capacity to learn, then we no longer grow. Since growth is an imperative, pain enters the picture to offset that gravity. It’s apparent to me that many people have a higher pain threshold than I do. I can’t take it. Why should I? Why should I, when there are so many more refined stations of being than that of being whipped along the way?

So in watching masters and in reflecting afterwards; where real learning takes place …because you can’t always remain objective in overwhelming presence. I have come to a conclusion about the way they breathe. The state of our minds and our emotions affect the regularity and depth of our breath. Alternatively, the way we breathe affects the quality of our mind and emotions. So I think about gratitude when I am breathing in and out. I am grateful when I eat and I imagine the food as being divine substance. I have to do this. It is a matter of self defense. If I am not eating and breathing consciously then some other agency may be doing it for me. Thoughts like this appear delusional to some and the example of new age mandarins also work against credibility on the part of those who have seen the naked emperor.

These masters didn’t get where they are in an afternoon or at a weekend seminar. Of course these things are advertised; like the Thighmaster and those round cages that do your sit-ups for you. My favorites are the patches with the electrodes that stimulate the muscles and turn you into Adonis while you are watching TV. The slenderizer creams are pretty neat and so are the space suits that eventually return you to needing only one airline seat. I haven’t seen Shamoo’s magic crystal and wealth amulets but I know they are around even if Shamoo is going by another name now.

It comes down to work and there is where problem #1 gives birth to a lot of other problems and the discouraging catcalls from the peanut gallery of entropic recidivism. There must be an easier way. And this is where gratitude comes in. Gratitude takes the inertia and resistance out of the ride. Gratitude promotes an eager willingness. Gratitude makes it feel good. We’ve no problem engaging in the things we love to do. If we don’t love it then it becomes work. I work all day long every day, a lot more than eight hours. I don’t get paid for my work in the way most people do but I do get paid. I get paid in gratitude; in the increased capacity to feel gratitude.

Gratitude changes you. It changes the cells in your body and makes you flexible and young. It neutralizes anger. Most people aren’t aware that depression is the result of turning your anger inward; turning it upon yourself. Most people also don’t realize that much of their anger comes from their sense of being denied something they insist upon having; whether that is an object, a world view, someone’s attention or their right of way on the way to whatever it is that they want or wherever it is they wish to be. Gratitude makes all of that unnecessary. The more grateful you are the more reasons you are going to have to feel that way. This follows observable laws of physics. As above, so below; what you observe taking place here takes place everywhere, whether you can see it or not. This is one of the scientific truths about faith. We take things that are only mathematical theory as everyday fact. We are probably unaware of this but we do. Many people would be quite surprised to find that they regularly practice things that they firmly attest they do not believe in.

If you would simply practice feeling gratitude, breathing it in and out, you would rather quickly become enlightened; or, if you prefer, more enlightened. As good as it feels, why would you want it all at once? Shouldn’t the increase in the increments of bliss take forever? Gratitude is a pair of rose colored glasses and a certain biblical coat. That’s what I call haute couture. Why wear sunglasses in a dark room? Because when you are cool the sun is always shining.

I don’t know it beyond a ‘shadow’ of a doubt but I strongly suspect that this is what masters do when they breathe in and out. Of course it may be Love and it may be Peace or Compassion but the origin of every virtue is in the ineffable, just as the colors, pre-prism, are in the white light. There isn’t any spiritual thing that can’t be understood in a practical, scientific way …if you are so inclined.

Gratitude greases the wheels of movement into a better state of being. It is a sort of cosmic three-in-one oil. In this time of spiritual crisis you need all the help you can get. I do anyway. But none of this is relevant to my feelings of gratitude; merely attendant to them. I feel grateful because I am grateful. Of all the things that I could be engaged in, of all the people I could have been; see, even now parts of me are departing and I speak of myself as if I were in the past. Of all the things I could have, to have gratitude, well… that makes me a hundred times more grateful just thinking about it.

I feel held. I feel something inexpressible and the very best part is that I know I am not nearly grateful enough. No, I’m just playing at the margins of gratitude. Further on, the room changes into a world of music; the sounds of planets rubbing together, the liquid radiance of stars pouring into an empty cup and over-spilling beyond boundaries and limits. And this is only what I can imagine from the margins. This is only what I can see in the lens of imagination. Once again, science tells me that it moves beyond that. We know a great many things about the universe that we cannot see. How did we come to know these things? Scientific inquiry and tools adapted to the pursuit made it possible.

Thinking about this has had the result of making me even more grateful than I was and so the room has gotten larger. That’s good, because my gratitude makes me want to dance and sing and I need the extra room for that. Every breath of gratitude alters my cells some infinitesimal amount so that critical mass gets closer. This seems to tell me that, “It’s getting better all the time.” Will shadows fall? Sure… just as darkness will turn into light when darkness falls. Be grateful.”

F’king Around w/ Google Jigsaw – the Savior of Modernity

It would be interesting if Persia takes a stab at the Great Gay Klaus Schwab. However, since Rouhani and Zariff both were at Davos ….that’s unlikely. Kabbalah calculus here we go …

Jigsaw is the project run under the Alphabet (Google) corporation’s sphere of “innovative and groundbreaking” progress in technologies coming out of silicon valley as of late.

Make no mistake:

Google, Amazon, Apple, Faceberg and Microsoft are oligarchical behemouths that gobble up disruptive/groundbreaking/truly innovative new technologies – they do so by engaging teams of shrewd law firms, private equity outfits, vulture capital operations and in many cases the Boustrophedon-binary option derivatives of the Shaddai-ways aka BlackRock/Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan – be sure these juggernauts stifle any/all progress in technology available to the general public.

The aforementioned companies are the most valuable publicly traded companies on the planet and it is because they possess the precious resource – the DATA. Data and it’s scope of capabilities infact was the disruptive element of bigtech. It’s not the cookies in your browser nor the ads for fishing gear that pop up after you just emailed your boss about a fishing trip. That’s 2010 shit. The reams of data and the capabilities of augmenting the data to suit a purpose are beyond words descriptive abilities -:hence this is why the companies mentioned are amongst the ten most valuable in the entire world.

