I dug out for you a big gold nugget from a Johns Hopkins specialist who also inspected Iraq on behalf of UN searching for bioweapons. If you pay close attention, this talk delivers powerful details on GoF beyond the scope of Russia.
Raymond Zilinskas, Monterey Institute of International Studies Speech at the Herrenhausen Symposium “Dual Use Research on Microbes: Biosafety, Biosecurity, Responsibility”, 11.12.2014
A few key-points:
You can’t differentiate between bioweapons and vaccine research except by intention, which you can’t really know
Bioweapons often target crops and livestock. As in ‘swine-flu’.
Raymond A. Zilinskas speaks about the first (1928-1971) and second (called FERMENT, 1972-1992) generation biological warfare programs, relevant elements of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and Russian weapons based on “genetics”. He provides statistics about the USSR Ministry of Defense biological warfare facilities, the biopreparat biological warfare facilities, and anti-plague institutes. The scientist names examples of FERMENT program’s projects and discusses the program’s legacy in today’s Russia.
The speech has only been recorded in audio:
Zilinskas has worked for the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, the U.N. Industrial Development Organization, the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, the School of Hygiene and Public Health, and the Johns Hopkins University. In 1994, he twice served as UNSCOM biological inspector in Iraq. Currently he directs the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program at James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, California.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Wyss is the ninja institute: it’s everywhere and anywhere, but only other ninjas can detect it. Of course it’s deeply involved with Covid and the jabs too. This piece of their work is over a decade old, but you can easily see how it plays out in the 2020’s.
Wyss Institute Develops New Nanodevice Manufacturing Strategy Using Self-Assembling DNA “Building Blocks”
May 30, 2012
Novel technology could enable new tools for delivering drugs directly to disease sites in the body
Researchers at the Wyss Institute have developed a method for building complex nanostructures out of short synthetic strands of DNA. Called single-stranded tiles (SSTs), these interlocking DNA “building blocks,” akin to Legos®, can be programmed to assemble themselves into precisely designed shapes, such as letters and emoticons. Further development of the technology could enable the creation of new nanoscale devices, such as those that deliver drugs directly to disease sites.
The technology, which is described in today’s online issue of Nature, was developed by a research team led by Wyss core faculty member Peng Yin, Ph.D., who is also an Assistant Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Other team members included Wyss Postdoctoral Fellow Bryan Wei, Ph.D., and graduate student Mingjie Dai.
DNA is best known as a keeper of genetic information. But in an emerging field of science known as DNA nanotechnology, it is being explored for use as a material with which to build tiny, programmable structures for diverse applications. To date, most research has focused on the use of a single long biological strand of DNA, which acts as a backbone along which smaller strands bind to its many different segments, to create shapes. This method, called DNA origami, is also being pursued at the Wyss Institute under the leadership of Core Faculty member William Shih, Ph.D. Shih is also an Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School and the Department of Cancer Biology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Wyss researchers have built numerals, letters, and a number of other structures using short strands of DNA as building blocks.
In focusing on the use of short strands of synthetic DNA and avoiding the long scaffold strand, Yin’s team developed an alternative building method. Each SST is a single, short strand of DNA. One tile will interlock with another tile, if it has a complementary sequence of DNA. If there are no complementary matches, the blocks do not connect. In this way, a collection of tiles can assemble itself into specific, predetermined shapes through a series of interlocking local connections.
In demonstrating the method, the researchers created just over one hundred different designs, including Chinese characters, numbers, and fonts, using hundreds of tiles for a single structure of 100 nanometers (billionths of a meter) in size. The approach is simple, robust, and versatile.
As synthetically based materials, the SSTs could have some important applications in medicine. SSTs could organize themselves into drug-delivery machines that maintain their structural integrity until they reach specific cell targets, and because they are synthetic, can be made highly biocompatible.
“Use of DNA nanotechnology to create programmable nanodevices is an important focus at the Wyss Institute, because we believe so strongly in its potential to produce a paradigm-shifting approach to development of new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Wyss Founding Director, Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D.
The research was supported by the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Wyss Institute at Harvard University.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button! We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness. Get it here!
With World Health Day around the corner on April 7th, we’d like to bring attention to the intersection of global health and digital identity, and specifically the opportunity for immunization rates to scale digital identity amongst the most hard-to-reach children.
Globally, an estimated 95% of children receive at least one dose of some vaccine. This number is staggering — no other public health intervention reaches more children and impacts more families.
Yet, despite this high initial contact rate, only 37% of children in the world’s poorest countries are fully immunized, meaning that they receive their full course of recommended vaccines. Ultimately, many children are left without comprehensive protection and vulnerable to many vaccine-preventable diseases.
Percentage of children reached with the last dose of seven vaccines recommended across all Gavi-supported countries and of three vaccines specific to certain regions (Source: Gavi 2016 Annual Progress Report http://www.gavi.org/progress-report/)
There are several reasons for low coverage rates, including the low quality of population data and reliance on outdated systems to track immunizations, but one critical challenge is the continued use of paper-based systems to record the doses that have been administered and indicate when a child needs to return for boosters. Unfortunately, the paper records kept within a clinic are often difficult to analyze and the immunization cards given to families are prone to loss and inaccuracies. Without a persistent, portable record that can be uniquely linked to the child, it’s often difficult to ascertain the care a child needs.
In November, Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, wrote a piece for Nature that emphasized the pressing need to move to digital systems — specifically those to identify and track those currently missing out — to achieve 100% immunization coverage.
One of the biggest needs is for affordable, secure digital identification systems that can store a child’s medical history, and that can be accessed even in places without reliable electricity. That might seem a tall order, but it is both achievable and necessary.
This message was reinforced at this year’s World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where Gavi announced digital identity as the focus for its 2018 INFUSE program. INFUSE — Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunization — aims to identify and support innovative solutions that have the potential to modernize global health and immunization delivery. This year, Gavi is focusing its efforts on identifying opportunities for digital identity technologies to help facilitate better targeting, follow-up, and immunization service delivery for the world’s most vulnerable children.
Immunization poses a huge opportunity to scale digital identity — in many developing countries, immunization coverage greatly exceeds birth registration rates. According to best available estimates, upwards of 95% of children globally receive at least one dose of one vaccine (with 86% of children globally receiving the full three doses recommended of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine, which is commonly used to measure immunization coverage).
When a child receives her first vaccine, she receives a paper child health card. In many developing countries, the most common form of identification is not a birth certificate, but this card. The near ubiquity of these documents presents an enormous opportunity.
Moving from easily lost or damaged paper health cards to an accessible digital form would reduce the burden associated with tracking a child’s vaccines and eliminate redundant or unnecessary paperwork. Digital child health cards can improve coverage rates and vaccine compliance by prompting parents to bring their children in for necessary subsequent doses. For health workers, digital identity technology validates a child’s past vaccines and may streamline analytics and outreach, without adding significant complexity to a health worker’s workflow. And for Gavi and its international partners, digital ID technology provides a basis for a system of verifiable proofs and accurate aggregate data that interoperates with other identity management systems, negating the need for each organization to independently identify beneficiaries.
And because immunization is conducted in infancy, providing children with a digital child health card would give them a unique, portable digital identity early in life. And as children grow, their digital child health card can be used to access secondary services, such as primary school, or ease the process of obtaining alternative credentials. Effectively the child health card becomes the first step in establishing a legal, broadly recognized identity.
In turn, having a persistent and portable health record uniquely tied to the child will help to increase full immunization coverage rates by prompting follow-up and better targeting the most hard to reach children.
In order to enable digital identity at scale, we will need to identify and leverage many entry points. Immunization service delivery presents a tremendous opportunity to provide children with a durable, portable and secure digital identity early in life, enabling access to a wider range of social services, while also improving access to the health interventions all children need and deserve.
We’re proud to partner with Gavi and excited to see the innovations proposed as part of the INFUSE Challenge. To all innovators: the deadline to apply for the program is April 10th, so please get those applications in!
INFUSE 2018 is calling for proven digital technology innovations — adapted to low-resource environments in developing countries — to help identify and register children, especially girls, who are at risk of missing out on life-saving vaccines.
Launched at Davos in 2016, Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunisation (INFUSE) helps improve vaccine delivery systems by connecting high-impact, proven innovations with the countries that need them most. It then “infuses” them with capital and expertise to help take them to scale.
“Since 2016, ID2020 has advocated for ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID.
For the one in seven people globally who lacks a means to prove their identity, digital ID offers access to vital social services and enables them to exercise their rights as citizens and voters and participate in the modern economy. But doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties and putting control over personal data back where it belongs…in the hands of the individual.
Every day, we rely on a variety of forms of identification to go about our lives: our driver’s license, passport, work badge and building access cards, debit and credit cards, transit passes, and more.
But technology is evolving at a blinding pace and many of the transactions that require identification are today being conducted digitally. From e-passports to digital wallets, online banking to social media accounts, these new forms of digital ID allow us to travel, conduct business, access financial and health records, stay connected, and much more.
While the move to digital ID has had many positive effects, it has been accompanied by countless challenges and setbacks, including large-scale data breaches affecting millions of people. Most of the current tools are archaic, insecure, lack appropriate privacy protections and commoditize our data. But that’s about to change and ID2020 is leading the charge.
We are businesses, nonprofits, governments and individuals…working in collaboration to ensure that the future of digital identity is, indeed, #goodID.” – ID2020.org
Gavi and Zenysis Technologies to bring data and artificial intelligence to immunisation programmes
The partnership supported by Asia’s largest internet services company Tencent will help developing countries reach more children with life-saving vaccines
Geneva, 12 March 2019 – Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and Zenysis Technologies, a Silicon Valley startup, have established a new strategic partnership that will help low-income countries harness the power of big data and artificial intelligence to improve childhood vaccination programs around the world.
Zenysis Technologies was identified by Gavi, through the INFUSE (Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunisation) yearly call for innovation. INFUSE aims to identify proven solutions which, when brought to scale, have the greatest potential to modernise global health and immunisation delivery.
What the team at Zenysis has built and accomplished to date is in a class of its own.
David Wallerstein, Tencent’s Chief Exploration Officer
A two-year partnership will provide countries with the Zenysis’ software platform, analytical training and IT skills development. Countries will use the platform’s capabilities to integrate data from their fragmented information systems and help decision-makers see where children are not receiving vaccines. Advanced analytics will then help countries decide how to target their limited resources for maximum impact.
“Weak immunisation data leads to poor planning, often meaning that children, whether they live in urban slums or remote rural outposts, miss out on lifesaving vaccines. Digital transformation of immunisation data and analytics is key to making sure that all children are protected from vaccine-preventable diseases,” said Gavi CEO Dr Seth Berkley. “Our partnership with Zenysis has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs for developing countries but, most importantly, it could save lives.”
Since its inception three years ago, Zenysis has expanded into ten countries that now use its software to improve health programs serving over one billion people. The company’s software has been used to optimise nationwide vaccination campaigns allowing for reinvestment in other lifesaving health programs.
“Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has helped over 70 countries vaccinate more than 700 million children in low income countries,” said Zenysis CEO, Jonathan Stambolis. “However, weak and fragmented information systems at the country level mean that millions of the world’s most vulnerable children have been left behind. We have assembled one of the strongest software engineering teams in Silicon Valley to build the software countries need to address this urgent global health challenge and our partnership with Gavi and Tencent will ensure that technology benefits the countries that need it most.”
We have assembled one of the strongest software engineering teams in Silicon Valley to build the software countries need to address this urgent global health challenge…
Jonathan Stambolis, Zenysis CEO
The company expects to reach at least fifteen more countries in 2019. This will include Pakistan, where Zenysis will be working with government authorities and Gavi to improve vaccination coverage and equity as well as to accelerate the country’s progress towards a polio-free future. The project has the backing of one of Zenysis’ investors, internet services giant Tencent Holdings, Asia’s largest company. Tencent investment of US$ 4.5 million will be matched by the Gavi Matching Fund.
“We are very excited about the potential for artificial intelligence to transform child health on a global scale”, said David Wallerstein, Tencent’s Chief Exploration Officer. “I look at hundreds of the fastest-growing startups every year. What the team at Zenysis has built and accomplished to date is in a class of its own. The company’s software will help governments become more effective and targeted at every step of the vaccination challenge, and move with the urgency and speed required to realise Gavi’s vision of a world free of vaccine-preventable illnesses”.
The official Memorandum of Understanding establishing this landmark partnership between Gavi and Zenysis Technologies was signed by Gavi’s CEO Dr Seth Berkley and the Zenysis CEO Jonathan Stambolis in Abu Dhabi during the Gavi Mid-Term Review high-level conference.
2008: Klaus Schwab presents his vision of a ” Global Corporate Citizenship”
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Not the typical report here, but I find it infuriating how the mainstream has cloaked this in silence and I feel we can do something about it, maybe even get this viral. Feel free to re-upload the video!
Press conference held on October 2oth 2021
The charge is led by an EU Parliament member Cristian Terhes, who happens to be from my home-country, Romania, so I can give you a few little extra insights. But right now, it’s the message that counts and the message is surprisingly on point if you are not familiar with these guys.