By the very definition of the word Oligarchy…

We are living under one. That’s a tightly woven web of technology/medicine/government/energy/media/military/entertainment and of course this is all at the mercy of the finance realm.

The greatest threat to this axis of pronouns are capable, competent peoples…which is why the Russians, Chinese, Shia Muslims, Persians and the domestic gamergaters have been relegated as the enemy of the coming Communitarianism-infused one world order.

That’s why Google – the company that has compiled enough data via mobile device use through retina scans, finger prints, gyroscopes, accelerometers, compasses, audio recorders, meta data quadrillions of miles deep, real time analysis performed by the AI of the semantic properties of the users of it’s products has created a new precious resource. It’s not just “Big Data”. It’s analytics performed in real time over infinite crashing tides of real time data that allows machines to make informed decisions within a given context. This is beyond “Big Data/Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence”….this is the race to Artificial Consciousness…not just compute things…but make decisions ie yes/no, right/wrong, shoot/spare, etc. It’s coming.

In the meantime as La Kosher Nostra dangles like a little piece of a piece of a thing that gets the SJW/BLM/fembots/beta-male, cucked, queer, genderfluid jihadists and of course the virtual signalling cabal of middle management of the Fortune 500 and reverberate throughout their suburbs.

Google presents Jigsaw!

It is bullocks and wank. And fake and gay. And run by bugmen and dykes with neo-penii.

First allow me to share with you from Jigsaw’s website exactly what this project (which might not cure cancer nor malaria, but it is sure to assist in the Genderfluid-jihad).

Jigsaw targets four areas (that we are aware of)

  • Disinformation
  • Toxicity
  • Violent Extremism
  • Censorship

Jigsaw is in deep with the consortium of the global projects underway right now that are successfully meme’ing together the following into a single demographic:

  • Heterosexual couples
  • Married couples with children
  • MAGApedes
  • Conservatives
  • LOLbertarians
  • Concerned people
  • Christians
  • Veterans
  • Constitution believing , flag saluting taxpayers
  • Old Rino republicans
  • Those that oppose the COVID vaccine
  • White people
  • Those that express disenchantment with the guidance we have received from our leaders regarding the virus for the past 20 months and counting.
  • Those that want a proper investigation into the events leading up to and the events of September 11. There was a massive intelligence failure to say the very least and Justice deserves answers.
  • People that question official government narrations on:
    • Purpose of FEMA camps
    • Who owns the Federal Reserve?
    • Who fixed the 2000 election?
    • Who fixed the 2020 election?
    • Who still believes votes matter?
    • Democracy is fake.
    • We demand term limits for legislative branch people.
    • Why is the Patriot Act still in effect and getting more pervasive?
    • How does bombing Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan protect our way of life?
    • Why hasn’t our greatest ally fought alongside us in any wars?
    • Why is degeneracy, malfeasance and decay revered as progress?
    • Epstein didn’t kill himself. He was the centerpiece of an espionage operation at the behest of Israel.
    • What is this Kosher certified crap?
    • JFK’s assassination was a conspiracy.
    • The Great Reset is the New World Order
    • Climate change is a scam that will be used to levy enormous, supplementary taxes upon the most profitable companies – to redistribute this wealth to social programs like pronoun awareness and privilege repentance.

I’m exploring the Toxicity feature. Jigsaw, mind you, is being utilized by the DHS, FBI, GNET, GIFCT, RUSI, ICSR, Tech Against Terrorism, the UN-CTED, Moonshot, Tumblr, YouTube, Microsoft, MEGA, Mail Chimp, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Imgur – it is being used by the CENSOR-JUSTICE-WARRIORS.


My experiment is within the “Toxicity” feature. The following is directly from the Jigsaw website: Link: Jigsaw Toxicity

From Jigsaw website:

Protecting voices in conversation:

Online abuse and toxicity stops people from engaging in conversation and, in extreme cases, forces people offline. We’re finding new ways to reduce toxicity, and ensure everyone can safely participate in online conversations.

PRODUCT AND EXPERIMENTS

Perspective API

Perspective API uses machine learning to identify toxic language, making it easier to host better conversations online. Perspective is used to give feedback to commenters, help moderators more easily review comments, and keep conversations open online.

Tune


A Chrome extension that helps people adjust the level of toxicity they see in comments across the internet.
→→

Moderator

My experimentation: I have decided to use the Perspective API which allows you to enter in any choice words and then determines how toxic the words are classified as. Check out some of the fun:

Smart Cities & the End of the Era of Man by Joaquin Flores

Changes in the productive forces such as any sort of 4th Industrial Revolution must come with vigorous public debate and referendums on planning for a post labor economy, Joaquin Flores writes.

The world and its affairs have been turned upside down, and overnight the elite’s game plan was laid out bare for the world to see: the use of new coercive technologies, AI, automation, and transhumanism.

The public has experienced the roll-out of the new normal regime through a series of sudden changes such as lockdowns and requirements for new kinds of current medical documentation in order to preserve the right of travel and work.

With the ‘new normal’, the ‘great reset’, or ‘building back better’, are we fair in asking if this is their last, best, and final? It is certainly strange that Klaus Schwab, a man who presents so poorly and provokes such suspicion among the audience, would have been rolled out as best spokesman for this endeavor.

When smart cities entered the popular debate, it was clear that technical colleges and universities were being actively propagandized by vectors representing this agenda. These can be understood as a type of large-scale housing project for a post-labor economy that uses control over access to electrical power and proximity to delivery drones as its model.


The outlines of a new social contract such as Klaus Schwab’s; that an academic may have penned such a thing or that society might be discussing it, is normal and even important. But that his ideas are being rolled out as the new reality we must accept, is most surely an affront to civil society and human dignity. It is an attack on pluralism and constitutional systems around the world.

Yet a part of this agenda involves what is arguably the end of humanity as we have known it, perhaps the end of mankind itself if defined a certain way. We are naturally being assured that this is yet the beginning of a new kind of man.

All of this has the frightening look and feel of a ruling class that has just jumped from one way of doing things over to some grand new singular idea.