MEPs start gathering to defend fundamental rights of EU citizens and oppose mandatory vaccination and the Green Certificate
Press release – Strasbourg, European Parliament – 21/10/2021
Reacting to the increased violations of basic human rights all across EU, members of the European Parliament took a common stand in defence of the fundamental rights of all EU citizens, which are under threat now due to mandatory vaccination and abusive use of the Digital COVID Certificate.
Speaking at a press conference in Strasbourg, on 20 October 2021, they also gave voice to the severe concerns of hundreds of staff members working for the European Parliament, who live under threat of losing their jobs if they do not have the Digital COVID Certificate, aka Green Certificate.
The press conference called “Defending fundamental rights by opposing the misuse of Digital Green Certificate” was addressed by four MEPs: Christine Anderson (Germany, ID), Francesca Donato (Italy, NI), Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI, HR) and Cristian Terheş (ECR, RO).
These MEPs decided to give voice to millions of European citizens who are fighting all across EU for their fundamental rights.
MEP Christine Anderson, after emphasising the importance of human rights, said: “let me say this, I am not afraid of this virus. What I am afraid of is governments abusing this or any other «crisis» for that matter, to infringe on civil rights, to revoke them or to question freedom altogether.
What we have seen in this crisis is that civil rights and liberties have been transformed from fundamental rights to privileges that governments grant or revoke as they see fit.
I call on all Europeans to stand up to any government trying to take away our freedom, civil rights and liberties!”
Lawyer and MEP Francesca Donato said that “we have a really terrible situation in Europe today because human rights are not respected […] and all over Europe peaceful protests are violently repressed”.
Introduced as a tool to facilitate freedom of circulation, the COVID Certificate is now being used in many countries by national governments as a “compulsory” passport for every social activity, including employment – she stated – giving the example of Italy.
“And so we are forcing citizens to receive invasive and risky health treatments, because the informed consent that citizens are obliged to sign to receive the vaccines is not free: it’s an extorted consent. So, even when people have medical contraindications for receiving vaccines, they are obliged to take it. They are forced to do it because they would lose the job, would lose their fundamental rights if they don’t do it. And when these people have adverse effects, even very severe adverse effects, they don’t receive any free assistance. Even the reports of adverse effects are very rare. The data of adverse effects that we can read on papers are just underestimated.
So we have a medical issue which has turned into a democratic issue. We must all today stand for the defence of human rights in Europe, we must do it all together and we must do it now”, she concluded.
MEP Ivan Sinčić said “that it is really sad to see freedoms, rights and rule of law endangered in Europe today. Unfortunately, in some countries you cannot keep your job without Digital Green Certificate, you cannot enter public buildings without DGC, you cannot enter a shop without DGC”.
He described the Digital Green Cert “as a license to spread and infect” that gives “a false sense of security”, since it is not protecting the person from getting or spreading the virus. The Digital Green Certificate “is completely illogical, it is not scientific and must be abandoned”, he added.
Sinčić stated that he, also, “fully support[s] the staff of European Parliament in their positions. The positions of non-discrimination, non-segregation, the freedom to come to the workplace. This is their workplace along with us, the MEP’s”.
“My message to the staff is simple: You are not alone and fight for your rights! We are fighting along with you!”, he concluded.
MEP Cristian Terhes quoted from Art 46 of the original Digital Green Certificate regulation, which outlined the European Parliament’s desire to uphold fundamental human rights.
“Well, if we look now, a few months after this Green Certificate was imposed in the European Union, we see exactly the opposite, that all these rights that, allegedly were supposed to be protected by this regulation, are actually violated right now. People cannot work anymore and they live under the threat of losing their jobs and their livelihoods, if they don’t have this certificate. Is this the type of European Union that we want to build, that we want to accept?”, Terhes said.
Hundreds of people working for the Parliament are faced with the threat “that sooner than later, if they don’t have this Green Certificate, they will be losing their job. But they haven’t done anything wrong. This is the absurd situation. This is not fair to them, it is not fair to the citizens of this Union and it’s not fair to all of us”. For these reasons, “we are here for you and we will fight for you”, Terhes concluded.
The positions expressed publicly by these MEPs, in defence of fundamental rights, including of the staff working for the European Parliament, are shared by many others, who will join together to provide an active opposition to the constant attacks on fundamental rights caused by the misuse of the Digital COVID Certificate.
###
Press Office of MEP Cristian Terhes
You almost missed this news, most did. Terhes has been on the case for quite a while, but we’ve completely missed the news on that because they weren’t published and because mainstream media still controls the public perception. Below you have one of his most honorable mentions in international media, and he’s not doing great at home either.
This time yet, legacy media is completely mum about this press conference and it’s only the free faction of internet that’s sending weak signals so far, 3-4 days after this happened.
Cristian Terhes is a career man-of-the-people, started out as a Catholic priest for the Romanian community in US, then moved to Romania to earned a bit of notoriety as member of the main political force there, a left leaning party. But the left in Eastern Europe is not progressive, liberal, and mauve-haired, they are the spawns of the former communist establishment, which was also very nationalist and stopped sounding progressive in the 1970’s.
Then, when his party started to get a bit too woke and unsupportive for his taste, May 2020 that is, Terhes left with a bit of buzz, finding a home in the right wing Christian Conservative EU group, and a in tiny Romanian party I thought extinct even in papers.
However, the guy has been consistent lately in exposing the excesses and the degenerates involved in the new globohomopedo offensive.
I mean this thing below, despite unsuccess, deserves praise, he even made it to Associated Press and Seattle Times (that one time)!
Court says Romania’s lockdown didn’t amount to house arrest
BUCHAREST (AP) — The European Court of Human Rights on Thursday ruled against a member of the European Union parliament who claimed that a lockdown to curb COVID-19 infections in his native Romania last year deprived him of liberty.
Cristian Terhes, a member of the European Parliament since 2019, had filed a case with the court arguing that Romania’s March 24-May 14 national lockdown amounted to “administrative detention.”
A panel of seven judges at the ECHR unanimously rejected Terhes’ claims, ruling them “inadmissible.” The court said the lockdown could not be equated with house arrest.
“He had not been subject to individual surveillance by the authorities and did not claim to have been forced to live in a cramped space, nor had he been deprived of all social contact,” the court said in a news release explaining the ruling.
The ECHR panel also noted that Terhes — a former Catholic priest who has spoken out in the European Parliament against the potential introduction of “digital green certificates,” sometimes called coronavirus passports — had not provided any information describing his actual experience of the lockdown.
The EU legislator vowed to “continue this fight to defend the rights and freedoms of all Romanians and Europeans.”
“Through this decision, the ECHR has set a precedent after which Europe is no longer a space of freedom but of mass closure and surveillance, as is Russia and China,” Terhes said. “Based on this precedent the freedom of Europeans can be violated by governments as long as it is done en masse.”
During the lockdown period at issue in the case, authorities advised people in Romania against leaving their homes between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. There was also a 10 p.m.-6 a.m. curfew.
Residents in Romania could legally leave their homes providing they carried an official exemption form detailing their reasons, their whereabouts and a timeframe for their activity.
“No individual preventive measures had been taken against the applicant,” the court said, adding that “the measure in question could not be equated with house arrest.”
The decision is final, the court said.
Council of Europe spokesperson Andrew Cutting said the case was the first directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic to be considered by a 7-judge panel of the European Court of Human Rights. He also said that 17 other pandemic-related cases are pending. – AP
I don’t know anything about his colleagues here, except that Terhes refers to them in the warmest terms and most humane language in comments on his Facebook page, I really have a feeling of dealing with humans there, and not the typical reptile that usually inhabits the centers of political power. I mean I understand the language and it’s not much NPC noise even in his political statements, less in social media comments. Nice.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still never going to endorse a politician, but I can endorse a good initiative and I can tell borgs and reptiles from humans.
These being said, the bottom line is that this movement deserves a MEGATON OF EXPOSURE NOW, before we all get too jaded, it’s quite the fair stance we needed in that den of snakes! I don’t even mean “spread my link”, but “spread the news”. Rip the video as you seem fit, as I did. But we too very much appreciate any support, it’s getting harder and harder to hold this hill.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
… and I’ll give you some more perspective on it after you watch it.
NEW YORK, NY (PRWEB) APRIL 30, 2012
<<The 2045 initiative has received the blessing and support from the Dalai Lama, as it prepares to announce the second Global Future 2045 Congress, being held in New York, June, 2013.
Dmitry Itskov, founder of 2045, met His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, in his residence in Dharamsala, a small mountain town in northern India.
They discussed the three major steps of 2045 Avatar Project. First, the creation of a human-like robot dubbed “Avatar A,” and a state-of-the-art brain-computer interface system to link the mind with it. Next, it be created a life support system for the human brain, which connects to the “Avatar A,” turning into “Avatar B.” The third step, named “Avatar C”, is developing an artificial brain in which to transfer one’s individual consciousness with the goal of achieving cybernetic immortality.
Creating the “Avatar C” through developing an artificial brain and understanding the nature of human consciousness, says the Dalai Lama, could be attainable, and would be a great benefit to future development of science.
“In the last few years, scientists now begin to show an interest about consciousness, as well as brain specialists, neuroscientists, who also begin to show interest about consciousness or mind. I feel that over the next decades modern science will become more complete,” said the Dalai Lama. “So up to now the matter side of science has been highly technical, highly advanced, but the mind side has not been adequate. This project, definitely, is helpful to get more knowledge.”
Several months ago, DARPA – the Pentagon’s research arm – announced their own plans on creating a militarized avatar project, serving as a soldiers surrogate on the battlefield.
“My project has very different, humanitarian goals – it involves technologies that could mark a transition for humanity, with endless benefits in the future. But already in the next few years, we will be able to enhance the life of those who are disabled, radically improving their living standards. This is just the beginning. It’s my goal to ensure it is affordable and accessible for all people – not just for the elite and the military,” said Itskov.
The Dalai Lama also agreed that it is crucial to discuss the ethics behind these types of progressive technologies. “We should carry out these experiments with a full sense of responsibility and respect for life that will only benefit humanity, benefit others.”
Itskov has been reaching out to spiritual leaders to start a dialogue about how they could reach harmonious integration with scientists. “It’s important to establish a bridge between scientists and spiritual leaders for a successful transition to a new phase for humanity,” he said.
The 2045 initiative held its first Global Future 2045 Congress in Moscow, in February 2012. There, over 50 world-leading physicists, biologists, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers met seeking to develop a strategy for further development of the humankind. The initiative’s goal is to create a network with the world’s leading scientists who are focused on the development of cybernetic technology with the ultimate goal of transferring human’s individual consciousness to an artificial carrier. The network will act as an investment hub, contributing to various projects around the world.>>
This Dalai Lama acting like the Asian Pope, has officially been sponsored by Soros’ foundations some years ago. Maybe he still is, I can’t be bothered… Asset for hire, anyway.
Some of you may actually remember this story, the Russian billionaire who launched the 2045 Initiative got a lot of airtime in Western media about 10 years ago and then, again, in another media campaign, about five years later. And you probably thought what I thought: another Bill-Gates-wanna-be trying to buy some social or political relevance with a media stunt. But I’ve changed my perspective since. Twice.
I’ve first changed my perspective on this when I started to learn it’s not as far-fetched as it initially looked, from a scientific standpoint.
Forbes called this an ‘uber-sci-fi plot’ just to admit, a few paragraphs later, that DARPA is already on its way:
Take DARPA, the U.S. military’s blue-sky research agency, as an example. They’ve got their own “Avatar” program, with the ambitious goal of creating robots to operate as mind-controlled surrogates for human soldiers. Emerging research suggests that such a venture might one day succeed, given that scientists are making impressive strides towards brain-mediated limbs and exoskeletons, as well as robots able to respond to human vocal cues and movements. Itskov’s ideas (at least, stages two through four), however, essentially eclipse even the most cutting-edge elements of that ongoing research.
Forbes
Secondly, I’ve changed my mind just recently, when YouTube recommended a video about this and I’ve looked back at it with a late 2021 mindset and awareness.
What I’ve noticed now is that 2045 looks like a younger, more unhinged and reckless version of Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution / Great Reset / Transhumanism.
Everyone in Western media framed it as “crazy rich Russian wants to make billionaires immortal’. That’s like commenting on the manicure of a finger that points at the moon, Less than 5% of the ad deals with immortality / life extension.
THE REST OF THE 95% IS ABOUT BUILDING A NEW MANKIND, A NEW SPECIES AND A NEW SOCIETY. FOR ALL, AS A WAY TO AVERT A CATASTROPHE. AS IF SCHWAB VISITED PUTIN AND MIXED TOO MUCH VODKA AND COKE.
All Schwab’s tropes are there, from nanobots to the Internet of Bodies and beyond, we even have “bodies made of nanobots”, all the Borg is there…
What I also know now is that we’re closer, technically, to the objectives, but far from keeping up with the 2045 agenda, and I suspect no one really hoped for more, it was just for the flashy graphics and the tv buzz. They knew better at all times. The ‘roadmap to immortality’ was never meant to be followed, that was a bait for normies, the switch must have been the rest of the message, an 7 minutes ad for Transhumanism followed by a huge media campaign.