The particular publicly promoted culture of the elite, of the ruling class, necessarily bears the marks of social ‘good’ and social ‘permissibility’, because this whole public display is for popular consumption and has been selected just for that reason. As we have developed in past works, they merely use this discursive framework because it disarms the public. In developing on describing the aspirations and modus operandi of technocracy in rising, Alastair Crooke explains in Is the Era Finally Coming to an End?

“We are dealing here with the ideology of an aspirant ruling class that aims to hoard wealth and position, whilst flaunting its immaculate progressive and globalist credentials. Intractable culture wars, and an epistemic crisis, in which key factual and scientific questions have been politicised, is essentially nothing more than a bid to retain power, by those who stand at the apex of this ‘Creative Class’ – a tight circle of hugely wealthy oligarchs.

Even so, schools are pressured to teach a single version of history, private corporations sack employees for deviant opinions, and cultural institutions act as guardians of orthodoxy. The prototype for these practices is the U.S., which still proclaims its singular history and divisions as the source of emulation for every contemporary society.”

For much of the 20th century the institutions implored us to believe that socially directed labor does not fundamentally produce the origin of value, only later to find that at the end of that era only this truth could explain the crisis that AI and automation bring.

Because Robots do not Eat or Own Things
So much of the economy is simply people washing each other’s clothes. The rise of automation and AI makes some great number of humanity, greater than some 9/10th’s of the population, entirely redundant in terms of labor force.

Therefore, the intentional slow-down of business not only accomplishes the obvious upwards redistribution of wealth and further consolidating corporate monopoly “capitalism”, but in the long-term establishes new efficiency matrixes regarding the actual optimal human population size at this particular time.

And yet we have a very serious problem. New coercive technologies have been developed, while other liberatory technologies have been suppressed, to control the great mass of humanity. Yet there’s much more, it is that a whole new period can be ushered in, within which population reduction is a goal. In relation to this is the birth of a new type of man, who is beyond man and also no longer man.

In Klaus Schwab’s book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), it is clear that transhumanism is a project which aims to integrate cybernetic technologies and nano-tech to transform human beings at the level of DNA (ch. 2.1.3 Biological, Megatrends, The Fourth Industrial Revolution).

Schwab implores us in this section of the book to set-aside the admittedly grave and serious ethical questions these raise, and proceeds to the assertion that these hold the potential to solve the present economic and ecological problems decisively and positively.

If we take these at face value, perhaps the proposals such as smart cities can seem attractive as solutions. But there is high danger in this naiveté.

Because Schwab writes his text in the language of European center-left social-democracy, which is the legitimating ideology in the Trans-Atlantic sphere, the real and truly unspeakable conclusions which one would necessarily have to infer from the text, are left unsaid.

Yet we have large sectors of the staff and employees of the so-called humanitarian spheres, including health and education NGO’s, and the university systems, believing that the proposed changes are humanitarian. Schwab makes explicit overtures to this theme throughout the text.

We must understand to the contrary that the use of nano-tech, cybernetics, and other transhumanist technologies which are proposed to be integrated into the human organism are not what they seem. We are approached with the idea that these only enhance and do not direct thinking, and that these merely work to assist in the body’s functions, longevity, cognitive capacity and so forth.

But this would be true only for the elite themselves along with some other layer. For the rest of humanity, the use of oncoviruses through mandatory inoculation, as well as other forms of biological warfare as a class-war weapon could be the norm.

Whatever future population will remain after depopulation efforts, the resources at the disposal for this remaining population per capita will be less than presently enjoyed by those of the middle-class populations in 1st world countries. This seems counterintuitive, if one believes there is some aim of improving the living conditions for the population that remains. But here we confront smart cities.

As we have discussed previously, this involves using Tokyo as an example in terms of living spaces – 150 square foot apartments with low ceiling heights. There are even greater dangers to the development of so-called smart cities which like panopticons are large prison networks.

The development of these kinds of arrangements works against decentralized living models as well. They rely upon the same supply line frailties which in turn will justify the further development of the police state, using cyberterrorism as a pretext.

In addition, all energy consumed will be tracked in the apartment with ‘smart appliances’ that will send the data back to monitoring and enforcement agencies. The aim of smart cities is to create the hydraulic despotism as discussed in our past discussion of oriental despotism.

The Single-Minded Crisis
It all does seem like a new idea, indeed, has been decided upon and rolled out. Not an invitation for a conversation, not a proposal that we get a referendum on. Just rolled out over the heads of the public.

The disastrous result we have encountered through the formalization of anti-democratic technocratic institutions which want to rule indefinitely, is the erroneous belief that the technocratic elite today – who have ruled over the past century – are equipped to effect a social transformation that accounts for the new technologies. What the World Economic Forum publishes makes us aware that the elite are aware that their system is producing “undesired” inequities. Despite this, they are apparently aware of the limitations imposed on them by their position in relation to everything else.

The efforts and plans of the WEF assume and rely upon the existence of an interlocking directorate at the top level of Western society. Conversely, its vision is necessarily limited and its aims are directed in large part by the imposition of this directorate on a common vision. From this common vision, we begin to produce single-mindedness.

So they created semi-meritocratic educational institutions, recruiting and scouting fresh minds for the great new idea, so that the problem of single-mindedness can be overcome.

The Platonic-gnostic film ‘Dark City’ explains why these are attempts will fail. In this film, a dying alien race of strangers rules over abducted people on a small city-sized flat-earth island in deep-space, where the people believe they are living back on earth. This race is dying because they have a single consciousness and thought, and they are studying humans – for their diversity – to find the single-mind to emulate for the coming period.

What this race of strangers does is akin to what the elites today attempt to do with their think tanks and gestures towards meritocracy. The strangers are trying to distill from the collectivity of humanity the single new idea that will give them new life.

But the strangers are engaged in self-defeat, the solution they envision is at the root of their problem. A single consciousness cannot be used to replace the old consciousness of a single-minded entity if the problem is a single-consciousness problem. What makes humanity are the multiplicity of divergent consciousness and the differences through the diversity of their experiences.