You can’t sell Western Transhumanism in Russia, especially when delivered by a freaky German and his pedo-nerdish lemmings. You have to give it the local touch and add Russian pride to it. Well, everyone got served.
<<The Russian Cosmists were late nineteenth and early twentieth century thinkers, whose philosophy, according to anthropologist Anya Bernstein, proposed a “unique combination of scientific and occult ideas.” Cosmist writings were banned during the Soviet period, but those who protected their works were devoted to the idea of “transcendence of space, time, and the body, mastery of nature, settlement of the outer space, and even the resurrection of the dead.”
They were also, it’s worth noting, very, very into being Russian.
In the book The Russian Cosmists author George Young writes that many Cosmists believed their philosophy could satisfy the “Russian soul” and considered their ways of thinking to be patriotic. Cosmist theology — it has more than a tinge of the religious to it — centers around the idea of a bold, happy future controlled by Russia.
“If Cosmism is viewed by its prominent adherents as the most Russian and therefore most significant current of thought running from the nineteenth through the twenty-first century, outside Russia the movement and the figures associated with it are all but unknown,” writes Young. “The Western transhumanists, the cryonicists, the immortalists, and certain new age spiritual movements share some Cosmist idea and practices and present the closest foreign analog.”
OG Cosmist thinker Nikolai Federov.Wikimedia
A resurgence in the popularity of the Cosmist ideas and writings in Russia has led Bernstein to question whether the way of thinking is now “a nationalist movement, indeed, a new Russian idea.” She points to the recent firing of the editor of the journal Russian Planet for failing to use the platform to reflect Russia’s preeminence as a cultured nation. The firing offense? He didn’t reference the Cosmists enough.
Bernstein also raises the point of Vladimir Putin. While neither President Putin or the Russian government has ever offered official support of the Cosmist way of thinking, some truthers have taken to analyzing the Russian leader’s public statements. In a December speech the President announced, “We all want the same thing: well-being for Russia. So the relations between business and the state should be built on the philosophy of the common task, partnership, and equal dialogue. The Philosophy of the Common Task was the title of collected works of Cosmist icon Nikolai Fedorov so in the words of conspiracy theorists everywhere, you do the math. Actual endorsement notwithstanding, a philosophy that encourages cracking the code to live forever certainly seems on brand for Putin. Some cartoonists have joked that Putin supports Cosmist/transhumanist initiatives so that he can extend his life enough to keep running for President.
While Putin has stayed mum on his Cosmist leanings, other Russians blurring the line between Cosmist and transhumanism have been more upfront with their support of a cyborg future. Russia 2045 is the project of millionaire media mogul Dmitry Itskov, whose initiative to replace biological bodies with artificial avatars may seem insane but not not-insane enough to not be profiled in the business section of The New York Times.
In a hype video that would make Michael Bay proud, Russia 2045 declares that our civilization has become like an “uncaptained ship sailing on rough seas with neither chart nor compass.” What society with our imperfect biological bodies need is the technology that will extend our lives — and could very well mean that we live forever. While the organization’s website notes that a “100 percent guarantee of implementation within a specific time cannot be provided” it does encourage people to start thinking about what robotic avatars they will prefer — a robotic copy of a human body with a brain-computer interface, a robotic body that will carry your head once your first body runs out of steam, or a “completely non-biological” body and brain onto which your consciousness has been uploaded.
Russian-identifying martial-artist Steven Seagal is a supporter of the 2045 project, and personally wrote to Vladimir Putin requesting that he support what he describes as a “social movement.” Inverse has reached out to Seagal to see if his support for the project still stands.
“For me it is obvious that this initiative will strengthen Russia’s position in world science, [and] underline Russia’s role in the international community as the country claiming leadership in setting and solving global problems for the betterment of mankind,” writes Seagal in his letter.
Bernstein proposes that Cosmism has the possibility to strengthen Russian national identity in the same way the country got jazzed about Eurasianism in the early 2000s. But with its’ blending of occult-like philosophies and reliance on technology it’s still very taboo in more conservative circles, especially among the Russian Orthodox church who aren’t ready to concede that transhumanism is the “religion of the 21st century.”
Part of the underlying tenets of Cosmism is that Russia will have a active role in controlling the future; of managing the cosmos — basically the most Kremlin-ready philosophy ever.>> – Inverse Mag
You’re nowhere on this map yet, but on the other ones…
And while many people still regard Russia through 50year old Cold War lenses and think Putin is opposed to the new global regime, I know better.
“On 16 May, 2011 Hollywood actor and martial arts master, Steven Seagal, publicly endorsed our movement and personally proposed that Mr. Putin consider a partnership with the “Russia 2045” movement. Later we sent the prime minister a letter requesting that he support the international scientific research center which we are now establishing that will specialize in extending human life and improving its quality using cybernetic technology. As a result a panel discussion was held at the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and protocol that supported several initiatives of the 2045 Movement.
We have merely proposed that the Russian authorities consider partnering with our movement because participation in such a project is strategically important for our country. However, “Russia 2045” has never been a project personally initiated by Vladimir Putin, nor has it ever been an initiative of any other ministry of the Russian government. The goal of our project is to create accessible cybernetic technology to radically extend the lives of all people. It has never been connected to the secret machinations of influential politicians and wealthy businessmen.
We believe that the goal of bringing about the immorality of all mankind may require the help of not just government and its leader, but the help of the whole international community. We are now seeking the partnership of Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations, as well as other nations and organizations and will openly announce any kind of partnership on our movement’s website.”
Wham-bam, spasiba m’am!
Bottom line, 10 years later:
No one seems stressed with that roadmap
No notable scientific progress emerged from all this.
What has emerged was a ton of buzz for Transhumanism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with click-baits for both the East and West. Russians were surely made more aware of it, and they got sold a globalist agenda while their patriotism seemed to be catered, at a superficial glance.
Also, Russia appears as having technological ambitions and capabilities that rival or get ahead DARPA’s, it all sounds much like the space race during the Cold War.
Doesn’t seem likely that this is by accident or took anyone by surprise.
AND THIS IS, LADIES AND GENTS, LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE THE COGNITIVE WARFARE I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN MY PREVIOUS REPORT.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Remember: “The war abroad always comes home”. And this one “starts with hyper-connectivity”.
“Cognitive warfare, when practiced effectively has strength, an insidious nature and disrupts our ordinary understandings and reactions to events. The term, cognitive warfare, requires some dissection and interpretation in the context of national security; broadly defined it is a disinformation process to psychologically wear down the receivers of the information. It is strategically spread through information resources like social media, networking, Internet resources, videos, photos taken out of context, simplistic resources like political cartoons and even well-planned websites that encourage the making of disinformation.”
Canada – NATO Innovation Challenge Fall 2021: Cognitive Warfare – 2021
Informational webinar on October 5th as Canada hosts the Fall 2021 NATO Innovation Challenge organized by Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM), Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) and the NATO Allied Command Transformation (ACT) iHub. Innovators will have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the concept of Cognitive Warfare as well as the Innovation Challenge’s eligibility requirements, application process and timeline.
Commenting on the video above, The Gray Zone notes:
The other institution that is managing the Fall 2021 NATO Innovation Challenge on behalf of Canada’s Department of National Defense is the Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM).
A Canadian military officer who works with CANSOFCOM, Shekhar Gothi, was the final panelist in the October 5 NATO Association of Canada event. Gothi serves as CANSOFCOM’s “innovation officer” for Southern Ontario.
He concluded the event appealing for corporate investment in NATO’s cognitive warfare research.
The bi-annual Innovation Challenge is “part of the NATO battle rhythm,” Gothi declared enthusiastically.
Gothi reassured corporate investors that NATO will bend over backward to defend their bottom lines: “I can assure everyone that the NATO innovation challenge indicates that all innovators will maintain complete control of their intellectual property. So NATO won’t take control of that. Neither will Canada. Innovators will maintain their control over their IP.”
The comment was a fitting conclusion to the panel, affirming that NATO and its allies in the military-industrial complex not only seek to dominate the world and the humans that inhabit it with unsettling cognitive warfare techniques, but to also ensure that corporations and their shareholders continue to profit from these imperial endeavors.
Since the early days of the Alliance, NATO has played an essential role in promoting and enhancing civil preparedness among its member states. Article 3 of the NATO founding treaty establishes the principle of resilience, which requires all Alliance member states to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” This includes supporting the continuity of government, and the provision of essential services, including resilient civil communications systems.
A Taipei think tank and observers in Taiwan say China is trying to influence residents with “cognitive warfare,” hoping to reverse opposition to Beijing’s desired takeover of Taiwan so it can be accomplished without having to go to war.
Taiwanese attitudes have been drifting away from the mainland, especially among the younger generation, whose members see themselves “born independent” with no ties to China.
China’s effort, these analysts say, includes tactics ranging from military intimidation and propaganda to misinformation spread by its army of online trolls in a bid to manipulate public opinion. They say the complexity and frequency of the effort puts Taiwan on a constant defensive.
“Its ultimate goal is to control what’s between the ears. That is, your brain or how you think, which [Beijing] hopes leads to a change of behavior,” Tzeng Yi-suo, director of the cybersecurity division at the government-funded Institute of National Defense and Security Research in Taipei, told VOA.
Liberal democracies such as Taiwan, that ensure the free flow of information, are vulnerable to cognitive attacks by China, while China’s tightly controlled media and internet environment makes it difficult for democracies to counterattack, according to Tzeng.
China’s campaign has intensified since the outbreak of COVID-19, using official means such as flying military jets over Taiwan, and unofficial channels such as news outlets, social media and hackers to spread misinformation. The effort is aimed at dissuading Taiwan from pursuing actions contrary to Beijing’s interests, the report said.
China has used these tactics to attack Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen’s administration, undermine support for democracy and fuel Taiwan’s social tensions and political divide, it said.
NATO Releases Disturbing Stance on Cognitive Warfare
Cyber and economic warfare are often seen as the future of war. There is, however, a new type of warfare being discussed. It is called “cognitive warfare.”
Cognitive warfare, similar to information warfare, involves the the swaying of public opinion as a means of war. What differentiates the two, is that information warfare is simply defined as the manipulation of public opinion via propaganda. Cognitive warfare, on the other hand, involves the literal manipulation of the human brain. Seems far fetched? Well according to a NATO-sponsored study, it is now being classified as a “sixth domain” of warfare. While even acknowledging the horrific dangers of this type of warfare, the report goes on to claim NATO should develop the means to use cognitive warfare to get ahead of China and Russia. There is far from any proof that either countries are developing cognitive warfare capabilities, with reports of information warfare being falsely labelled as “cognitive warfare.” The NATO Association of Canada has even admitted that cognitive warfare is “one of the hottest topics” for the military alliance.
The fact that NATO is lying about the ambitions of its enemies when it comes to developmental warfare is not surprising. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has repeatedly exaggerated the threat of Russia in order to expand its influence eastward. Could the US government use these false pretexts in order to convince the public that cognitive control over our minds is necessary to defend ourselves? If you think that’s far fetched, then just look at how successful the government was in pushing for vaccines on children. Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccines for children are unnecessary (studies have shown children are more likely to die from the vaccine than COVID-19 itself), the government has successfully manipulated a large portion of the public into believing they are indeed necessary. In the future, will some people be convinced to willingly volunteer to have chips placed in their heads, in order to protect themselves from “Russian cognitive attacks”?
Speaking to the South China Morning Post, Lu Li-shih, a former teacher at the Republic of China Naval Academy, said: “This staged photograph is definitely ‘cognitive warfare’ to show the US doesn’t regard the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] as an immediate threat. “In the photo, Commander Briggs looks very relaxed with his feet up watching the Liaoning ship just a few thousand yards away, while his deputy is also sitting beside him, showing they take their PLA counterparts lightly.” One Hong Kong newspaper reported that the photo sent one clear message to China: “We’re watching you.” The image comes as the US and the Philippines begin two weeks of military drills in a show of force against China after hundreds of ships anchored off Whitsun reef last month.
COGNITIVE WARFARE
By Emily Bienvenue, Zac Rogers & Sian Troath May 14, 2019– THE COVE (Australian Defense publication)
The term cognitive warfare has entered the lexicon over the last couple of years. General David L. Goldfein (United States Air Force) remarked last year we are “transitioning from wars of attrition to wars of cognition”. Neuroscientist James Giordano has described the human brain as the battlefield of the 21st Century. Cognitive warfare represents the convergence of all that elements that have lived restlessly under the catch-all moniker of Information Warfare (IW) since the term’s emergence in the 1990s. However, military and intelligence organisations now grappling with this contentious new concept are finding cognitive warfare to be something greater than, or as Gestalt intended, different than, the sum of these parts. Cognitive warfare is IW with something added. As we begin to understand more about what has been added, awareness is growing that western military and intelligence organisations may have been caught playing the wrong game.
As Martin Libicki explained, IW burst onto the scene in the early 1990s in line with the shift from attrition-based to effects-based operations and the increasingly digitised and networked infrastructure underpinning contemporary warfare. It overarched lines of effort in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare (EW), psychological operations (PSYOPS), and cyber operations that in general raised the need to contend for and take advantage of control of information flows. These elements overlapped but remained disparate and lacked a unified concept and unity of effort. Despite the desire for integration being an ever-present agenda item, such unity did not eventuate and the individual streams continued to evolve, driven by more-or-less separate military and intelligence communities of interest.
The various elements under the IW construct were largely pursued throughout the ensuing period as adjuncts in support of objectives defined by the traditional remit of military organisations – namely, to deliver lethal kinetic effects on the battlefield. The War on Terror provided an unconventional sandbox for the refining of IW elements; but again, little impetus emerged for their drawing together under a unified concept. Influence operations across both cyber and human terrains remained episodic and an adjunct to a kinetic main effort – even while the separation between victory on the battlefield and the capacity for enduring political successes became starker. The disconnect should have been more unnerving for Western military organisations. The capacity for an adversary to contend for battlefield victory below the threshold of conventional conflict is only one aspect of asymmetry. The disconnect raises the more fundamental question of why, if battlefield superiority was demonstrably not resulting in political success, would a conventionally inferior opponent pursue such a pathway at all? What if strategic success – the causing of a preferable behaviour change in those with which we contend – could bypass the traditional battlefield altogether?
For the nation-state adversaries of the US and its allies, the disconnect provided an opportunity to observe and to learn. While the ‘winning without fighting’ ethos is a well understood heuristic of Chinese strategic culture, as Wirtz has suggested also, Russian strategic culture has consistently excelled at imagining some of the non-intuitive and strategic level implications of technological change. Much more than mere opportunism, Russia’s unfavourable geo-strategic circumstances, combined with its deep distrust of US intentions, forced it to render strategic level gains from a weakening hand. Here-in lies the temporary advantage it gained in finding and filling the gap between IW and cognitive warfare. As Clint Watts has surmised, where IW described a war ofinformation, the cognitive battlespace is a war for information as it is transformed into knowledge via the processes of cognition. The technologies of the networked digital age, conceived by the US and its allies as an accumulation of advantages on the conventional battlefield, and unleashed by the clamour for profit of the commercial sector, were transformed into a strategic gift for an imaginative adversary and thus presents us with the current dilemma. The convergence of IW into cognitive warfare has been forced upon us.
This gift emerged in the mid-2000s with the advent of hyper-connectivity, largely a product of the social media phenomenon and its attendant business model based on accessing the constant attention of the human brain. This phenomenon created the bridge between IW and cognitive war which has been exploited by an unscrupulous adversary. Hyper-connectivity created the opportunity to transform IW from a set of episodic activities, largely associated with operational lines-of-effort by military and intelligence practitioners in support of lethal and kinetic effects on the battlefield, into a single continuous effort to disrupt and deny the cognitive conditions in which whole societies are situated. Cognitive warfare gathers together the instruments of IW and takes us into the realm of ‘neuro-weapons’ – defined by Giordano as “anything that accesses the brain to contend against others”. When coordinated and directed at open liberal democratic societies, cognitive warfare has paid off in spades. The capacity of open societies to function – to sustain and renew the narratives upon which their superior material strength relies – gets quickly scrambled when certain cognitive processes are exposed to manipulation.
It remains an item of curiosity how American and allied military and strategic culture, imbued as it is with the insights of John Boyd and many others, has been slow to recognise the shift in orientation. Boyd’s OODA loop may be one of the most bastardised concepts in modern military strategy, but its central insights are absolutely prescient for the age of cognitive warfare. The loop’s second “O” – Orientation – subsumes each of its other points. Getting orientation wrong, no matter how well an actor can Observe, how quickly they can Decide, and how concisely they can Act, can nonetheless mean the actor is caught playing the wrong game. It centrality is made patently clear for anyone who actually reads Boyd, or any of a number of good biographies of his work. It is imperative that this strategic culture understands the way in which its own orientation has been turned against it.
As digitised and networked warfare has matured and evolved over the last 25 years into its contemporary iteration of Multi-Domain Battle (MDB), it has pursued better observation through superior ISR, better decision-making through big data and machine learning, and better action through the constant advance of military-technical capabilities. Its orientation, however, has remained the same. As Albert Palazzo has iterated, MDB remains oriented toward a military problem solvable by lethal kinetic means in which political success is considered as a follow-on phase and to which influence operations across cyber and human terrain remain adjunct lines of effort. What is becoming clearer is that the age of cognitive warfare is highlighting the joints and fissures in this basic construct to an unprecedented extent. General Michael Hayden has made this point in his 2018 book, The Assault on Intelligence.
Cognitive warfare presents us with an orientation problem. Adversary actors have strategised to avoid a confrontation with US and allied forces at their strongest point – namely, in high intensity conventional warfare. They have pursued gains in various domains that remain under the threshold of inducing a conventional military response. While US and allied forces have mused over ways to bolster below-the-threshold capabilities, the adversary has been busy changing the rules of the meta-contest. By denying, disrupting, and countering the narratives that underpin US and allied legitimacy, and by stifling our capacity to regenerate the preferred narrative via sophisticated and targeted disinformation operations, the adversary has changed the context within which force and the threat of force is situated. In other words, the diplomatic power of the traditional force-in-being of allied militaries to influence the behaviour of others is being diminished. Furthermore, the actual deployment of lethal kinetic capabilities will be subject to a similar reorientation where and when they occur. Simply put, lethal kinetic capability, as the traditional remit of military organisations, has undergone a reorientation at the hands of an adversary enabled by the hyper-connected digital age to manipulate its context to an unprecedented extent.
Cognitive war is not the fight most professional military practitioners wanted. A little discussed aspect is the extent to which our military and strategic culture perceives it as a deeply dishonourable fight. A cultural bias – if not a genuine cognitive blind spot – is at work and has slowed our response. But national security, before it is about winning kinetic battles and before it is centred on the profession of arms, is at its core about ensuring that people are safe to live their lives: it is about keeping the peace and protecting the population from harmful interference. This includes the harm that disrupts our capacity to conduct our collective social, economic, and political lives on our own terms.
About the Authors:
Emily Bienvenue, Zac Rogers & Sian Troath
Dr Emily Bienvenue is a Senior Analyst in the Defence Science and Technology Group’s, Joint and Operations Analysis Division. Her research interests include trust as a strategic resource, the changing nature of warfare, and competition below the threshold of conflict.
The views expressed here are her own and do not represent the official view of the Australian Defence Department.
Zac Rogers is a senior researcher at the Centre for United States and Asia Policy Studies and PhD candidate at the College of Business, Government, and Law, Flinders University of South Australia.
Sian Troath is a PhD candidate at Flinders University, and a combined Flinders University-DST Group research associate working on Modelling Complex Warfighting (MCW) Strategic Response (SR) 4 – Modelling Complex Human Systems. Her areas of expertise are international relations theory, trust theory, Australian foreign policy, Australia-Indonesia relations, and Anglo-American relations.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Australian Army, the Department of Defence or the Australian Government.
Ownership of mainstream media and popular social media is imperative to control desired narrative during psychological and military operations. In the last 30 years, it has been the accessibility and freedom of the internet which has been invaluable for the communication of independent and objective analysis which is often evidence-based rather than information used in cognitive warfare for perception manipulation.
We now live in a time where the powers that shouldn’t be are scrambling to find methods to disrupt these free lines of communication without appearing to be an all-out assault on freedom-of-speech; so the current methodology is slow implementation of concepts like “community standards” violations to shut down people who are often disseminating information that government does not want communicated. When a new forum is formed that allows freedom of speech—that forum quickly attracts attention and efforts are quickly made to either buy out the forum and disparage it publicly — sometimes labeling it as politically “right-wing” which automatically loses most users who may identify as politically “left-wing.”
With the popular accessibility of the internet starting in the 1990s, the exchanges of information and ideas have been facilitated throughout the globe. Before internet popularity, channels of information were mainly held by mainstream media corporations. In the last twenty-five years, billions of people worldwide have been exchanging information instantly outside of official government and corporate filters. These developments have fractured the monopoly on information once held by government and corporations on behalf of elite interests worldwide.
A significant percentage of the global population still blindly trusts corporate mainstream media and prestigious academic sources of news and information without verification. These same people instinctively avoid ‘alternative’ sources of news and information. However, a growing number of people have awoken to the realization that mainstream media sources of information are agenda-driven and often purposely deceiving while engaging in systemic censorship. These are the people more inclined to seek alternative sources of information and communicate using channels free from corporate and academic monopolies. The current battle to disturb and eventually shut down these channels are extremely important to one-world-government social-engineers. This is a major battleground in today’s cognitive warfare.
As we enter the mid-2020s, it will likely be increasingly difficult to freely exchange evidence-based and independent research and analysis on the internet. There is a cognitive war against freedom of information in the emerging totalitarian global scheme. Unlike conventional warfare, cognitive warfare is everywhere a communication device is used. Independent researchers, analysts, and journalists are being disrupted and banned from forums like YouTube and Facebook.
To counteract cognitive warfare and ultimately avoid a one-world-government dystopia—engage your neighbors and build local and personal relationships of information exchange and commerce as opposed to relying on long-distance electronic communications. Get off the grid as much as possible and reverse the psyop of ‘social-distancing’ that the Covid-19 operation has promoted for the last year and a half.
OTHER ANGLES
Cognitive Electronic Warfare: Conceptual Design and Architecture – 2020
Computing revolution is heralding the transition from digital to cognitive that is the third significant era in the history of computer technology: the cognitive era. It is about the use of computers to mimic human thought processes, such as perception, memory, learning and decision-making in highly dynamic environments. In recent years, there is a growing research interest in the development of cognitive capabilities in radio frequency technologies. Using cognition-based techniques, a radar system would be able to perceive its operational environment, fine-tune and accordingly adjust its emission parameters, such as the pulse width, pulse repetition interval, and transmitter power, to perform its assigned task optimally. It is certain that traditional electronic warfare (EW) methods, which rely on pre-programmed attack strategies, will not be able to efficiently engage with such a radar threat. Therefore, the next generation of EW systems needs to be enhanced with cognitive abilities so that they can make autonomous decisions in response to changing situations, and cope with new, unknown radar signals. Because the system architecture is a blueprint, this paper presents a conceptual cognitive EW architecture that carries out both electronic support and electronic attack operations to synthesize close-to-optimal countermeasures subject to performance goals.
The cognitive warfare: Aspects of new strategic thinking
Combining the strategic observations on revolutionary war – those made by Colonel Trinquier during the war in Algeria, in particular–with US strategy regarding information warfare, the authors Harbulot and Lucas, leading experts at the French École de guerre économique, and Moinet, Director of the DESS (Intelligence économique et développement des Entreprises) – place their emphasis on the profoundly innovative and strategic role played by information warfare and on its implications for companies. Naturally enough, it emerges with clarity that the authors’ intention is to utilize cognitive warfare in defense of the interests of French companies against their US competitors.
It is undeniable – in the opinion of the authors – that the date of September 11, 2001, represented a change in strategic thinking of fundamental importance. Undoubtedly, the war in the Persian Gulf, the US military intervention in Somalia, and the conflicts in former Yugoslavia had already presaged – even if in terms not yet precisely defined – an evolution of military strategy in the direction of newer strategic scenarios. It is enough to consider – the authors observe – that at the time of the invasion of Kuwait, US public opinion was mobilized following a disinformation process planned at military level or more exactly, at psychological warfare level. In this regard, it is sufficient to recall how the televised landing of US troops on the beaches of Mogadishu, the televised lynching of a US Army soldier enabled the marginalization of the politico-military dimension of the civil war in progress. Yet the importance ascribed to the manipulation of information was determined by the conviction – which proved to be correct – that the absolute mastery of the production of knowledge both upstream (the educational system) and downstream (Internet, media audio-visual means) can ensure – the authors emphasize – the long-lasting legitimacy of the control of world affairs.
Yet in light of the American political-military choices and reflections on the revolutionary war in Algeria, French strategy felt the need to define in strict terms exactly what information warfare is. First of all, the expression used in the context of French strategy is the one of cognitive warfare defined as the capacity to use knowledge for the purpose of conflict. In this regard, it is by no mere chance that Rand Corporation information warfare specialists John Arquilla and David Rundfeldt assert the domination of information to be fundamental to American strategy. Secondly, the ample and systematic use of information warfare by the US creates the need – in geographical-strategic terms–for the European Union to do some serious thinking on cognitive warfare. On the other hand, the absence of legal regulation of manipulation of knowledge in the architecture of security inherited at the end of the Cold War can only lead to serious concern above all for economic security of European companies and must consequently bring about the formulation of a strategy of dissuasion and the use of subversive techniques that must be capable of creating barriers against attempts at destabilization.
The work is primarily done by CISA, a DHS sub-agency tasked with protecting critical national infrastructure.
DHS, the FBI, and several media entities are having biweekly meetings as recently as August.
DHS considered countering disinformation relating to content that undermines trust in financial systems and courts.