The ruling class in the west presents itself like these strangers, having awareness of the crisis of their own making, but with a limited understanding of solutions to those things it can understand.

Concluding Thoughts
We can see that changes in the productive forces such as any sort of 4th Industrial Revolution must also come with vigorous public debate and referendums on planning for a post labor economy.

For humanity, a 4th Industrial Revolution is one that could promise to decentralize power because it decentralizes the entire cycle of commodity production and distribution. Therefore, we have the possibility of a new kind of elite, whose power is based upon more horizontally situated power vectors, flattened as a product of their localized domain of power. But the elites today are working against this idea of a 4IR.

We understand already that the elites have proposed smart cities and the use of these kinds of ‘hydraulic’ despotisms, as concentrations of power and society. They will control the power source and can control citizens’ access to amenities and rental objects to their smart apartment, based on social credit. Such a proposal is misanthropic and tyrannical in its essence, but is also the best that a single-minded consciousness can arrive at.

These kinds of smart cities will have a total size, that correspond to a total human population, a lower number to be sure – but what exactly to be determined by technocratic solutions that represent the sensibilities of the ruling class at the time.

Because there are any number of viable alternatives, all of which appear better than the best offer being made by the elites, the civilizational crisis in the west right now is a political crisis and one characterized by irreconcilable differences.

  • Joaquin Flores is educated in the field of IR and IPE at California State University Los Angeles; previously served as a business agent and organizer for the SEIU labor union; has published internationally on subjects of geopolitics, war, and diplomacy; serves as the director of the Belgrade-based Center for Syncretic Studies, and is Chief Editor at Fort Russ News.

Great Reset Nomenclature

The Great Reset is the name of the partnership formed between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. The endgoal is to usher in the objectives of Agenda 2030. The United Nations’ purpose is to implement global governance. The World Economic Forum is a consortium of members which include governments, corporations, NGOs, foundations, universities, international-level institutions, trade associations and more. Each year, key individuals from the aforementioned group meet in Davos, Switzerland to discuss to global economic matters. The 2021 Davos convention focused almost entirely upon implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals elaborated upon within Agenda 2030.

The following are buzzwords to be aware of when reading news, publications, books, websites, trade publications, SEC filings – basically every form of medium known to man:

  • Rebirthing culture
  • Water-wise
  • Climate change
  • Climate action
  • Climate refugee
  • Climate migrant
  • Climate justice
  • Climate awareness
  • Climate warrior
  • Visioning
  • Synergies
  • Leave no one behind
  • Mainstreaming
  • People, Planet, Profits
  • Reporting requirements
  • Domestic extremism
  • New economy
  • Regenerative tourism
  • Green bond
  • Green investment
  • Green Funds
  • Medical inequality
  • Medically necessary
  • Co-creation: science and society
  • The geopolitics of vaccine inequality
  • Sustainable
  • Equality
  • Equity
  • Green New Deal
  • Build Back Better
  • Circular economy
  • Nature-based solutions
  • Ecological connectivity
  • Stakeholder capitalism
  • Fourth Industrial Revolution
  • Robotics for nature
  • Cyber threats
  • Cyber security
  • Cyber fingerprint
  • Digital fingerprint
  • Carbon reduction
  • Net zero carbon emissions
  • Triple Bottom Line
  • ESG ( Environment, Sustainability, Governance)
  • Neighborhood revitalization
  • Restoration
  • Asset based community development
  • Netizen
  • Digital currency
  • Ledger
  • Invasive species
  • “DEMOCRACY”
  • Traffic calming
  • Greenways
  • Blueways
  • Direct Instruction
  • Smart cities
  • Smart devices
  • Smart development
  • Vax
  • Community-based
  • Life-Long Learning
  • Governance
  • Reinventing Government
  • Communitarian
  • Resilient city
  • Clean energy
  • Renewable resources
  • Efficiency credits
  • Human Capital
  • Rethinking
  • Carbon credits
  • Communitarianism
  • Common Core
  • Transformational change
  • Building a shared future
  • World Conservation Congress
  • Anchoring biodiversity to nature

COVID Data: Cleaved, Compartmentalized, Controlled, Compromised, Criminal and Cunning — POLITICAL MOONSHINE

In This Article: In a follow-up piece to the last article we examine how the entire COVID pandemic is driven outside of normal data metrics by 37 hospitals that can’t be identified. 8 more words

COVID Data: Cleaved, Compartmentalized, Controlled, Compromised, Criminal and Cunning — POLITICAL MOONSHINE

Wired: surveillance … “little closer to omniscience” — Big Tech Drone and IoT Surveillance

Fusion AI surveillance is a potentially genocidal system already operational in New York and other cities, according to Wired (Feb 04, 2021).

Wired: surveillance … “little closer to omniscience” — Big Tech Drone and IoT Surveillance

Europa: The Last Battle (2017 Documentary)

This documentary has fallen victim to Zio-Censorism all over the internet. The description from the producer:

Since the mid-20th century, the world has only ever heard one side of the most horrific war in human history. During the 75 years that have now passed, only a single narrative of the great conflict has been heard. This over simplistic narrative totally ignores the previous decades of critical history leading up to World War II, ignores vital information from the actual war years, and outright fabricates lie after lie after lie.

We are today living in the world of the victors of that war and without an objective, rational and balanced view of our history, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes. After World War Two, the victors of the war not only went on to write our history books, infiltrate our media and public education but even going so far as to criminalize the mere questioning of the official story’s orthodoxy. The truth is, that our world today can only be understood through a correct understanding of World War II, the architects of it and the conflicts between Globalism and Nationalism. Between the old-and-new world order. The Traditional and the “Progressive”.

Day in and day out, has the post-war propaganda been pounded into the minds of three subsequent generations. Every medium of mass indoctrination has been harnessed to the task of training the obedient masses as to what the proper and “acceptable” view of this event should be. Academia, news media, public education, book publishing, TV documentaries, Hollywood films and politicians of every stripe all sing the same song.

For very good reasons, most people don’t trust the mainstream media anymore. You have already heard the official history millions of times.