The FBI agent who primed social media platforms to take down the Hunter Biden laptop story continued to have a role in DHS policy discussions.
Jen Easterly, Biden’s appointed director of CISA, swiftly made it clear that she would continue to shift resources in the agency to combat the spread of dangerous forms of information on social media. “One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important,” said Easterly, speaking at a conference in November 2021.
The Intercept
If it is the job of the US intelligence cartel to regulate society's cognitive infrastructure, then it is the job of healthy human beings to disrupt the cognitive infrastructure.https://t.co/KXrmaHX4SJ
A. Gliozzo, C. Ackerson, R. Bhattacharya, A. Goering, A. Jumba, S. Y. Kim, L. Krishnamurthy, T. Lam, A. Littera, I. McIntosh, S. Murthy and M. Ribas. (2017, Jun.). Building Cognitive Applications with IBM Watson Services: Volume 1 Getting Started. [On-line]. IBM Redbooks. Available: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg248387.pdf [Dec. 10, 2020].
A. J. Butt, N. A. Butt, A. Mazhar, Z. Khattak and J. A. Sheikh. “The soar of cognitive architectures”. In Proc. 2013 International Conference on Current Trends in Information Technology, 2013, pp. 135-142.
C. D. Wickens and J. G. Hollands. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2000.
C. F. Beckmann and S. M. Smith. “Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic resonance imaging”. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 23, pp. 137-152, Feb. 2004.
C. Horne, M. Ritchie and H. Griffiths. “Proposed ontology for cognitive radar systems”, IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation, vol.12, pp. 1363-1370, Dec. 2018.
C. Tromp. “The diffusion and implementation of innovation”, Innovative Studies: International Journal, vol. 2, pp. 18-30, Dec. 2012.
D. A. Norman. “Cognitive engineering and education”, in Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research. D. T. Tuma, and F. Reif, Eds. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1980, pp. 81–95.
D. D. Woods and E. Roth. “Cognitive engineering: Human problem solving with tools”, Human Factors, vol. 30, pp. 415–430, Apr. 1988.
D. M. Zasada, J. J. Santapietro and L. D. Tromp. “Implementation of a cognitive radar perception/action cycle”. In Proc. 2014 IEEE Radar Conference, 2014, pp. 544-547.
D. Norman. The Design of Everyday Things, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books, 2013.
G. E. Smith, Z. Cammenga, A. Mitchell, K. L. Bell, J. Johnson, M. Rangaswamy and C. Baker. “Experiments with cognitive radar”. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, vol. 31, pp. 34-46, Dec. 2016.
G. Pettersson. “An Illustrated Overview of ESM and ECM Systems”. MSc. thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, United States, 1993.
G. Zhang, H. Rong and W. Jin. “Intra-pulse modulation recognition of unknown radar emitter signals using support vector clustering”, in Proc. 3rd International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, 2006, pp. 420-429.
J. E. Kelly III and S. Hamm. Smart Machines: IBM’s Watson and the Era of Cognitive Computing. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
J. Friedenberg and G. Silverman. Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study of Mind. Sage Publications, 2006.
J. Guerci, R. M. Guerci, M. Rangaswamy, J. Bergin and M. Wicks. “CoFAR: Cognitive fully adaptive radar”. in Proc. IEEE Radar Conference, 2014, pp. 984-989.
J. Guerci. Cognitive Radar: The Knowledge-Aided Fully Adaptive Approach. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2010.
J. Konwles. “Regaining the advantage – Cognitive electronic warfare”. The Journal of Electronic Defense, vol. 39, pp. 56-62, Dec. 2016.
J. M. Fuster. Cortex and Mind: Unifying Cognition. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2003.
J. Mitola III and G. Q. Maguire, Jr. “Cognitive radio: Making software radios more personal”, IEEE Personal Communications Magazine, vol. 6, pp. 13-18, Apr. 1999.
J. Pang, Y. Lin and X. Xu. “An improved feature extraction algorithm of radiation source based on multiple fractal theory”. International Journal of Signal Processing, Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, vol.7 pp. 237-242, Jan. 2014.
J. R. Anderson. “Is human cognition adaptive?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 14, pp. 471–485, Mar. 1991.
J. Wang. Associative Memory Cells: Basic Units of Memory Trace. Springer, 2019.
K. Krishnan, T. Schwering and S. Sarraf. (2016, May). “Cognitive dynamic systems: A technical review of cognitive radar”, arXiv:1605.08150. [On-line]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08150 [Dec. 10, 2020].
K. L. Bell, C. J. Baker, G. E. Smith, J. T. Johnson and M. Rangaswamy. “Cognitive radar framework for target detection and tracking”, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 9, pp. 1427-1439, Aug. 2015.
L. E. Brennan and I. S. Reed. “Theory of adaptive radar”. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. AES-9, pp. 237-252, Feb. 1973.
M. A. Brandimonte, N. Bruno and S. Collina. “Cognition”. in Psychological Concepts: An International Historical Perspective. K. Pawlik and G. d’Ydewalle, Eds. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2006, pp. 11-26.
M. E. Khan, S. G. M. Shadab and F. Khan. “Empirical study of software development life cycle and its various models”, International Journal of Software Engineering, vol. 8, pp. 16-26, Jun. 2020.
M. S. Greco, F. Gini, P. Stinco and K. Bell. “Cognitive radar: A reality?”, arXiv:1803.01000. [On-line]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01000 [Dec. 10, 2020].
N. S. Lanjewar and D. Rane. “Cognitive computing applications”, in Proc. 2nd National Conference of Recent Trends in Computer Science and Information Technology, vol. 5, 2019, pp. 54-59.
P. Gärdenfors and A. Wallin. A Smorgasbord of Cognitive Science, Bokförlaget, Nora: Nya Doxa, 2008.
Q. Wei, Q. Xu, Y. Pan and G. Zhange. “A novel method for sorting unknown radar emitter”. In Proc. 2009 IEEE International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2009, 4 pages.
R. Adams. “Cognitive science meets computing science: The future of cognitive systems and cognitive engineering”, in Proc. of 31st International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, 2009, pp. 1-12.
R. J. Anderson. Security Engineering — Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Pub, 2008.
S. Andrews and M. Sheppard. “Software architecture erosion: Impacts, causes, and management”. International Journal of Computer Science and Security, vol. 14, pp. 82-93, Jun. 2020.
S. Banerjee, J. Santos, M. Hempel and H. Sharif. “A new railyard safety approach for detection and tracking of personnel and dynamic objects using software-defined radar”. in Proc. 2018 Joint Rail Conference, 2018, pp.1-10.
S. Feng, P. Setoodeh and S. Haykin. “Smart home: Cognitive interactive people-centric Internet of things”. IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, pp. 34-39, Feb. 2017.
S. Haykin, Cognitive Dynamic Systems: Perception–Action Cycle, Radar, and Radio. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Press, 2012.
S. Haykin, Y. Xue and P. Setoodeh. “Cognitive radar: Step toward bridging the gap between neuroscience and engineering”, in Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 100, pp. 3102–3130, Nov. 2012.
S. Haykin. “Cognition is the key to the next generation of radar systems,” in Proc. 13th IEEE Digital Signal Processing Workshop and 5th IEEE Signal Processing Education Workshop, 2009, pp. 463–467.
S. Haykin. “Cognitive radar: A way of the future”, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 23, pp. 30-40, Jan. 2006.
S. Haykin. “Cognitive radar” in Knowledge Based Radar Detection, Tracking and Classification. F. Gini and M. Rangaswamy, Eds. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 9-30. 2008.
S. Holtel. “Artificial intelligence creates a wicked problem for the enterprise”. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 99, pp. 171-180, 2016.
S. Kuzdeba, A. Radlbeck and M. Anderson. “Performance Metrics for Cognitive Electronic Warfare – Electronic Support Measures,” in Proc. 2018 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), 2018, pp. 151-156.
S. Nirenburg. “Cognitive systems as explanatory artificial intelligence” in Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon. N. Gala, R. Rapp and G. Bel-Enguix, Eds. Springer, 2015, pp. 37-49.
V. N. Gudivada, “Data analytics: Fundamentals”. in Data Analytics for Intelligent Transportation Systems. M. Chowdhury, A. Apon and K. Dey, Eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc., 2017, pp. 31 – 67.
W. L. Melvin and M. C. Wicks. “Improving practical space-time adaptive radar”. in Proc. 1997 IEEE National Radar Conference, 1997, pp. 48–53.
Y. Zhang, G. Si and Y. Wang. “Modelling and simulation of cognitive electronic attack under the condition of system-of-systems combat”, Defense Science Journal, vol. 70, pp. 183-189, Mar. 2020,
Z. W. Pylyshyn. “Computing in cognitive science”, in Foundations of Cognitive Science. M. I. Posner, Ed. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1989, pp. 49-92.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
As per usual, Reuters did not fact-check what they claimed. Almost all their smear jobs are based on this type of text-book straw-man. But you will learn more than the headline promises here.
‘I CALLED PHARMAFIA AND THEY SAID NO’ – EVERY MEDICAL FACT-CHECK EVER
The claim in the original article, the claims in the fact-check and the verdict are three separate things. Reuters manages to straw-man its own straw-man.
THIS BLOG IS NOT AN ANTI-VACCINE COMMENTARY. I WISH TO ENCOURAGE READERS TO CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENTATION, DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, AND NOT BLINDLY ACCEPT WHAT WE ARE BEING TOLD.
WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED OR CONCERNED TO LEARN THAT THE 1918 “SPANISH FLU” HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SPAIN AND MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN A FLU AT ALL? WELL, HANG ON TIGHT, YOU ARE IN FOR A ROUGH RIDE!
WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT THE 1918 “SPANISH FLU”
History tells us that the 1918 Spanish Flu killed between 50 – 100 million people. At the time, medical and pharmaceutical sources described it as THE MOST horrific disease process since the Black Plague of 1347, which killed an estimated 25-30 million people.
Reuters does not dispute this
VACCINATION: “THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM”
In the book,Vaccination Condemned, by Eleanor McBean, PhD, N.D., the author describes, in detail, personal and family experiences during the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.
McBean’s coverage of the 1918 “Spanish Flu”, as a reporter and an unvaccinated survivor, requires that the historical basis of the event needs to be revisited, not as a “conspiracy theory” but with evidence that will “set your hair on fire”.
A few years ago, I came across another book by Eleanor McBean: “Vaccination…The Silent Killer”. McBean provides evidence that not only were the historical events of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” compromised, but also those of the Polio and Swine Flu epidemics.
LET’S TALK “SPANISH FLU” FACTS:
THE SPANISH SCAPEGOAT
Spain was neutral during WW1 and did NOT censor its press, unlike the combatting countries. As a result, Spain was the first to report the 1918 Flu epidemic and the world “scapegoated” Spain as the source. Thus, the “Spanish Flu” is born.
THE FIRST CASE: MILITARY VACCINATION EXPERIMENTS IN FORT RILEY, KANSAS
In preparation for WW1, a massive military vaccination experiment involving numerous prior developed vaccines took place in Fort Riley, Kansas- where the first “Spanish Flu” case was reported.
WW1 DRAFT = HUMAN TEST SUBJECTS
The fledgling pharmaceutical industry, sponsored by the ‘Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research’, had something they never had before – a large supply of human test subjects. Supplied by the U.S. military’s first draft, the test pool of subjects ballooned to over 6 million men. CLICK HERE for more details.
BACTERIAL MENINGITIS VACCINE: THE KILLING FIELD
Autopsies after the war proved that the 1918 flu was NOT a “FLU” at all. It was caused by random dosages of an experimental ‘bacterial meningitis vaccine’, which to this day, mimics flu-like symptoms.
Reuters simply calls this main claim ‘baseless’ without providing any base for their call, then move on to flog more straw-men of their own:
So, basically, we have a Pharmafia-licensed doctor’s word vs. a Reuter presstitute’s word, and I bet my ass the Reuter NPC has no medical studies. Anyway, to settle the truth here, you have to do your own research, which I did below.
However, to settle that Reuters faked its fact-check is already adequate at this point.
The original article follows up:
The massive, multiple assaults with additional vaccines on the unprepared immune systems of soldiers and civilians created a “killing field”. Those that were not vaccinated were not affected. – Links to the article in the pic below:
Reuters claims there is a disagreement between their findings and the article’s, but they both claim the same thing: it was a flu AND a bacteria that ended the lives of those who got a flu in 1918
Undisputed
SO… HOW DID CIVILIANS DIE?
WW1 ended sooner than expected, leaving HUGE quantities of unused experimental vaccines.
Fearing that soldiers coming home would spread diseases to their families, The U.S. government pushed the largest vaccine ‘fear’ campaign in history. They used the human population as a research and development lab to field test experimental vaccines.
Tens of millions of civilians died in the same manner as did the soldiers.
Instead of stopping the vaccines, doctors intensified them, calling it the great “Spanish Flu of 1918”. As a result, ONLY THE VACCINATED DIED.
“Seven men dropped dead in a doctor’s office after being vaccinated. Letters were sent to their families that they had been killed in action.”