This documentary gives an overview of how Europe has been shaped in modern history. In it, you will find the secret history, where you will find the real causes of the events. Watch this series and uncover the real root causes of World War II. It will take you on an epic timeline that will transport you back in time and lead you on the journey through the Bolshevik Revolution, the communist attempts to take over Germany; hyperinflation during the Weimar Republic, widespread unemployment and misery, Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, World War I & II – all the way to the modern world. It presents the true historical events that lead to this world catastrophe known as the second world war, as well as the aftermath.

Do be forewarned though, your worldview might never be the same. As always, the Truth Fears No Investigation.

This documentary consists of 9 (10) parts, read all about it on
https://europathelastbattle.wordpress.com/watch/

Timestamps:
00:00:00 – Introduction
00:01:39 – Part 1
01:14:55 – Part 2
02:23:51 – Part 3
03:03:32 – Part 4
04:50:04 – Part 5
05:43:15 – Part 6
06:43:02 – Part 7
07:51:19 – Part 8
09:56:22 – Part 9
11:52:15 – Sources & Credits

Cyber Variant – Asymmetrical Warfare/Multiple Fronts (update): Lithuania, US Congress, UK Police, Ethereum, Microsoft, Deep Fakes, Bots, Agriculture Cyber Risk

Cyber World War – Multiple Fronts – UK, US, AMD, Intel, Crowdfunding, Prometheus TDS, Bot Net, Magecart, Popsicle Finance Android, Microsoft, ProxyShell, Phishing, Ransomware

Attackers Scan for Microsoft Exchange ProxyShell Remote Code Execution Vulnerabilities

Cyber Warfare Updates – Pakistan, Microsoft, Zero-Day, China, LockBit, PrintNightmare

The EU’s Rise as a Defense Technological Power: From Strategic Autonomy to Technological Sovereignty – from Frontier Post

Source: Original Article

RALUCA CSERNATONI

STRATEGIC AUTONOMY ISN’T JUST DEFENSE, IT’S ALSO TECHNOLOGY

Over the past two decades, the impact of new and emerging technologies and increased digitalization have become the prime drivers of globalization and international competition. States around the world are making digital autonomy, technological supremacy, and innovation the cornerstones of their diplomatic, security, and economic efforts. The European Union (EU) is no exception.

The coronavirus pandemic and its broader implications have further highlighted the importance of digital transformation in all aspects of society, as well as the need to reduce strategic dependencies in key, high-end technology areas, value and supply chains, and critical infrastructures. Against the backdrop of a deteriorating geopolitical and security environment, it comes as no surprise that European digital and technological sovereignty are at the center of current EU policy discussions.

There are indeed signs of a new and yet conceptually ambiguous narrative taking shape around building the EU’s technological innovation power. What exactly are the practical and policy implications of a new “technological sovereignty” narrative? And more importantly, what EU tech sovereignty efforts have been made in line with broader European strategic autonomy objectives?

The concept of European strategic autonomy is certainly not new. It initially emerged in discussions related to the EU’s space and security and defense policy strategies, as well as in terms of upping the EU’s game in military capability building. Political discussions about European strategic autonomy indeed have a long and controversial history.

The term has deep historical roots in French strategic culture and thinking, and since the 1990s, it has typically referred to the notion that the EU should be able to carry out modest-size, out-of-area, and militarily well-equipped crisis management operations, especially in its own neighborhood, and independently of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

While the publication of the EU’s Global Strategy (EUGS) in June 2016 is credited for putting the concept of strategic autonomy on the EU’s foreign and security policy agendas, the reality is that various EU institutions and member states have long been discussing the need to upgrade the EU’s defense technological and industrial portfolio and crisis management capabilities. Key to such debates was the preservation of a competitive European Defence Technological and Industrial Base.

In the words of Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and vice president of the European Commission, the concept of strategic autonomy is indeed not new, as it has been extensively used in the military realm and for a long time was limited to issues related to European security and defense. According to Borrell, strategic autonomy is also a “process of political survival” for the EU, and its logic should be expanded to other sectors.

This narrow security and defense focus has been recently expanded by the geopolitically focused European Commission under President Ursula von der Leyen and under the stated ambition to revamp the European power agenda in various strategic sectors. The underlying logic behind strategic autonomy has started to increasingly encompass discussions about technological protectionism and capacity building in new domains related to digitalization, data, space, energy, and new and emerging technologies.

The new technological sovereignty narrative is meant to build EU-wide consensus around the need to preserve European leadership and autonomy in various key technological areas. It is the EU’s attempt to put forward a pragmatic and autonomous approach to avoid dependencies and geopolitical coercion in critical technological sectors.

The stakes could not be higher. Indeed, the incumbent commission has started to actively circulate various notions of sovereignty derived from discussions on strategic autonomy and defense sovereignty by populating the discursive landscape with related concepts such as technological, digital, and data sovereignty.

This expansion is revealing increasing fears that more protective autonomy in other policy areas than security and defense is needed to safeguard the EU’s economic and strategic interests and European values. Hence, the impact of terms such as sovereignty, power, and strategic autonomy floating around the technology, digitalization, and data spheres should not be easily disregarded.

These terms give strategic meaning to EU action and institutionalize different sectoral approaches to sovereignty building. They are also indicative of recent EU-led policy, regulatory, and funding efforts in the industrial, technological, and digital domains. But which are the most significant initiatives designed to consolidate the EU’s quest for various sovereignties, and do they amount to a coherent and integrated approach?

EU TECHNOLOGICAL SOVEREIGNTY IS IN THE MAKING

Behind the EU’s recent multiple sovereignty agendas is the need to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to innovation. The very label of a geopolitical European Commission implies a new level of engagement for the EU in the global balance of power. Technological and digital sovereignty are at the heart of such ambitions.

The outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic has further exacerbated the urgency to shore up technological, digital, and regulatory responses to preserve the EU’s economic clout, industrial competitiveness, and geopolitical influence, as well as to reduce dependencies in critical technology areas. What has the EU done so far, and what must it still do to meet that goal of technological sovereignty?

Four cross-cutting dimensions can help unpack the concept of technological sovereignty and better structure the discussion about EU initiatives, programs, and instruments:

DEFENSE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT

According to Arnout Molenaar, the head of division in the European External Action Service, dealing with security and defense policy is also related to “a learning curve for the Union to develop a ‘hard power’ mentality.” Technology plays a fundamental role in terms of making possible the EU’s hard military power ambitions—not only to act in a tense geopolitical setting but also to defend the EU’s interests in areas related to technology, security, and defense matters.

In this regard, collaborative EU defense research and development (R&D) initiatives have been prioritized at the EU level for some time now to support the competitiveness of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base.

EU institutions and agencies have made considerable efforts to preserve Europe’s edge in key areas, including emerging and disruptive security technologies and infrastructures such as cybersecurity, drones, secure networks, space technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), and quantum technology.

Indeed, recent EU initiatives such as the European Commission’s European Defence Fund (EDF) as part of the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), 2021–2027—as well as its precursor programs, the Preparatory Action on Defence Research and the European Defence Industrial Development Programme—are intended to financially empower the EU’s autonomy in defense technology and industry and its research and innovation capacity in future-oriented and disruptive defense technologies.

Such initiatives have been framed as timely catalysts and potential game changers for increasing collective European action and for fostering cutting-edge defense research and innovation in Europe. The commission funded the Preparatory Action on Defence Research as a test case of defense-related research and technology projects, pulling directly from the EU budget line rather than from member states’ joint initiatives. This scheme was a concrete step designed to demonstrate the added value of EU-supported defense technology research and innovation.

If successfully implemented, the EDF is expected to bolster more lucrative and joint research and capability-driven investment schemes in defense technologies across Europe and to increase the EU’s global leadership position in strategic tech sectors. The commission has already pledged a relatively small percentage of up to 8 percent of the EDF funding to disruptive technology actions.

However, with the initially proposed amount of 13 billion euros ($15.4 billion) now reduced to about 8 billion euros ($9.5 billion), the EDF’s real potential to create value added and to incentivize technological and industrial cooperation and competitiveness in Europe is unclear.

Indeed, this reduction could be accounted for by the fact that some member states either took a budget-restrictive approach to the entire 2021–2027 MFF or judged that on balance, they would benefit less from the EDF than their contribution to it and thus opted for reducing the overall funding.

What is certain is that the EDF marks an important paradigm shift in consolidating the EU’s increased supranational activism in the field of defense technology and industry as a basis for building the EU’s military hard power and defense portfolio. The fund also consolidates the European Commission’s increasing role and strong interventionism in the EU security and defense policy fields that have traditionally been the exclusive preserve of member states’ decisionmaking.

There is also a clear message that developing the defense industry and technology base in Europe is key to strategic autonomy. Hence, logic dictates that defense-related technological sovereignty is central to the EU’s strategic autonomy. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether the reduced funding dedicated to the EDF and the small percentage of it that is flagged for disruptive military technologies are sufficient to foster high-risk, high-reward technological innovation in the European defense sector.

CROSS-DOMAIN APPROACH TO INNOVATION

The swift operationalization of the EDF, coupled by fostering synergies with other EU initiatives in terms of civil-military R&D cross-fertilization, might very well be what Europe needs to maintain its innovational and technological edge.

To this end, the commission’s Action Plan on Synergies Between Civil, Defence and Space Industries from February 2021—the so-called Three-Point Belt Plan—is one way ahead to propose a more horizontal and cross-domain approach for boosting research, technology development, and the EU’s overall innovation power.

Announced in the Industrial Strategy for Europe from March 2020, the commission’s 2021 Three-Point Belt Plan aims to establish a structured approach and create new opportunities for innovation synergies among relevant EU-funded programs and instruments, especially in the case of emerging and disruptive technologies. It defines critical technologies as relevant across the defense, space, and related civil industries and as essential to Europe’s technological sovereignty by reducing risks of overdependence on external players.

To make this happen, the commission will set up within its services an EU Observatory of Critical Technologies, which will be in charge of regular monitoring and analysis of key technology areas with a view to closing existing gaps and dependencies. It will also use technology road maps and forecasting to identify emerging technologies.

This undertaking will ostensibly facilitate spin-off from EU funding for space and defense R&D and spin-in from civil-driven innovation. The seventeen-page-long action plan mentions the term “technological sovereignty” no less than eight times, while the word “synergies” appears thirty-one times.

This is significant as the document puts forward a more comprehensive civil-military approach to innovation, especially in the case of critical technologies, with a view to scaling up the existing EU toolbox by streamlining various initiatives such as the EDF, the EU Space program, and other EU instruments.

The real challenge is how to foster innovation and facilitate coordinated action between programs and sectoral instruments such as the Digital Europe Programme, which is focused on building the strategic digital capacities of the EU and on facilitating the wide deployment of digital technologies; the Horizon Europe program for research and innovation; the Connecting Europe Facility; the European Innovation Council; InvestEU; and NextGenerationEU, the temporary instrument designed to boost Europe’s post-pandemic recovery.

Yet the relatively low numbers allocated for research and innovation in the EU’s key funding programs for research and innovation, such as Horizon Europe, might suggest the contrary. There is also the question of differing and sometimes conflicting research and innovation cultures in Europe’s unevenly distributed civil, defense, and space industries.

Another related issue is that of digital sovereignty, a term sometimes used interchangeably with technological sovereignty. Without going into theoretical debates about the two concepts, by and large digital sovereignty is yet another iteration of technological sovereignty from external players in cyberspace. It rests, according to EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton, on three inseparable pillars: “computing power, control over our data and secure connectivity.” This means that, in the case of digital sovereignty, Europe wants to free itself from its hardware and software dependencies either from third countries or Big Tech players.

In doing so, Europe aims to foster its growing digital infrastructure and economy, while making sure the union’s core democratic values also apply in the digital era. Furthermore, according to the European Commission, a secure and sovereign, European-based, resilient, and sustainable digital infrastructure is vital to this transformation.

In this respect, the Digital Europe Programme also aims to boost the EU’s innovation power. It is meant to up the investment stakes in supercomputing, AI, and cybersecurity, including via a network of Digital Innovation Hubs across Europe.