In the examples given in my previous blog “COVID 19: Another Chapter in the History of Deception and Secrecy”, history is replete with intentional lies told to the public to either “save face” or to deceive for nefarious purposes. The 1918 “Spanish Flu” was no exception.
So what did the autopsies really reveal?
This is the only actual dispute Reuters made to the article, and neither sides backed their claims.
Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness
Abstract
Background
Despite the availability of published data on 4 pandemics that have occurred over the past 120 years, there is little modern information on the causes of death associated with influenza pandemics.
Methods
We examined relevant information from the most recent influenza pandemic that occurred during the era prior to the use of antibiotics, the 1918–1919 “Spanish flu” pandemic. We examined lung tissue sections obtained during 58 autopsies and reviewed pathologic and bacteriologic data from 109 published autopsy series that described 8398 individual autopsy investigations.
Results
The postmortem samples we examined from people who died of influenza during 1918–1919 uniformly exhibited severe changes indicative of bacterial pneumonia. Bacteriologic and histopathologic results from published autopsy series clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria in most influenza fatalities.
Conclusions
The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria. Less substantial data from the subsequent 1957 and 1968 pandemics are consistent with these findings. If severe pandemic influenza is largely a problem of viral-bacterial copathogenesis, pandemic planning needs to go beyond addressing the viral cause alone (e.g., influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs). Prevention, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as well as stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, should also be high priorities for pandemic planning.
The 1918 to 1919 “Spanish” influenza pandemic virus killed up to 50 million people. We report here clinical, pathological, bacteriological, and virological findings in 68 fatal American influenza/pneumonia military patients dying between May and October of 1918, a period that includes ~4 mo before the 1918 pandemic was recognized, and 2 mo (September-October 1918) during which it appeared and peaked.
The lung tissues of 37 of these cases [a little over half – S.m] were positive for influenza viral antigens or viral RNA, including four from the prepandemic period (May-August). The prepandemic and pandemic peak cases were indistinguishable clinically and pathologically.
All 68 cases had histological evidence of bacterial pneumonia, and 94% showed abundant bacteria on Gram stain.
Sequence analysis of the viral hemagglutinin receptor-binding domain performed on RNA from 13 cases suggested a trend from a more “avian-like” viral receptor specificity with G222 in prepandemic cases to a more “human-like” specificity associated with D222 in pandemic peak cases. Viral antigen distribution in the respiratory tree, however, was not apparently different between prepandemic and pandemic peak cases, or between infections with viruses bearing different receptor-binding polymorphisms. The 1918 pandemic virus was circulating for at least 4 mo in the United States before it was recognized epidemiologically in September 1918.
The causes of the unusually high mortality in the 1918 pandemic were not explained by the pathological and virological parameters examined.
These findings have important implications for understanding the origins and evolution of pandemic influenza viruses.
Frederick Lamont Gates, born in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, MN, December 17, 1886, married, September 11, 1917 in Duluth, St. Louis County, MN, Dorothy Olcott, born June 20, 1891, daughter of William James and Fannie (Bailey) Olcott.
His father said he was “born for study and inquiry and disclosed this at an early age”. Ill health disqualified him from athletic activities and his life was centered wholly on activities of the mind. He was accepted at Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago and, after a year and a half at Chicago, he chose to continue his studies at Yale. He stood at the head of his class, received the Phi Beta Kappa key, and graduated Summa Cum Laude in 1909. The same year, he entered John Hopkins Medical School, and graduated with highest honors four years later. He was recommended for research work at the Rockefeller Institute and took a position on its staff.
On the declaration of war in 1917, Mr. Gates volunteered for the U.S. Army Medical Corps, was accepted and commissioned a first lieutenant. He was assigned to duty on the Rockefeller Institute staff where he gave lectures to military groups selected to attend training there. He was also assigned to visit training camps, in the interest of preventive medicine, and traveled widely. He continued at the institute after the war and his researches, especially those on influenza, received worldwide recognition. His health failed in 1927 and he was required to undertake a less demanding schedule. He continued his research at Harvard and moved his family to Cambridge, MA where he died, June 17, 1933, at age forty-six, after suffering a concussion from a fall. – SOURCE
Frederick Lamont Gates was the son of Frederick Taylor Gates (1853-1923) was the principal business and philanthropic advisor to the major oil industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Sr., from 1891 to 1923.
In 1901, Frederick T. Gates designed the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), of which he was board president.
Yale Obituary Record Frederick Lamont Gates, B.A. 1909* Born December 17, 1886, in Minneapolis, Minn. Died June 17,1933, in Boston, Main Father, Rev. Frederick Taylor Gates (B. A. University of Rochester 1877, M.A, 1879; Rochester Theological Seminary 1880$ ULD. University of Chicago 1911); a Baptist minister; business and benevolence manager for John D. Rockefeller; president of Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research; chairman of General Education Board; son of Rev. GranviUe Gates and Sarah Jane (Bowers) Gates, of Maine, N. Y. Mother, Emma Lucia (Cahoon) Gates; daughter of Lyman Hall and Cordelia Lucinda (Teague) Cahoon, of Racine, Wis. Montclair (N. J.) High School; attended University of Chicago 1905-06 as member of Class of 1909. Entered Yale as a Sophomore; Andrew D. White prize in history Sophomore year; philosophical oration appointment and honors in physical sciences Senior year; member University Orchestra, Alpha Delta Phi, Sigma Xi, and Phi Beta Kappa. M.D. Johns Hopkins 1913 (member Alpha Omega Alpha); connected with Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York City, 1913-1929^ as fellow 1913-14, assistant in Department of Physiology and Pharmacology 1914-17, associate 1917-1921, and associate member 1921-29; had since been research fellow and lecturer in Department of Physiology at Harvard; member China Medical Board of Rockefeller Foundation 1916-1929 and of its commission to China 1915; commissioned First Lieutenant, Medical Reserve Corps, April 17, 1917; assigned to Base Hospital, Fort Riley, Kans., in December, 1917, and to Camp Taylor, Ky., in November, 1918; received discharge January 18,1919; contributed to Journal of Medical Research, Journal of Experimental Physiology•, and Science; member Harvey Society, Optical Society of America, Society of Experimental Physiology, and American Association for the Advancement of Science. Married September 11, 1917, in Duluth, Minn., Dorothy Olcott (B.A. Smith 1913; M.A. Columbia 1917), daughter of William James Olcott (Ph.B. University of Michigan 1883, M.S. 1884, honorary M.A. 1908) and Fanny (Bailey) Olcott. Children: Olcott, Barbara, Frederick Taylor, ad, Dorothy, and Deborah. Death due to a fractured skull and brain hemorrhage. Cremation took place. Survived by wife, five children, three brothers* Franklin H. Gates, ’12, Russell C. Gates, ’14, and Percival T. Gates (B.A. Yale College 119 University of Chicago 192a), and three sisters, Alice Gates Pudney, wife of William K. Pudney (M.D. Columbia 1917), of Montclair, N. J., Lucia Gates Hooper, wife of Leverett F, Hooper (B.A. Harvard 1915), of New York City, and Grace Gates Mitchell, wife of Morns R. Mitchell (B.A. University of Delaware 1919), of Montclair. – SOURCE (PDF) – P.118-119
Your doctor knows nothing about nutrition? Ask him confidentially and he’ll probably confess he had only one course in nutrition. And there’s a reason.
Back in the late 19th century American medicine was in a deplorable state. To the credit of the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Institute for Medical Research, funds were made available to staff teaching hospitals and to eradicate some pretty horrible diseases. On the other hand, a chemical-based medicine was introduced and the medical profession cut its ties with naturopathy. Cancer statistics tell you the rest.
For the moment we want only to note that the impetus for reorganizing medical education in the United States came from John D. Rockefeller, but the funds were channeled through a single member of The Order.”
“One day in 1912 Frederick T. Gates of Rockefeller Foundation had lunch with Abraham Flexner of Carnegie Institution. Said Gates to Flexner:
”What would you do if you had one million dollars with which to make a start in reorganizing medical education in the United States?”
“Flexner’s reply, however, to the effect that any funds — a million dollars or otherwise — could most profitably be spent in developing the Johns Hopkins Medical School, struck a responsive chord in Gates who was already a close friend and devoted admirer of Dr. William H. Welch, the dean of the institution.”
Welch was President of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research from 1901, and a Trustee of the Carnegie Institution from 1906.”
”There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing, the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as wars, revolutions, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can NEVER be the result of a conspiracy, they can never result from premeditated planned group action. An excellent example is the Kennedy assassination when, within 9 hours of the Dallas tragedy, TV networks announced the shooting was NOT a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that a negative proposition can never be proven, and that the investigation had barely begun.
Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.
Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 for an official history of World War Two. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books which embarrassed the Establishment after World War One. The reader will be interested to know that The Order we are about to investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, to create both the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association (most economists were then more historians than analysts) under their terms, with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White was a member of The Order and the first President of the American Historical Association.”
It is true that in early 1918, before the first cases of Spanish flu were reported at Camp Funston at Fort Riley in Kansas in March 1918 ( here ), a trial of a vaccine made with inactivated strains of the meningococcus bacteria ( here ) was conducted on military volunteers at the same location. According to a report published in July 1918 by Frederick L. Gates, First Lieutenant of the Medical Corps, U.S. Army ( here ), the experimental vaccine created in the laboratory of The Rockefeller Institute was given to “about 3,700 volunteers” and the doses “rarely caused more than the mildest local and general reactions”, which included “headache, joint pains, and nausea” and in some cases, diarrhea.
While virology would not emerge until the 1930s, physicians could identify many of the bacteria causing the deadly pneumonias that were killing their patients, but without antibiotics they could do little to fight the infections. Thus, as the epidemic struck their camps, hospitals, ships, ports, or divisions, many medical officers documented what they saw, as if trying to define that which they could not control.
IF YOU’RE STILL NOT CONVINCED, YOU HAVEN’T FULLY READ THE REUTERS PIECE, IT DOES A GREAT JOB AT CONFIRMING EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO DEBUNK:
“Stephen Kissler, Postdoctoral Fellow of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health ( here ) told Reuters via phone that the vaccine used at Camp Funston “was derived from existing meningitis strains” that were potentially inactivated with heat. He saw no reason to conclude a vaccine, which was made with existent, inactivated strains of meningitis bacteria from people who had previously been sick with meningitis, had “caused a major epidemic.”
As explained here the Office of Medical History of the U.S. Army Medical Department, meningococcal meningitis, which causes inflammation around the surrounding tissues of the brain ( here ), “has always been one of the most serious and important of the various communicable diseases of man” among soldiers. “It becomes more common when young people are together in closed quarters like dormitories or barracks,” so “the military had a good reason to test a vaccine against meningitis,” Burke said.
It was also not rare to research and test vaccines at this time in history given it was an “early era of microbiology,” Burke added. “The Fort Riley meningococcal vaccine experiment was not an unusual scientific undertaking” and “Many [bacterial] vaccine trials were going on all over the U.S. around 1918.”
The article “The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918” by John M. Eyler provides more context ( here ). For example, during the 1918 flu pandemic itself, experimental bacterial vaccines for influenza were used in army camps as well as on workers, including 275,000 employees of the U.S. Steel Company ( here , here , here ). The cause of the pandemic was unknown at the time, explaining why bacterial vaccines were being tested in the hopes they might work on this new deadly disease.” – REUTERS
And this, my friends, was the kick-off for today’s Military BioTech Complex that I’ve just biographed. This was just an earlier Great Reset, like they regularly do. You have the military, the Rockefellers, the experiments, all the motives and the weapons, they assemble themselves like the Transformers. Only malfeasance or a severe cognitive-dissonance seizure could blame this on coincidence rather than conspiracy. Because if it’s not intentional, it’s coincidental, and you should know by know this is not a place for coincidence theories.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Life and existence are two separate things and the Vatican is doing a bait and switch on behalf of Klaus Schwab. Humanism and Transhumanism are mutually exclusive, to advance in one is to leave the other, and if you don’t make your own wise choices, The Borg will, on your behalf.
And this just one of many examples of Transhumanist programs and activities going on under Vatican’s roof. Here are a few more samples:
A Vatican official, Bishop Nunzio Galantino, on Tuesday denied reports that the Catholic Church is at risk of a financial default as a result of plummeting contributions.
In an interview with the Italian bishops’ conference’s newspaper Avvenire, Bishop Galantino, who is in charge of the Vatican’s investments, said “there is no threat of collapse or default here.”
Italian investigative journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi on October 21 published an investigative book titled “Giudizio Universale (Universal Judgment),” in which he reports that decades of mismanagement, shady deals and radically decreasing donations will result in the Vatican going bankrupt by 2023.
The book states that following the global rash of sexual abuse lawsuits, donations to the Vatican have dropped to $56.9 million in 2018, compared with $112.7 million in 2006.
The Vatican channels the contributions from Catholics into the Peter’s Pence collection, to be used by the pope for charity and emergency assistance; and a fund supporting the work of the Vatican. Nuzzi’s book reports that an estimated 58% of the donations to the Peter’s Pence collection were used “not for works of charity, but to fill in the (financial) gaps of the (Roman) Curia,” following the Church’s heavy losses in numerous court cases.