Complementarity with other EU programs and strategic plans is yet again key to achieving digital sovereignty, especially in high technology areas such as AI. For instance, the European Commission’s White Paper on Artificial Intelligence identified the need to develop a comprehensive policy and governance approach to AI for the EU to “become a global leader in innovation in the data economy and its applications.”

According to the document, one of the main building blocks to achieve this goal is an “ecosystem of excellence” as well as public-private partnerships that will leverage up to 20 billion euros of private and public sector resources along the entire value chain, from research and innovation to accelerating the deployment and uptake of AI-based solutions benefitting public services and businesses.

First published in 2018, the new and updated 2021 Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence further consolidates collaboration between the commission and member states to enable joint actions, public-private partnerships, and research and innovation networks. Funding will be allocated via the Digital Europe Programme and Horizon Europe program, the Recovery and Resilience Facility that foresees a target goal of 20 percent of expenditure on digital goals, and the Cohesion Policy program.

The overall goal is to improve Europe’s competitiveness in the global digital economy, support digitalization, and build innovation capacity in new digital technologies. It also comes as no surprise that the EU’s new Cybersecurity Strategy in the Digital Decade from December 2020 identifies key technologies like AI, quantum computing, and future generation networks as essential to Europe’s digital future and cybersecurity.

DIGITALIZATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE

Several initiatives have also been aimed at strengthening and rationalizing the EU’s resilience in the case of critical infrastructure, including in terms of digital infrastructure connectivity. The EU’s Critical Information Infrastructure Protection from as early as 2009 aimed to strengthen the security and resilience of vital information and communication technology infrastructures.

There are growing risks associated with the increased digitalization of societies, critical infrastructure resilience, and the security of supply chains, especially in terms of managing critical dependencies. Related to this, the European Commission’s Connecting Europe Facility (CEF2) Digital program aims to support investments in digital connectivity infrastructures during the period of the 2021­–2027 MFF. Among foreseen actions are the deployment of and access to very high-capacity networks, including 5G systems, and the significant upgrade of existing backbone networks including submarine cables.

During the coronavirus pandemic, the issue of European sovereignty over supply chains has also received a renewed sense of urgency. The 5G joint toolbox endorsed by the commission in January 2020 plays an important role as a major enabler for critical infrastructure resilience that will help mitigate the main cybersecurity risks of future generations’ mobile networks and leverage a robust set of cybersecurity measures in Europe.

Thanks to the new toolbox, the EU and member states can now more effectively protect critical infrastructure connectivity. At the heart of EU and member states’ concerns around 5G is the interference by foreign states, in particular China, providing 5G equipment via state-controlled companies and high-risk vendors that present immediate security threats against increasingly digitalized economies and societies in Europe.

This may indeed jeopardize Europe’s critical infrastructure resilience. Similar concerns have been expressed regarding the need to promote and protect sensitive technologies with the potential for dual-use applications. These concerns also come up in relation to the common framework for screening foreign direct investments and the EU regulation on such screening that became operational in October 2020.

Similarly, the commission’s approach to modernize the EU’s export controls on sensitive dual-use technologies is intended to strengthen the EU’s response to evolving security risks and to the impact of new and emerging technologies by better addressing the risks of human rights violations associated with trade in sensitive cyber surveillance technologies.

Other challenges could impact the EU’s innovation resilience, such as potential geopolitical disruptions to critical supply chains like in the case of critical raw materials or semiconductors. This has already been played out in the technological war between the United States and China and the growing weaponization of trade policies.

Accordingly, Europe risks becoming exposed to global tech wars if it does not promote homegrown solutions and address geopolitically risky dependencies in critical technology domains. This has been made clear in the case of the global semiconductor value chain on design, materials, and advanced manufacturing.

The design and production of processor semiconductors are one key area where coordinated plans from twenty-one member states are encouraged under the NextGenerationEU funding scheme. Yet the expense and level of technological sophistication required in creating a chip design ecosystem in Europe imply that it will take years before Europe can develop cutting-edge capabilities.

The European Commission has also taken steps to address risks related to critical raw materials and supply chains, having released in September 2020 an Action Plan on Critical Raw Materials accompanied by an updated List of Critical Raw Materials and a foresight study examining dependent sectors and strategic technology areas for the 2030 to 2050 horizon.

TECH-RELATED REGULATORY ACTIVISM

Equally, the rush to regulate and set technological standards brings about new geopolitical tensions. Considering that new and emerging technologies are becoming a crucial element in great power competition, their regulation is becoming increasingly politicized. Consequently, the EU has taken a global lead concerning the creation of a regime of international norms and standards governing emerging disruptive technologies.

As shown by the General Data Protection Regulation, the EU’s strategic edge primarily resides in its market, normative, and regulatory power—what has been described as the Brussels effect. Yet in the current international climate of a so-called technological war being waged by the United States and China, there is still a long way to go for Europe to become a leader in socially responsible and sustainable high-tech industries.

For this to happen, the EU should reinforce the ethical development and deployment of new and emerging technologies, as well as strengthen its strategic autonomy in critical technology areas. In a nutshell, for the EU to become a global leader in regulation and standards setting, it should also invest heavily in research and innovation so that it becomes a source of cutting-edge technology, not just regulation.

EU leaders have argued that technological sovereignty is also about protecting European culture and values, in which human-centered autonomy is prioritized by emphasizing individual citizens’ sovereign rights to their own data and in their interactions with AI.

With the new strategy for a Europe fit for the digital age, the European Commission wants to deliver on the promise of human-centered and risk-based new tech regulation, together with a comprehensive regulatory packaging including the European Digital Strategy, the European Data Strategy, the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, as well as the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and the EU’s latest AI regulation package.

Now more than ever, the devil is in the details. The Commission’s White Paper on Artificial Intelligence already proposed creating an “ecosystem of trust” in Europe by putting forward a legal framework that addresses the risks for fundamental rights and safety under the label of a secure, human-centered, and trustworthy AI.