Recently, a new scandal has emerged, suggesting the Vatican has been speculating on a large-scale with funds from the Peter’s Pence collection – which will likely result in an even greater decline in contributions.
But Bishop Galantino insists the Vatican is doing fine, and that “there is only the need for a spending review, which is what we’re doing.”
“The transHuman Code Meeting of The Minds” originated in Davos, Switzerland in 2015 where global leaders assembled to discuss the impending impact of the 4thIndustrial Revolution.
Yahoo! Finance
This is a book that delivers a long-term view on how to manage the convergence of humanity and technology. Only David and Carlos have the foresight and network to bring together a stellar group of experts on the socio-political impact of techno-economical transformations happening on a daily basis all over the world. This is indeed a great platform to engage us all in a conversation that is so critical to our future!
Danil Kerimi – Head of the Technology Industries for the World Economic Forum where he facilitates the critical global dialogue between government, business and academic leaders on the future of technology
NEW YORK and LONDON, Jan. 23, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — The TransHuman Code is the first interactive “knowledge platform” for managing the convergence of humanity and technology, its impact on our daily lives, and the long-term implications. This dynamic initiative will be introduced on January 24 at Davos, Switzerland during the world’s foremost assembly of international leaders.
…
“The TransHuman Code Davos Gathering of Minds,” hosted by CBS Inside Edition Host, Megan Alexander, will bring together global leaders in technology, business, finance, government, academia and the media for an exclusive event. The event will feature an interactive discussion amongst the assembled leading experts including:
Alex Pentland | Director, MIT Connection Services and Human Dynamics Lab
Humanity 2.0 and the Vatican discuss the transHuman Code
VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) – With the support of the Pontifical Lateran University (PLU), globalists met in Vatican City on Monday to discuss the best path forward with humanity and technology in harmony.
The meeting has been described as an “exclusive gathering of technology, corporate, finance, government, academic, ecclesiastic and media leaders … to catalyze awareness and establish the best path forward with humanity and technology in harmony.”
Sponsored by OISTE Foundation, Humanity 2.0 held the meeting titled “Technology and Human Flourishing” with the support of the PLU at the Collegio Teutonico, which is adjacent to St. Peter’s Square.Humanity 2.0 developed in collaboration with the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (DPIHD).GabTweet
Pope Francis created the DPIHD in August 2016 with the mission to promote “the integral development of the person in light of the Gospel and in line with the Social Doctrine of the Church.”
The DPIHD operates “by means of a network of interactions that involve local Churches, Episcopal Conferences, the other organs of the Roman Curia, the international organizations (both Catholic and non-Catholic), the relations with governments and supranational organizations,” according to the mission statement.
Humanity 2.0’s vision is defined by five beliefs, including a belief that we are one species with a collective responsibility for shaping our future and that challenges to humanity must be met by coordinated action.
The organization attempts to achieve its ends in three ways, the third way being to bring aboard “religious organizations who are aligned in tackling the respective impediment and investing in the solution.”
The meeting at the Collegio Teutonico on Monday centered around talks by Carlos Moreira and David Fergusson and their co-authored book, The transHuman Code: How to Program Your Future, as well as Fr. Philip Larrey and his book, Artificial Humanity: An Essay on the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.
Moreira is an active leader and member of several institutions and organizations focused on the advancement of technological innovation and preservation of human identity.
Fergusson is a corporate finance leader specializing in global mergers and acquisitions.
Father Philip Larrey is a Catholic priest who holds the chair of Logic and Epistemology at the Pontifical Lateran University in the Vatican and the chairman of Humanity 2.0.Fergusson is a corporate finance leader specializing in global mergers and acquisitions.
What the authors propose is that if we start the design of the transHuman future from a human perspective, making sure that technology will inspire revolution or evolution, then we can ensure humanity continues to thrive. The transHuman Code tries to center humanity in the emerging tension between a human-controlled or a machine-controlled world. Moreira and Fergusson examine how humans can maintain the uniqueness and the humanity of this brave new world.
Larrey’s book, Artificial Humanity, offers a philosophical discussion on artificial intelligence.
OISTE, the sponsor of Humanity 2.0’s recent gathering in Vatican City, has a consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN and is an accredited member of the non-commercial Users Stakeholders Group of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. • ChurchMilitant.com
“In The transHuman Code, authors Carlos Moreira and David Fergusson ask, “Are we building a better future for humanity with the help of magnificent technology or are we instead building a better future of better technology at the expense of humanity?” We must learn to put humanity first instead of getting caught up in the promise of technological advancement. Humans have been able to adapt, morph, and compromise in every situation we have faced over the centuries and have been able to maintain dominance. We must approach the promises of technology with the same adaptability.
What the authors propose is that if we start the design of the transHuman future from a human perspective, making sure that technology will inspire revolution or evolution, then we can ensure humanity continues to thrive. The transHuman Code tries to center humanity in the emerging tension between a human-controlled or a machine-controlled world. Moreira and Fergusson examine how humans can maintain the uniqueness and the humanity in this brave new world.” – https://www.transhumancode.com/
WISeKey (SIX Swiss Exchange: WIHN) is a leading global cybersecurity company currently deploying large scale digital identity ecosystems for people and objects using Blockchain, AI and IoT respecting the Human as the Fulcrum of the Internet. WISeKey Microprocessors Secures the pervasive computing shaping today’s Internet of Everything. WISeKey IoT has an install base of over 1.5 billion microchips in virtually all IoT sectors (connected cars, smart cities, drones, agricultural sensors, anti-counterfeiting, smart lighting, servers, computers, mobile phones, crypto tokens etc.). WISeKey is uniquely positioned to be at the edge of IoT as our semiconductors produce a huge amount of Big Data that, when analyzed with Artificial Intelligence (AI), can help industrial applications to predict the failure of their equipment before it happens.
Our technology is Trusted by the OISTE/WISeKey’s Swiss based cryptographic Root of Trust (“RoT”) provides secure authentication and identification, in both physical and virtual environments, for the Internet of Things, Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence. The WISeKey RoT serves as a common trust anchor to ensure the integrity of online transactions among objects and between objects and people. – GLOBENEWSWIRE.com
LOOKS FAMILIAR?
WISeKey, OISTE.ORG and the Trust Protocol Association to Help Health Organizations Deploy a Covid-19 Trusted Health Passport on the Blockchain
WISeKey, OISTE.ORG and the Trust Protocol Associationto Help Health Organizations Deploy a Covid-19 Trusted Health Passport on the Blockchain
The project is under the supervision of a new association, the Trust Protocol Association, established last January as an independent, not-for-profit membership organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland
Geneva, Switzerland – May 22, 2020 – The purpose of the Trust Protocol Association is to establish a new Trust Protocol for the Internet combining traditional Cryptographic Trust Models with distributed blockchain ledgers creating a new Global Trust platform.
The mission of the Association is to create an ecosystem of governmental, technology and business partners, each representing a node with the possibility to have multiple nodes per country.
Blockchain-based solutions aim to override the need for a central authority by distributing information previously held in a centralized repository across a network of participating nodes. While Blockchain is not owned by one individual or organization, anyone with an internet connection (and access, in the case of private Blockchains) can make use of it, help maintain and verify it. When a transaction is made on a Blockchain, it is added to a group of transactions, known as ‘blocks”. Each block of transactions is added to the database in a chronological, immutable chain. Each block is stamped with a unique cryptographic code, which ensures that records are not counterfeited or changed. The Blockchain approach lacks legal validity in most jurisdictions, which only recognize the digital signatures as equally valid that manuscript signatures when generated using traditional PKI technology.
The Trust Protocol Association is working with a number of members in USA, Asia MEA and Europe to deploy a fully compliant Trusted Health Passport using the WIShelter Version 2, a new application in the WISeID App ecosystem, designed to remediate risks during the global COVID-19 lockdown period. Using their digital identity secured by WISeKey, users will be able to geo-localize other certified users and stablish secure communications. If needed, the app allows users to prove to local authorities that they are respecting the stay at home recommendations. To ensure the data privacy, each user’s Personal Identifiable Information is kept encrypted and never disclosed without their consent. WIShelter app is based on WISeID, WISekey’s Digital Identity platform and combines in a unified solution a suite of web services and mobile applications:
The WISeID Account: a digital identity with a unique credential that can be used to access all of WISeKey’s services and other affiliated services
A Digital Certificate : offers strong authentication and digital signatures which can be also used to protect users’ email and communication during Teleworking
A Personal Encrypted Vault : provides secure storage of confidential information, including the medical details
The new features of the WIShelter Version 2 include a full health digital certificate that is imported into the App by connecting it to the medical record of the patient issued by a bona fide qualified health certification program on which Doctors and Medical Facilities can join. The App’s secure QR Code provides access to the user’s WISeID Health Card. The QR Code is displayed in three colors: – Green: the person is healthy – Yellow: the person’s health is compromised – Red: the person has a health problem
The WISeID Health Card includes important medical details like blood type, allergies, and other medical conditions, and can be enriched with digital health certificates, as it’s the case of the result of an official COVID-19 test. This simple method to display the Health Card could allow law enforcement and other public services to apply controls during the de-escalation phase of the pandemic. All health details are encrypted and linked to the user’s identity, represented by a Digital Certificate. Encrypting this data is important to protect user’s confidential information and ensuring that the user is staying up-to-date with its health credentials, and is in compliance with all privacy requirements, like the European General Data Protection Regulation (Directive 95/46/EC), known as GDPR, the primary law regulating how companies protect EU citizens’ personal data. WISeKey is a fully Qualified Trust Service Provider (TSP) under eIDAS, the updated EU regulations dealing with trusted eID and electronic transactions and Webtrust.ORG.
WISekey is currently working with several governments and health organizations to add functionalities to the WIShelter app such as the ability for users to upload and digitally certify the results of their COVID-19 test. These functionalities will allow local governments to enable healthy/immured persons to safely return to their jobs thus reduce the economic impact of the epidemic while protecting the high-risk population by controlling the spread of this infectious disease. For almost two decades, WISeKey has contributed to the design and implementation of global standards for the internet’s long-missing identity layer: decentralized, point-to-point exchange of information about people, organizations, or things – enabled by blockchain and certified by cryptographic Root of Trust. WISeKey’s technology, products and services can be used by individuals and organizations.
To that effect, WISekey has launched an enhanced version of WISeID, adding easy to use strong authentication and email security capabilities that can remediate threats like phishing, ransomware or identity theft. Strong Authentication is a mechanism able to enhance security by complementing the traditional username/password access to online services with additional security factors, like biometry, hardware tokens and one-time-passwords. Additionally, secure eMail techniques allow confidential messages to be exchanged encrypted, and to affix a “digital signature” to the outgoing email, ensuring the recipient that the message comes from a genuine person and that has not been manipulated in the way.
About WISeKey
WISeKey (NASDAQ: WKEY; SIX Swiss Exchange: WIHN) is a leading global cybersecurity company currently deploying large scale digital identity ecosystems for people and objects using Blockchain, AI and IoT respecting the Human as the Fulcrum of the Internet. WISeKey microprocessors secure the pervasive computing shaping today’s Internet of Everything. WISeKey IoT has an install base of over 1.5 billion microchips in virtually all IoT sectors (connected cars, smart cities, drones, agricultural sensors, anti-counterfeiting, smart lighting, servers, computers, mobile phones, crypto tokens etc.). WISeKey is uniquely positioned to be at the edge of IoT as our semiconductors produce a huge amount of Big Data that, when analyzed with Artificial Intelligence (AI), can help industrial applications to predict the failure of their equipment before it happens. Our technology is Trusted by the OISTE/WISeKey’s Swiss based cryptographic Root of Trust (“RoT”) provides secure authentication and identification, in both physical and virtual environments, for the Internet of Things, Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence. The WISeKey RoT serves as a common trust anchor to ensure the integrity of online transactions among objects and between objects and people. For more information, visit www.wisekey.com .
About the Trust protocol Association The purpose of the Trust Protocol Association (the Association) is to establish a new Trust Protocol for the Internet by combining traditional Cryptographic Trust Models with permissioned Blockchain transactions through strong authentication provided by the OISTE WISeKey Root of Trust, and create a new Global Trust platform and an ecosystem of governmental, technology and business partners, each representing a certification node with the possibility of having multiple certifications nodes per country. The Association promotes the use of Blockchain technologies internationally, facilitate the rapid adaptation and on-boarding of Blockchain-based solutions, foster stronger collaboration between the public, private and academic sectors.
Founded in Switzerland in 1998, OISTE was created with the objectives of promoting the use and adoption of international standards to secure electronic transactions, expand the use of digital certification and ensure the interoperability of certification authorities’ e-transaction systems. The OISTE Foundation is a not for profit organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, regulated by article 80 et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code. OISTE is an organization in special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) and belongs to the Not-for-Profit constituency (NPOC) of the ICANN. http://www.oiste.org/.
Mission: transfer the control and management of technologies dealing with digital identities to neutral authorities working for the public interest.
Vision: an Internet where users engage in online transactions and communications under systems of digital identity management that offer robust protection against fraud and theft, while protecting the fundamental right to privacy.
You see, symbiosis is a concept that refers to the cooperation for survival between two living organisms, man-machine symbiosis is an oxymoron.
Dead matter cannot function like living matter and substitute it. Schwab’s AIs and implants, al the goddamn Borg, is nothing but a pirate’s wooden leg connecting to Internet.
The ‘thingification’ of people is but gradual extinction.
It’s called TRANShumanism, because it departs from Humanism and life, it drops a few nukes on its, way out and outside the departure location only death awaits. Prolonged existence too, maybe, but the further into Transhumanism you go, the closer to a dead object / device status you get.
LATER UPDATE:
TRANSHUMANISM: RICH DEGENERATES WHO HAVEN’T GROWN OVER THEIR FEAR OF DEATH
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
In an increasingly baby-minded world, I had to pull out the crayons again. I feel embarrassed for the human race that I have to explain this and so many people need to see it.
“On the legal blog Dorf on Law, in an article by Sherry F. Colb, a Cornell University law professor. Colb argues that, because eugenics is defined as “a movement . . . aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race,” it is inapt to call selective abortions “eugenic,” because a woman who chooses abortion after a Down-syndrome diagnosis “understands that she is thereby doing virtually nothing to alter the human genome.”
But Colb ignores another meaning of the adjective “eugenic”: “relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring.” Though the term “eugenics” undoubtedly evokes a program of controlled, selective breeding to reshape a population, it is entirely accurate to describe as “eugenic” an individual choice to eliminate a child deemed “unfit,” even in just one instance.
Colb concludes with this argument:
What if everyone pregnant with a DS fetus terminates? What then? Do we want to live in a world in which DS people are extinct? No. There is no question but that people with DS, like people with all sorts of other challenges, enrich our world and teach us to tolerate those who differ from ourselves. It would indeed be sad if the world contained no one with DS. But just because we want a group of people in the world does not entitle us to conscript individuals to create such people in their wombs.
But of course, forbidding abortions chosen on the basis of disability cannot rightly be described as “conscripting individuals to create such people in their wombs.” When a pregnant mother receives a prenatal Down-syndrome diagnosis, she has already created a human being who might have Down syndrome (though such tests have been known to be wrong). Forbidding a woman from actively killing her unborn child based on its disability is not the same thing as conscripting her into creating that child.
That defenders of legal abortion are reduced to such arguments is telling. In the end, it doesn’t matter much whether we can rightly label certain abortions “eugenic” or whether one side of the debate has the most accurate history of racial discrimination and population control.
What matters is that, in Ohio, lawmakers have laid down a marker establishing that it is wrong and therefore that it is now illegal to end the life of an unborn human being simply because he or she is diagnosed with a chromosomal abnormality. Supporters of abortion refuse to respond to this argument, because to do so would expose the logic of all abortion, which, regardless of disabilities, grants some human beings the power to declare the lives of others not worth living.”
Gates conducted an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS to explain the rational for his charitable contributions:
MOYERS: You could have chosen any field, any subject, any issue and poured billions into it and been celebrated. How did you come to this one? To global health?
GATES: The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population… reproductive health.
And maybe the most interesting thing I learned is this thing that’s still surprising when I tell other people which is that, as you improve health in a society, population growth goes down.
You know I thought it was…before I learned about it, I thought it was paradoxical. Well if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.
And the fact that health leads parents to decide, “okay, we don’t need to have as many children because the chance of having the less children being able to survive to be adults and take care of us, means we don’t have to have 7 or 8 children.” Now that was amazing.
So Gates is interested in improving health because he believes that would reduce the amount of people on the planet. His goal is not to help people but to eliminate them. He states that if people are healthy that they will want fewer kids but he doesn’t offer evidence to support this and frankly it doesn’t appear to make much sense. Why would a sick person who could die at anytime want to have kids if they knew there was a good possibility they wouldn’t be around to support the child? Does Gates really believe this or is this just his cover story so not arouse any suspicions about his true motivations? Gates also admits that he notes that he previously shared the opinion with Malthus that health should not be improved because that would encourage population growth. If you remember Malthus wanted villages built near sewage to encourage disease. Now he doesn’t disagree with Malthus that population growth is bad he only disagrees on how to reduce population.
I don’t believe that Gates’ actually thinks that improving health reduces population. I think that he is using global health as a stalking horse to eliminate population. Gates’ could donate money to provide basic healthcare to poor Africans like Doctors Without Borders, he could build hospitals, and he could help provide low cost health insurance to the millions who can’t afford it. Bill Gates money could be spent improving access to safe drinking water and providing sanitation services. His money is spent on any of this noble The elites of the world choose to spend the tax dollars of the American middle class on contraceptives, abortions, and vaccines. Kenyan gynecologist Dr. Stephen Karanja observed, “USAID and other Non-Governmental organizations funded mainly by the U.S. Government have targeted our people with a ruthlessness that makes one shudder. Our health sector has collapsed. Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria, whose treatment costs a few cents, in health facilities whose shelves are stocked to the roof with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, most of which are supplied with American money.”
“Many are maimed for life. The hypertension, blood clots, heart failure, liver pathology and menstrual disorders cannot be treated due to the poor health services…. Malaria is epidemic in Kenya. Mothers die from this disease every day because there is no chloroquine, when instead we have huge stockpiles of contraceptives.” – SOURCE – I used this not for authoritativeness, but for logic and because it very much speaks my mind too. And I fact-checked it.
IT WORKS BOTH WAYS, AS YOU BALANCE AND STEER IT. SOURCE
THE AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON IT
Population Control is GENOCIDE
(This interview with Sister Aset was first published in Global Africa Pocket News (GAP News) Vol. 1, No. 7 Sept. 1994. It was submitted to Caribbean Times in January ’96 but never published) #14 SOURCE
What is population control?
The United Nations Population Fund would like us to believe that it is a benign process of ‘voluntary’ application of ‘family planning’ to control the ‘rate of growth’ of the world’s ‘sustainable’ population within ‘manageable’ levels in relation to the amount of ‘food’ and ‘consumable goods’ the earth can produce. That is as far from the truth as the divide between the very richest and the very poorest people on this planet. The truth is that population control is the process by which Global Europe (whites, Caucasians, Aryans) seeks to guarantee its perpetual domination of the rest of the human race because of its own fear of annihilation. According to Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing, it is this fear based on the fact of their numerical minority status and their low level of surface melanin, which drives them to commit the most atrocious crimes against humanity, in particular, the most feared nation of all, Global Africa (Black people).
Is it true that the world is over crowded and moving towards an unsustainable population level?
No. Absolutely not. Overcrowding can be measured by one method only that is whether there are too many people to fit in the space available. The most densely populated continent area in the world is Europe, (see GAP News #7, Population Figures), but do Europeans think there are too many people in Europe? Of course not. But they believe there are too many African and Asian people in Europe. That is not overcrowding that is racism.
What about all those starving Africans? If they can’t feed themselves surely, there must be too many of them.
No, that is not the case. Those “starving Africans”, Asians and other “Third World” peoples produce most of the world’s surplus food. Most of the food they produce are luxury or raw, unprocessed goods which are sold cheaply as exports and re-imported as expensive processed foods. The main reason though, why there appears to be not enough food to go around is not because the so-called third world cannot feed itself, it is because Global Europe, less than 25% of the world’s population uses or wastes over 80% of the worlds food goods (consumables) but produces less than 15% of it. So the “third world” make up 75% of the world’s population, produce 85% of the world’s consumables and consume less than 20% of all that is consumed. If they consumed as much as they produced, Global Europe would be dying of starvation, not Africa.
Is the African population expanding too rapidly?
Let’s look at the evidence: After being systematically depopulated for 400 years, Africa is now the least populated continent in the world with a density one-sixth of Europe’s. Africa’s death rate is more than twice that of Europe. To be level pegging, Africa’s death rate should also be one-sixth of Europe’s. When these dishonest people talk about population they make reference only to birth rate. They show that Africa’s birth rate is nearly three times that of the European rate, but forget to mention that the infant mortality rate is 5 times higher in Africa. They never talk about density except in reference to Asia or to say that “Rwanda is the most densely populated country in Africa”. They forget to say it was a quarter the density of any country in Europe. They forget also, to tell you that in order for Africa to get to the same population density as Europe (is Europe overpopulated?) the African birth-rate has to be more than 12 times that of Europe (6 times if the death rate becomes equal) for a whole generation. So, when they talk about “equalizing” or reducing the African birth rate, while at the same time nurturing conflict, manufacturing famine, and importing disease to increase the death rate further, you begin to get the picture. If the birth rates were made equal and everything else remained the same as they are now, each time Europe’s population doubled Africa’s population would be halved. The world’s population may become “stabilized” as they like to say it, but the percentage ratio between the nations would continue changing to their advantage. (See GAP News #5) It is understandable then, why Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, a senior Vatican official cried that if the precepts of the UN Population Control Conference in Cairo were to be implemented the world would experience “the most disastrous massacre in history”. He should know, it was his organization, the Roman Catholic church, which sanctified the trade in African lives, resulting in the death of over 200 million people. Some of the liars say that deaths in war time make very little difference to the population growth because after a war birth rates usually increase to compensate. Certainly, that is true when mostly male soldiers are killed. But when two thirds of the female population are murdered, like the Rwandan slaughter, it would take 4 or 5 generations to get back to where it was before the war. And that is the key. The women. Global Europe have done everything they could to destroy our people but we are still here and still strong. They are now trying, through an apparently limitless line of African and Asian female mercenaries, posing as leaders, to co-opt us. To convince us that regardless of our particular environmental conditions, contrary to our own community’s social and economic needs, it would be in our individual interests to have fewer or no children at all. Women have the power to determine the fertility or sterility of our nation. It is imperative that we do not allow ourselves to be misled into committing generational suicide. We carry the future of our nation in our hands. We are here because those before us gave us life. Let us give life to our children. We deserve to live.
ABORTION FOR EUGENICS: CONSPIRACY OR SIMPLE CONSEQUENCE?
How one answers the question whether abortion is a tool of racial, gender, or disability eugenics depends very much on how the question is asked. Is legalized abortion a eugenicist conspiracy — a deliberate plot on the part of those favoring abortion rights to reduce the number of people of a given race, sex, or disability? Surely not. At the very least, such motivations form no part of the modern argument for abortion rights. Does unrestricted legal abortion-choice produce a disparate impact resulting in disproportionate numbers of abortions ending the lives of minority, female, and disabled fetuses? Undeniably. The aborted are disproportionately Black, female, and disabled. Is the right to abortion sometimes used, by those exercising the abortion-choice, for eugenics purposes — specifically for the purpose of aborting on the basis of race, sex, or disability? Unquestionably. Some — but not all — of the abortion–disparate impact is attributable to intentional decisions to abort based on a trait of the baby that otherwise would be born.
These are three different questions. Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Box keeps them distinct. Murray’s article, in attempting to critique Thomas, tends to smush these separate questions together in a mildly confusing way.
Begin with Justice Thomas’s Box concurrence itself. Thomas’s opinion compiles an impressive and rightly disturbing narrative of evidence that family planning and abortion advocates in the past embraced the desirability of abortion as an instrument for achieving racial eugenics and for culling persons with disabilities from the population. (There appears to be no evidence that early abortion advocates ever favored abortion for gender-eugenics purposes — aborting girls because they are girls.18×18. This is probably most simply explained by the fact that the technology for discerning the fetus’s sex before birth was not readily available until relatively recently. See, e.g., Juan Stocker & Lorraine Evens, Fetal Sex Determination by Ultrasound, 50 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 462, 465 (1977).
Han Chinese academics in Xinjiang in recent years have blamed the high birth rate among the Uyghurs and Kazaks for fostering religious extremism and poverty. According to Zenz’s research, government and academic papers have referred to the birth rate of ethnic minorities in the region as “excessive” and have claimed that the population growth and concentration of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang “weakens national identity and identification with the Chinese Nation-Race (Zhonghua Minzu).”
I’ve been meaning to put this together for this a long time now, but we owe it to An0maly that I arrived to finish it, he tipped me over with this great brand new video, where he kills it in his own terms. I just felt I need to round it up and bring more depth and definition that he can’t possibly achieve in his format. The guy is one of the clearest minds on Internet right now.
Lev, O., Wilfond B.S., and McBride C.M.. 2013. Enhancing children against unhealthy behaviors-an ethical and policy assessment of using a nicotine vaccine. Public Health Ethics 6: 197–206 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lewens, T.2009. Enhancement and human nature: The case of Sandel. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 354–6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Porter, R., ed. 2006. The Cambridge illustrated history of medicine, 326 Cambridge, UK: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge [Google Scholar]
Robertson, J.A.1994. Children of choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press [Google Scholar]
Savulescu, J., and Kahane G.. 2009. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5): 271–90 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Steinbock, B.2002. Sex selection: Not obviously wrong. Hastings Center Report 32: 23–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Willke, J.C.1998. Assisted suicide and euthanasia, 6–8 Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing Co [Google Scholar]
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 