In the European Commission Proposal for AI regulation on Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts (April 21, 2021), the EU is proposing a legal framework that does not look at AI technology itself but at how AI is used and for what purposes. It also differentiates between four different categories of uses that have no or minimal risk or limited, high, or unacceptable risk.

The high-risk uses of AI are the main focus of the framework due to their huge impact on citizens’ lives and public interest. In particular, all remote biometric identification systems are considered high risk and subjected to strict requirements. If the proposed legal framework were to be adopted, it would position the EU as potentially taking a strong stance on high-risk AI systems, which would be subjected to a new set of strict obligations.

Some limited uses—for instance, the use of AI in social scoring systems or AI applications that manipulate human behavior—are prohibited outright because they are considered unacceptable. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the enforcement of these rules falls within the responsibility of national authorities to assess whether AI systems meet their obligations.

The EU has also underscored the importance of global rules, international regulatory convergence, proactive agenda setting in technological standardization, and a commitment to fundamental rights protections when it comes to new (digital) technologies in collaboration with key like-minded partners.

The draft EU AI regulation, in a sweeping stroke, associates the EU’s technological leadership with the stated ambition to become a “global leader in the development of secure, trustworthy and ethical” AI. From this perspective, only “common action at [the] Union level can also protect the Union’s digital sovereignty and leverage its tools and regulatory powers to shape global rules and standards.”

The union’s great expectations are understandable, yet they should be tempered. The EU may have a harder time in setting global rules and red lines. Also, the international influence of the EU’s AI rule book might actually be decided in a transatlantic context and under the recently announced EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council. What is more, the EU and member states need to actively engage in the ongoing international discussions on the creation of a global AI norms regime, especially in relevant bilateral, multilateral, regional, and UN fora.

CONCLUSION

The above tour d’horizon aims to address key building blocks in what potentially constitutes Europe’s quest for defense technological power. Without a doubt, in an era of global digitalization and geostrategic rivalry, technology is creating new sources of power and security in international affairs. That is why European competitiveness in innovation, research, and technology is so important for achieving strategic autonomy.

Technology has been and remains a key ingredient for global power projection. Breton stated that Europe must now lay the foundations or find the keys to its multiple sovereignties for the next twenty years. Given increasing global technological competition, the rallying call of the day in Brussels is for the EU to learn the language of power and secure its digital and economic future.

The four interconnected dimensions outlined above—cursorily mapping the EU’s various programs, strategies, and initiatives—represent key analytical entry points in understanding the EU’s recent activism toward building a more coherent European sovereignty agenda with technology at its core.

By following this reasoning, European technological sovereignty is manifested across military capacity building, innovation capacity, infrastructure resilience, or regulatory prowess. It is also a prerequisite for European strategic autonomy and the EU’s ability to act as an independent global actor.

Yet recent efforts for Europe to become more technologically sovereign can only be successful when they are coordinated and comprehensive, especially because the impact of emerging disruptive technologies is pervasive and cuts across many sectors. The challenge is to bring together and operationalize the different initiatives and instruments that comprise a complex governance structure reuniting EU institutions and agencies, EU member states, and commercial actors and industrial sectors.

In reality, most of the above initiatives are quite recent, and the EU has just begun to connect all of its financial resources and bridge its strategic and policy thinking across the four dimensions. For this to happen, there needs to be more willingness from EU institutions and member states to cooperate across interlinked political, strategic, economic, and technical matters.

While the EU is advancing in the regulation and governance of new and emerging technologies, it is not yet clear how recent and rather limited research funding initiatives will actually shore up the EU’s critical infrastructure resilience and innovation power in strategic technological domains. Only a persistent and substantial investment policy in future and emerging technologies can ensure the EU’s technological competitiveness, coupled with efforts to create a human rights–centric international norms regime for its ethical and responsible research and development.

If the EU can streamline its goals, interests, and values in such a plethora of defense and tech-related programs, harness the current transformative wave of innovation, and mitigate potential disruptions and human rights harms, it might well become more technologically sovereign in the decades to come. However, the jury is still out on what the future may hold.

The Balkanization Of The Global Internet Is Inevitable – from Technocracy News

Sky News Australia Agrees to be Censored by YouTube – from Armstrong Economics

Some of Sky News Australia’s biggest stars have refused to weigh into the network’s decision to remove more than 30 videos from its platform featuring them criticising public health advice on unproven treatments for COVID-19.

$611 Million Stolen in Poly Network Cross-chain Hack – from Security Affairs

August 10, 2021 By Pierluigi Paganini

The cross-chain protocol Poly Network has been hacked, threat actors stole $611 million making this hack the largest DeFi hack to date.

The cross-chain protocol Poly Network disclose a security breach, threat actors have stolen over $611 million in cryptocurrencies.

The attackers have transferred hundreds of million dollars worth of Binance Chain, Ethereum, and Polygon assets into their wallets.

The Poly Network protocol allows swapping tokens across multiple blockchains, including Bitcoin and Ethereum and Ontology.

The attackers

The assets has stolen $273 million worth of Ethereum tokens, $253 million in tokens on Binance Smart Chain and $85 million in USDC on the Polygon network.

“Since the theft, Tether has blacklisted the USDT on Ethereum that was stolen in the attack, roughly $33 million in tokens. That means they can no longer be moved. (USDT is a centralized stablecoin that can be frozen at will by the company behind it, similar to other stablecoins like USDC.)” states TheBlockCrypto website.

Researcher Igor Igamberdiev from the The Block speculates that the root cause of the hack was a cryptographic issue, in the cryptocurrency protocol, what is a rare case.

Blockchain security firm SlowMist issued an alert announcing that they have already determined the attacker’s ID. The experts claim to have discovered the attackers email address, IP information and device fingerprint.

The threat actors have employed the following wallets:

ETH: 0xC8a65Fadf0e0dDAf421F28FEAb69Bf6E2E589963
BSC: 0x0D6e286A7cfD25E0c01fEe9756765D8033B32C71
Polygon: 0x5dc3603C9D42Ff184153a8a9094a73d461663214
Some cryptocurrency exchanges announced they are aware of the hack and will do all the best to identity and block illegal transactions associated with the hack.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook