This organization is also tied to Ukraine and its biolabs.

LATEST: OH NOES! #BillGatesBioTerrorist is trending!

NTI Co-Chairman and CEO Ernest J. Moniz and Munich Security Conference (MSC) Chairman Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger convened 19 current and former global leaders and experts for a March 17, 2021 senior leaders tabletop exercise focused on reducing high-consequence biological threats with potentially catastrophic consequences.

This third annual tabletop exercise organized by NTI’s Global Biological Policy and Programs team (NTI | bio) in conjunction with the MSC is part of the MSC’s “Beyond Westlessness: The Road to Munich 2021” campaign. This effort includes several virtual high-level events and initiatives aimed at advancing the security policy dialogue on priorities for a new transatlantic agenda and laying the groundwork for in-person debates in Munich later in the year. This year’s exercise was conducted on a virtual platform due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of COVID-19 provided a pressing backdrop for this exercise, as the ongoing pandemic has highlighted weaknesses in the international architecture for preventing, detecting, and responding to pandemic threats. This is an urgent concern because future pandemics could match or exceed COVID-19’s devastating impact in lost lives and shattered economies. Even more concerning is that there are critical gaps in biotechnology oversight that create opportunities for accidental or deliberate misuse with potentially catastrophic global consequences. This was illustrated in the exercise scenario: a localized bioweapons attack with a genetically engineered monkeypox virus begins in the fictional country of Brinia. Over 18 months, the scenario evolves into a globally catastrophic pandemic, leaving 40% of the world’s population infected and over a quarter billion people dead.

The fictional exercise scenario unfolded gradually through a series of short videos that participants reacted to during a facilitated discussion. Key themes emerged regarding the need to strengthen international pandemic risk assessment and early warning systems; to establish clear triggers for national-level anticipatory response and aggressive early action to slow disease transmission and save lives; to reduce biotechnology risks and enhance oversight of life sciences research; and to promote new and stronger international health security preparedness financing mechanisms.

A full report will be published later in 2021. More information about previous exercises can be found in final reports from 2019 and 2020.

Enter the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).

NTI was founded in 2001 by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and philanthropist Ted Turner. It serves as the Secretariat for the “Nuclear Security Project”, in cooperation with the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Nunn (the “four horsemen of the nuclear apocalypse”) guide the project—an effort to encourage global action to reduce urgent nuclear dangers and build support for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, ultimately ending them as a threat to the world

Wikipedia

The only connection between nuclear threats and monkey-pox?
Bill Gates and The Rockefeller Foundation, see below:

In early 2018, NTI received a $6 million grant from the Open Philanthropy Project. The grant will be used to “help strengthen its efforts to mitigate global biological threats that have increased as the world has become more interconnected.”

Why?

 In January 2018 NTI announced that it had received $250,000 in support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That money will help advance NTI’s efforts in developing a “Global Health Security Index”. The index would analyze a country’s biological programs and policies.

Why?

#BillGatesBioTerrorist: “Ok, What if a bio-terrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports.?”

NTI has received international recognition for work to improve biosecurity, primarily through creating disease surveillance networks. Whether a biological threat is natural or intentional, disease surveillance is a key step in rapid detection and response. Because the response of a health system in one country could have a direct and immediate impact on a neighboring country, or even continent, NTI developed projects that foster cooperation among public health officials across political and geographic boundaries.

In 2003, NTI created the Middle East Consortium for Infectious Disease Surveillance (MECIDS) with participation from Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. MECIDS continues to share official health data and conduct infectious disease prevention training.

NTI also created the Connecting Organizations for Disease Surveillance (CORDS), which in 2013 launched as an independent NGO that links international disease surveillance networks, supported by the World Health Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

This is just the top line of a large and spectacular Board of Directors:

Co-chaired by Moniz, Nunn and Ted Turner, NTI is governed by a Board of Directors with both current and emeritus members from the United States, Japan, India, Pakistan, China, Jordan, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom. They include:

AND BOOM!
The famous Nunn-Lugar duo re-united for yet another mission.
You know them from their previous hit piece, the world famous Nunn–Lugar Act and Pentagon’s activities in the former USSR, including Ukraine’s biolabs.
See: US RAN GRUESOME BIOWEAPON RESEARCH IN OVER 25 COUNTRIES. WUHAN, TIP OF AN ICEBERG

Advisors to the Board of Directors include leading figures in science, business and international security. Advisors to the Board include:

NTI’s staff includes experts in international affairs, nonproliferation, security and military issues, public health, medicine and communications, who have operational experience in their areas of specialty

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest J. Moniz was named co-chair and chief executive officer by the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) in March 2017.  He began serving in June 2017.

An American nuclear physicist who was named as the 13th United States Secretary of Energy by President Barack Obama in May 2013. He is one of the founders of The Cyprus Institute and he was the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Clinton administration.

Before his appointment as Secretary of Energy, he served in a variety of advisory capacities, including at BP, General Electric and the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

WIKIPEDIA

In November 2020, Moniz was named a candidate for Secretary of Energy in the Biden Administration.] However, former Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm was chosen instead.[ Most likely because Moniz has been criticized by environmentalists for his ties to the oil and gas industries. During his career, Moniz has served on the advisory boards for BP, one of the largest oil and gas companies, and General Electric. Prior to his appointment as Secretary of Energy, Moniz served as a trustee of the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center in Saudi Arabia, according to Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, he turned 200% woke-green.

Al Gore would be pleased to hear that “An Inconvenient Truth,” his documentary on global climate change, passed the MIT test. Ernest J. Moniz, director of the MIT Energy Initiative, and Peter H. Stone, professor of climate dynamics at the MIT Center for Global Change Science, declared that Gore did “a fine job framing the problem.”

MIT

Ah, well…

 His parents were both immigrants from Portugal. Ernest Moniz father’s name is under review and mother unknown at this time. We will continue to update details on Ernest Moniz’s family.

Ted Turner is founder and co-chair of NTI, a global security organization working to reduce threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; chairman of the Turner Foundation, Inc., which supports efforts to grow and diversify the movement, conserve land to protect and restore wildlife and biodiversity, catalyze the transition to a clean energy future, and protect and restore water resources; chairman of the United Nations Foundation, which promotes a more peaceful, prosperous and just world; and chairman and co-founder of the Ted’s Montana Grill restaurant chain, which operates 47 locations nationwide.
Turner is also chairman of Turner Enterprises, Inc., a private company, which manages his business interests, land holdings and investments, including the oversight of two million acres in 11 states and in Argentina, and more than 50,000 bison head.

NIT

Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats

REPORT Nov 23, 2021

In March 2021, NTI partnered with the Munich Security Conference to conduct a tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats. The exercise examined gaps in national and international biosecurity and pandemic preparedness architectures—exploring opportunities to improve prevention and response capabilities for high-consequence biological events. Participants included 19 senior leaders and experts from across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe with decades of combined experience in public health, biotechnology industry, international security, and philanthropy.

This report, Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats: Results from the 2021 Tabletop Exercise Conducted in Partnership with the Munich Security Conferencewritten by Jaime M. Yassif, Ph.D., Kevin P. O’Prey, Ph.D., and Christopher R. Isaac, M.Sc., summarizes key findings from the exercise and offers actionable recommendations for the international community.

Exercise Summary

Developed in consultation with technical and policy experts, the fictional exercise scenario portrayed a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that first emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months. Ultimately, the exercise scenario revealed that the initial outbreak was caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight. By the end of the exercise, the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.

Discussions throughout the tabletop exercise generated a range of valuable insights and key findings. Most significantly, exercise participants agreed that, notwithstanding improvements following the global response to COVID-19, the international system of pandemic prevention, detection, analysis, warning, and response is woefully inadequate to address current and anticipated future challenges. Gaps in the international biosecurity and pandemic preparedness architecture are extensive and fundamental, undermining the ability of the international community to prevent and mount effective responses to future biological events—including those that could match the impacts of COVID-19 or cause damage that is significantly more severe.

Report Findings and Recommendations

Discussion among exercise participants led to the following key findings:

(The full findings are available on page 14 of the report.)

  • Weak global detection, assessment, and warning of pandemic risks. The international community needs a more robust, transparent detection, evaluation, and early warning system that can rapidly communicate actionable information about pandemic risks.
  • Gaps in national-level preparedness. National governments should improve preparedness by developing national-level pandemic response plans built upon a coherent system of “triggers” that prompt anticipatory action, despite uncertainty and near-term costs—in other words, on a “no-regrets” basis.
  • Gaps in biological research governance. The international system for governing dual-use biological research is neither prepared to meet today’s security requirements, nor is it ready for significantly expanded challenges in the future. There are risk reduction needs throughout the bioscience research and development life cycle.
  • Insufficient financing of international preparedness for pandemics. Many countries around the world lack financing to make the essential national investments in pandemic preparedness.

To address these findings, the report authors developed the following recommendations:

(The full recommendations are available on page 22 of the report.)

  1. Bolster international systems for pandemic risk assessment, warning, and investigating outbreak origins
    • The WHO should establish a graded, transparent, international public health alert system.
    • The United Nations (UN) system should establish a new mechanism for investigating high-consequence biological events of unknown origin, which we refer to as a “Joint Assessment Mechanism.”
  2. Develop and institute national-level triggers for early, proactive pandemic response
    • National governments must adopt a “no-regrets” approach to pandemic response, taking anticipatory action—as opposed to reacting to mounting case counts and fatalities, which are lagging indicators.
    • To facilitate anticipatory action on a no-regrets basis, national governments should develop national-level plans that define and incorporate “triggers” for responding to high-consequence biological events.
  3. Establish an international entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances
    • The international community should establish an entity dedicated to reducing the risk of catastrophic events due to accidental misuse or deliberate abuse of bioscience and biotechnology.
    • To meaningfully reduce risk, the entity should support interventions throughout the bioscience and biotechnology research and development life cycle—from funding, through execution, and on to publication or commercialization.
  4. Develop a catalytic global health security fund to accelerate pandemic preparedness capacity building in countries around the world
    • National leaders, development banks, philanthropic donors, and the private sector should establish and resource a new financing mechanism to bolster global health security and pandemic preparedness.
    • The design and operations of the fund should be catalytic—incentivizing national governments to invest in their own preparedness over the long term.
  5. Establish a robust international process to tackle the challenge of supply chain resilience
    • The UN Secretary General should convene a high-level panel to develop recommendations for critical measures to bolster global supply chain resilience for medical and public health supplies.

EXPERIMENT CONCLUSIONS

To learn more about NTI’s previous tabletop exercises at the Munich Security Conference, see our 2019 report, “A Spreading Plague,” and our 2020 report,  “Preventing Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.”

In 2021, I showed that MICROSOFT CREATED BY IBM TO AVOID ANTI-TRUST LAWS. GATES LIKELY JUST A FRONTMAN.
Just as likely, he left a fading enterprise only to front this bigger and more promising business of ‘plandemics’ and great resets. He’s now the face of GAVI and vaccines, which fronts for, the World Bank, the real plandemic writers and directors, as I’ve shown as far as 2020: FINAL EVIDENCE COVID-19 IS A ‘SIMEX’ – PLANNED SIMULATION EXERCISE BY WHO AND WORLD BANK

It was my mistake to put WB and WHO on the same level in that headline, WHO does not exists as an entity with own will and personality, it’s just a drawer of sock-puppets.

As for the World Bank / IMF, they’re ran by our old (anything but) friends… scroll a bit the PDF below and take a look who authors this internal report I snitched from the WB website!

Simpletons cried it’s impossible to set up a global event like a pandemic because no one can align all these countries.
In fact, about 190 countries and governments owe money to WB / IMF and need to borrow more all the time because they run on debt like Twitter. 190 out of less than 200. There is less agreement over how many countries are there than there is about Covid. Because many countries are not recognized by all players, but Bill Gates is recognized as an Overlords spokesperson.
Running human farms on debt is actually how they ended up in a global economic collapse long before Covid, and this is one of the main reasons behind their desperate need for a Great Reset.


Autoimmune mucocutaneous blistering diseases after SARS-Cov-2 vaccination: A Case report of Pemphigus Vulgaris and a literature review

SOURCE

Abstract

Background: Cases of severe autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs) have recently been reported in association with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination.

Aims: To describe a report of oropharyngeal Pemphigus Vulgaris (OPV) triggered by the mRNABNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty®/ Pfizer/ BioNTech) and to analyze the clinical and immunological characteristics of the AIBDs cases reported following the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Methods: The clinical and immunological features of our case of OPV were documented. A review of the literature was conducted and only cases of AIBDs arising after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were included.

Case report: A 60-year old female patients developed oropharyngeal and nasal bullous lesions seven days after the administration of a second dose of the mRNABNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty®/ Pfizer/BioNtech). According to the histology and direct immunofluorescence findings showing the presence of supra-basal blister and intercellular staining of IgG antibodies and the presence of a high level of anti-Dsg-3 antibodies (80 U/ml; normal < 7 U/ml) in the serum of the patients, a diagnosis of oropharyngeal Pemphigus Vulgaris was made.

Review: A total of 35 AIBDs cases triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were found (including our report). 26 (74.3%) were diagnosed as Bullous Pemphigoid, 2 (5.7%) as Linear IgA Bullous Dermatosis, 6 (17.1%) as Pemphigus Vulgaris and 1 (2.9%) as Pemphigus Foliaceus. The mean age of the sample was 72.8 years and there was a predominance of males over females (F:M=1:1.7). In 22 (62.9%) cases, the disease developed after Pfizer vaccine administration, 6 (17.1%) after Moderna, 3 (8.6%) after AstraZeneca, 3 (8.6%) after CoronaVac (one was not specified). All patients were treated with topical and/or systemic corticosteroids, with or without the addition of immunosuppressive drugs, with a good clinical response in every case.

Conclusion: Clinicians should be aware of the potential, though rare, occurrence of AIBDs as a possible adverse event after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, notwithstanding, they should encourage their patients to obtain the vaccination in order to assist the public health systems to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic.

IN CONCLUSION:

When you rob a planet, you need large laundromats for all that doe.

And you also need large numbers of very good Public Relations executives. Which are hard to come by in Disneyland.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

Elon Musk is not trolling Twitter right now, he’s trolling you.
I wonder if “Technocracy Gray” and “NPC Gray” are the same nuance.
You’ll understand if you pay close attention below.

LATER ADDAGIO TO EVERYTHING BELOW

INTRODUCING JOSHUA HALDEMAN, ELON MUSK’S GRANDFATHER WHO WROTE A PAGE OF HISTORY IN CANDA

Joshua N Haldeman, DC: the Canadian Years, 1926-1950

Authors:

Joseph C Keating

Scott Haldeman, University of California, Irvine

Dr. Scott Haldeman is a board certified Neurologist in active clinical practice in Santa Ana, California. He currently is a distinguished Professor at the University of California, the Chairman of the Research Council for the World Federation of Chiropractic and the Founder/President of World Spine Care.
Accomplished in his own right, he also happens to be the uncle of one of the worlds great innovators, Elon Musk. Read how the young Musk spent time on the Haldeman family farm in Saskatchewan. Both Scott’s father and his grandmother (Musk’s great-grandmother) were chiropractors. In fact, Almeda Haldeman became Canada’s first known chiropractor in the early 1900’s.

Source Regina Leader-Post

Abstract

Born in 1902 to the earliest chiropractor known to practice in Canada, Joshua Norman Haldeman would develop national and international stature as a political economist, provincial and national professional leader, and sportsman/adventurer.

A 1926 graduate of the Palmer School of Chiropractic, he would maintain a lifelong friendship with B.J. Palmer, and served in the late 1940s as Canada’s representative to the Board of Control of the International Chiropractors’ Association. Yet, he would also maintain strong alliances with broad-scope leaders in Canada and the United States, including the administrators of the National and Lincoln chiropractic schools.

Haldeman, who would practice chiropractic in Regina for at least 15 years, was instrumental in obtaining, and is credited with composing the wording of, Saskatchewan’s 1943 Chiropractic Act. He served on the province’s first board of examiners and the provincial society’s first executive board.

The following year Dr. Haldeman represented Saskatchewan in the deliberations organized by Walter Sturdy, D.C. that gave rise to the Dominion Council of Canadian Chiropractors, forerunner of today’s Canadian Chiropractic Association. As a member of the Dominion Council he fought for inclusion of chiropractors as commissioned officers during World War II, and participated in the formation of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which he subsequently served as a member of the first board of directors.

Dr. Haldeman also earned a place in the political history of Canada, owing to his service as research director for Technocracy, Inc. of Canada, his national chairmanship of the Social Credit Party during the second world war, and his unsuccessful bid for the national parliament.

His vocal opposition to Communism during the war briefly landed him in jail. His 1950 relocation of his family and practice to Pretoria, South Africa would open a new page in his career: once again as professional pioneer, but also as aviator and explorer. Although he died in 1974, the values he instilled in his son, Scott Haldeman, D.C., Ph.D., M.D. continue to influence the profession.

INTRODUCING TECHNOCRACY INC. AND THEIR TRILATERAL COMMISSION CONNECTION

TECHNOCRACY INC. defines itself as “a non-profit membership organization incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. It is a Continental Organization. It is not a financial racket or a political party. Technocracy Inc. operates only on the North American Continent through the structure of its own Continental Headquarters, Area Controls, Regional Divisions, Sections, and Organizers as a self-disciplined, self-controlled organization. It has no affiliations with any other organization, movement, or association, whether in North America or elsewhere. Technocracy points out that this Continent has the natural resources, the physical equipment, and the trained personnel to produce and distribute an abundance. Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate. Technocracy declares that this Continent has a rendezvous with Destiny; that this Continent must decide between Abundance and Chaos within the next few years. Technocracy realizes that this decision must be made by a mass movement of North Americans trained and self-disciplined, capable of operating a technological mechanism of production and distribution on the Continent when the present Price System becomes impotent to operate. Technocracy Inc. is notifying every intelligent and courageous North American that his future tomorrow rests on what he does today. Technocracy offers the specifications and the blueprints of Continental physical operations for the production of abundance for every citizen.”

In their Introduction to Technocracy, published in 1933, the movement’s leaders declared that the “riff-raff” of outdated social institutions was blocking progress and politicians should be swept aside, just as alchemists and astrologers had previously given way to science. Traditional economics, obsessed with arbitrary pricing mechanisms rather than rational production, was nothing more than the “pathology of debt”.
“In contrast to the devious ways of politics, the fumbling methods of finance and business . . . we have the methods of science and technology,” the movement’s manifesto declared. “Modern common sense is now calling upon physical science and technology to extend the frontiers of their domain.”

Financial Times

“Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission embarked on a New International Economic Order based on Technocracy. Brzezinski called this the “Technetronic Era” in his 1970 book, Between Two Ages. History now reveals the original Trilateral strategy and the means by which they have carried it out” – Patrick Wood

The Trilateral Commission and Technocracy (2013 presentation)

This film below was produced by Technocracy Inc. itself, to document their so called “Operation Columbia”, or, as I call it, “The original Trucker Convoy”.
According to some sources, this operation is what landed Elon Musk’s grandfather in prison. Briefly, for no apparent reason.
We found out about the Rockefeller – Technocracy link.
This movie brings proof the movement was also backed by The Masonic Temple (as admitted at min 6:42).

Drawing direct lines from the info above to the current world order is simpler than toasting a sandwich, but if you have difficulties, use the Search Box on the main page of our website to find all the missing links, they’re all here.

I will continue to add resources and revelations here, so if you come back later, you will most likely find more value and details. However, the bottom line here won’t change: Elon Musk is just another elite silver-spoon fed baby, Bill Gates with a better PR and understanding of human psyche.

The more Technocracy propaganda you watch, the more it overlaps with the Great Reset

Technocracy 101 – self-presentation film
What is Technocracy? 1981 tv panel
Jacques Fresco explains why he left the organization
Fresco’s “Venus Project” is another precursor to Elon Musk’s “Martian Technocracy”. It’s not a coincidence.
Technocracy Origins / Replacing money with energy certificates
Carbon taxes anyone? This is why energy oligarchs like the Rockefellers loved and adopted Technocracy.
Clip from James Corbett’s documentary film “Why Big Oil Conquered the World”

 “[Musk is] like Beelzebub, popping up every time the worlds of government funding, military research and Bilderberg technocrats collide.”

James Corbett

I leave the closing word to our friend James Corbett:

<<When our good friends at DARPA hold a Robotic Challenge, Musk is there.

When the World Government Summit convenes, Musk is the star attraction.

Need someone to pimp transhumanism? Musk is only too happy to explain the potential dangers of AI, and to present his solution: We must merge with the machines so that we’re not “irrelevant” when the robots take over. (And, oh yeah, he happens to have a company that’s working on the first “neural lace” mind-machine merger technology).

Yes, wherever the globalist fat cats meet to discuss technocratic ideas for the future, it’s a safe bet that Musk will be within spitting distance. But the part of this story you may not know is that Musk’s technocratic proclivity is not just a happenstance of character; it’s in his genes. You see, Elon Musk is the grandson of Joshua Haldeman.

Never heard of Joshua Haldeman? He may not be remembered today, but he was a notable figure in his day. An American by birth, Haldeman moved to southwest Saskatchewan in 1906 at the age of four. During his eventful time in the Canadian prairies, Haldeman helped found the province’s first chiropractic association, he “waged a public health campaign against Coca-Cola,” and, depending on whether you trust the Canadian Chiropractic Association or The Financial Times, he was either the “research director” or the “party leader” of the Canadian branch of the Technocracy Party (or maybe both?).

As I’ve discussed on The Corbett Report many times now, technocracy was a movement that gained popularity in the 1930s which sought to construct a system for scientifically engineering society. In the technocrats’ vision, the world would be divided into regional units called “technates” which would be run by “technocrats”: scientists, engineers, economists and others with specialized knowledge of specific technical fields. According to this ideology, economic (and thus societal and even geopolitical) turmoil could be eliminated when consumption and production are perfectly balanced by a cadre of learned technocrats with access to total oversight of all economic data.

The idea was ludicrous. The type of technology that would have been required to properly administer this technocracy—technology for monitoring every industrial process, every product and every transaction in the economy—simply did not exist when the idea was first conceived. But that didn’t stop the technocrats, or the visionary leader of what became Technocracy, Inc., a fully-fledged movement/political party/cult complete with a uniform (a “well-tailored double-breasted suit, gray shirt, and blue necktie, with a monad insignia on the lapel”) and a mandate to salute the movement’s leader on sight.

As viewers of Why Big Oil Conquered the World will know, that leader—Howard Scott—was a charlatan, and he was quickly disgraced when it was discovered he had “padded his resume” and falsely claimed engineering credentials which he did not possess. But that didn’t stop the technocracy movement, which gained a large following in the tumultuous 1930s in the United States and Canada.

The Canadian branch of the party at least gained enough attention to be banned by the government of Canada as a subversive organization of revolutionaries who, it was feared, would attempt to overthrow the government. This caused the disillusioned Haldeman to give up on Canada altogether. He packed up his things and moved his family to South Africa, which is where his grandson, Elon Musk, was born.

This connection is not just tangential. It tells us something about Musk’s roots and his vision. And it tells us that when he is preparing “to build the Martian Technocracy” he is not using that word in a careless way. He knows exactly what it means.>>

The coming technocracy

As 2020 draws to a close, one trend among nations most severely hit by COVID-19 bears some discussion. It is that democracies are evolving into technocracies, by which I mean a form of governance where those with political power are appointed on the basis of their scientific expertise. It would be hard to deny that scientists have assumed a role in political decision making unparalleled in recent memory. The French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy was the first to raise the issue of medical power. He argued that the influence of doctors and scientists was predicated on several misconceptions—that progress in controlling the pandemic was not based on an accumulation of discoveries, but on a series of corrected errors; that there was no scientific consensus on what course of action to take, only a “non-stop quarrel”; and that a “doctrine of hygienics” made health an unhealthy obsession. Initially, I thought he had stretched his critique too far. Scientists didn’t create this pandemic; they didn’t ask to be the servants of political decision making. On the contrary, many who found themselves in front of television cameras looked profoundly uncomfortable. Several had had to endure wholly unfair attacks in more libertarian media. But as the response to the pandemic unfolded, it has become all too clear that the work of scientists has put a powerful constraint on political action. Presidents and prime ministers now fear to step outside the boundaries set by science. Technocracy is replacing democracy.

Technocratic governments are crisis governments. And most western democracies are in crisis and will remain in crisis for several years to come. The grip of scientists will tighten around the neck of governments. We have already seen how mathematical modelling has shaped precautionary “circuit-breaks”, regional tiering, and strategies for testing and case detection. But the reach of science goes beyond the day-to-day management of the outbreak. Tzvetan Todorov, in his 2006 book In Defence of the Enlightenment, asked what kind of intellectual and moral base should we seek to build our communal life in an age where God was dead and our utopias had collapsed. He turned to “the humanist dimension of the Enlightenment” that was based on three principles. First, autonomy—“giving priority to what individuals decide for themselves”. We should seek “total freedom to examine, question, criticise, and challenge dogmas and institutions”. Second, the end purpose of that freedom should be humanism: “Human beings had to impart meaning to their earthly lives.” And third, universality. “The demand for equality followed from the principle of universality.” Knowledge was to be a critical force in this project. And the “emancipation of knowledge paved the way for the development of science”. But science can all too easily be corrupted into scientism, which then becomes “a distortion of the Enlightenment, its enemy not its avatar”. Danger comes when political choices are equated with scientific deductions, when good is only derived from truth. At that moment, a society comes to believe that the world is completely knowable. Experts are sought not only to set political objectives, but also to formulate moral norms. At that moment, democracy is in jeopardy.

Todorov quotes the chemist and politician Antoine Lavoisier—“the true end of a government should be to increase the joy, happiness, and wellbeing of all individuals”. Will the slide towards technocracy, the increasing power of unelected scientific elites, bring better opportunities to achieve such an end? One advantage of technocracy is already clear. The worst excesses of political populism have been blunted. We have all seen how a politics based on the exploitation of discontent, disaffection, and dissatisfaction divides nations and leaves tens of thousands of citizens vulnerable to a pathogen that exploits inequality, accentuates poverty, and abuses the excluded. A technocracy is a powerful corrective force to this manipulation of the political process. But such an evolution carries dangers too. Scientists are not accountable to the publics they hope to serve. The next few years will see the crisis of COVID-19 continue in various social, economic, and political forms. Will the newly fashioned technopolitics be able to adapt to the needs of a battered citizenry? One hopes so. But with a degraded and distrusted political class, the passing of power to science could prove to be a dangerous subversion of what is left of our atrophied democratic values.

Elon Musk exposed by Greg Reese
I rest my case

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

It has happened three days ago already and I’m ashamed such huge news, so relevant to everything I wrote here, have passed by me while I was actually connected to the news flux. But then, imagine what that says about ALL media and social media!


To contextualize better, you need to read most of our latest posts, as far back as you can

Pentagon Purges Leading Advisors From Defense Policy Board

It’s unclear why the Trump administration waited until its final months to shake up the influential group of outside experts advising top Pentagon leaders.

BY JACK DETSCHROBBIE GRAMER | NOVEMBER 25, 2020, 3:51 PM

Several members of the top federal advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Defense have been suddenly pushed out, multiple U.S. officials told Foreign Policy, in what appears to be the outgoing Trump administration’s parting shot at scions of the foreign-policy establishment.

The directive, which the Pentagon’s White House liaison Joshua Whitehouse sent on Wednesday afternoon, removes 11 high-profile advisors from the Defense Policy Board, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; retired Adm. Gary Roughead, who served as chief of naval operations; and a onetime ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman. Rudy De Leon, a former chief operating officer at the Pentagon once considered by then-Defense Secretary James Mattis for a high-level policy role, will also be ousted. 

2017

Also booted in today’s sweep of the board, which is effective immediately, were former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and David McCormick, a former Treasury Department undersecretary during the George W. Bush administration. Both had been added to the board by Mattis in 2017. Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton administration deputy attorney general; Robert Joseph, a chief U.S. nuclear negotiator who convinced Libya to give up weapons of mass destruction; former Bush Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch II; and Franklin Miller, a former top defense official, have also been removed. This story is based on interviews with three current and former officials. In a statement late Wednesday, the Department of Defense confirmed the decision. “As part of long-considered changes, we can confirm that several members of the Department’s Defense Policy Board have been removed,” a defense official said. “We are extremely grateful for their dedicated service, commitment, and contributions to our national security. Future announcements for new members of the board will be made soon.”

The board, overseen by the Pentagon’s top policy official, the undersecretary of defense for policy, serves as a kind of in-house think tank on retainer for top military leaders, providing independent counsel and advice on defense policy. The Defense Policy Board includes former top military brass, secretaries of state, members of Congress, and other senior diplomats and foreign-policy experts. The status of two other members of the panel—or who would replace the ousted members—was not immediately clear.

2017

Officials said that the Trump administration had long tried to remake the board with figures seen as loyal to the president—and outside of the Washington establishment—but had received pushback from recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper and acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Anderson, who sought to keep the board in place to allow for policy continuity. Both Esper and Anderson were removed earlier this month in a purge of Pentagon officials. 

2018: South China Post says Trump is not Kissinger’s homeboy.
Henry Kissinger met Chinese President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on November 2018 ahead of a Trump = Xi meeting. “The 95-year-old veteran US diplomat’s visit is seen as an attempt to reduce tensions amid the US-China trade war and disputes over the South China Sea and Taiwan. Xi will meet US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Argentina in late November.”- South China Morning Post reported

The White House had sought to add Scott O’Grady, a former Air Force fighter pilot shot down over Bosnia, to the board to prepare him to be nominated for a top Pentagon position, as well as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a close ally of President Donald Trump. The administration had also vetoed adding retired Adm. Eric Olson, a former U.S. Special Operations Command chief, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as well as Gordon England, a former deputy secretary of defense during the Bush administration, over perceived anti-Trump ties. 

“If they get treated like that, then who is going to want to volunteer?” a former senior Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Foreign Policy

While the board has no tangible role inside the Pentagon in the policymaking process, it routinely advises senior military leadership on some of the top strategic national security threats facing the United States. The board convened in October for classified discussions on formulating a long-term strategy toward China and deterrence in space, according to a notice from the Federal Register. The meeting included briefings from the CIA, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, and other senior Pentagon policy officials. 

CNN reported it too, not that it matters too much.
Fox News has just confirmed this, only mentioning Kissinger, whiteout any comments and implications. How much more amateurish and autistic can they go?

Reuters repents when it commits acts of actual journalism and factual information, good luck with the video

This, to me, definitively proves where Trump sits on the power map right now. This isn’t an image move from either sides, they both kept shush about it, so it’s Trump sending messages. And it couldn’t be louder, but our cages seem soundproof.

Source: South China Morning Post


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

This is an 100% genuine official quote we dug up from the man that was at the helms of Operation Paperclip, has been Nixon’s Assistant for National Security Affairs and it is said to be Trump’s shadow adviser. This is not even the juiciest detail in the document we obtained from University of Southern California.

Chinese leader Mao Zedong met republican US president Richard Nixon on February 21, 1972, that is no secret to anybody. However, the meeting took place in Chairman Mao’s living quarters and the precise details of the conversation have not been known until more recently, when they have been declassified and published by USC US-China Institute of the Southern California University. They didn’t draw any public attention, and I think they should.

Below we publish the integral declassified transcript of the Beijing meeting between China’s leader and America’s, as made public by SCU. Emphasis added by us on some paragraphs.

2/21/1972-Peking, China- President Richard M. Nixon (2nd from R) confers with Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-tung (C). Others at the historic meeting included (L-R): Premier Chou En-lai; interpreter Tang Wen-sheng; and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser. Photo: Getty Images

February 21, 1972

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

PARTICIPANTS: Chairman Mao Tsetung
Prime Minister Chou En-lai
Wang Hai-jung, Deputy Chief of Protocol
of the Foreign Ministry
Tang Wen-sheng, Interpreter

President Nixon
Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
Winston Lord, National Security Council Staff (Notetaker)

DATE AND TIME: Monday, February 21, 1972- 2:50-3:55 p.m.

PLACE: Chairman Mao’s Residence, Peking

(There were opening greetings during which the Chairman welcomed President Nixon, and the President expressed his great pleasure at meeting the Chairman.)

President Nixon: You read a great deal. The Prime Minister said that you read more than he does.

Chairman Mao: Yesterday in the airplane you put forward a very difficult problem for us. You said that what it is required to talk about are philosophic problems.

President Nixon: I said that because I have read the Chairman’s poems and speeches, and I know he was a professional philosopher. (Chinese laugh.)

Chairman Mao: (looking at Dr. Kissinger) He is a doctor of philosophy?

President Nixon: He is a doctor of brains.

Chairman Mao: What about asking him to be the main speaker today?

President Nixon: He is an expert in philosophy.

Dr. Kissinger: I used to assign the Chairman’s collective writings to my classes at Harvard.

Chairman Mao: Those writings of mine aren’t anything. There is nothing instructive in what I wrote.

(Looking toward the photographers) Now they are trying to interrupt our meeting, our order here.

President Nixon: The Chairman’s writings moved a nation and have changed the world.

Chairman Mao: I haven’t been able to change it. I’ve only been able to change a few places in the vicinity of Peking.

Our common old friend, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, doesn’t approve of this. He calls us communist bandits. He recently issued a speech. Have you seen it?

President Nixon: Chiang Kai-shek calls the Chairman a bandit. What does the Chairman call Chiang Kai-shek?

Prime Minister Chou: Generally speaking we call them Chiang Kai-shek’s clique. In the newspapers sometimes we call him a bandit; we are also called bandits in turn. Anyway, we abuse each other.

Chairman Mao: Actually, the history of our friendship with him is much longer than the history of your friendship with him.

President Nixon: Yes, I know.

Chairman Mao: We two must not monopolize the whole show. It won’t do if we don’t let Dr. Kissinger have a say.

Chairman Mao to Dr. Kissinger: You have been famous about your trips to China.

Dr. Kissinger: It was the President who set the direction and worked out the plan.

President Nixon: He is a very wise assistant to say it that way. (Mao and Chou laugh.)

Chairman Mao: He is praising you, saying you are clever in doing so.

President Nixon: He [Kissinger] doesn’t look like a secret agent. He is the only man in captivity who could go to Paris 12 times and Peking once and no one knew it, except possibly a couple of pretty girls.

(Chou laughs.)

Dr. Kissinger: They didn’t know it; I used it as a cover.

Chairman Mao: In Paris?

President Nixon: Anyone who uses pretty girls as a cover must be the greatest diplomat of all time.

Chairman Mao: So your girls are very often made use of?

President Nixon: His girls, not mine. It would get me into great trouble if I used girls as a cover.

Prime Minister Chou: (laughs) Especially during elections. (Kissinger laughs.) Dr. Kissinger doesn’t run for President because he wasn’t born a citizen of the United States.

Dr. Kissinger: Miss Tang is eligible to be President of the United States.

President Nixon: She would be the first woman President. There’s our candidate.

Chairman Mao: It would be very dangerous if you have such a candidate. But let us speak the truth. As for the Democratic Party, if they come into office again, we cannot avoid contacting them.

President Nixon: We understand. We will hope that we don’t give you that problem.

Chairman Mao: Those questions are not questions to be discussed in my place. They should be discussed with the Premier. I discuss the philosophical questions. That is to say, I voted for you during your election. There is an American here called Mr. Frank Coe, and he wrote an article precisely at the time when your country was in havoc, during your last electoral campaign. He said you were going to be elected President. I appreciated that article very much. But now he is against the visit.

President Nixon: When the President says he voted for me, he voted for the lesser of two evils.

Chairman Mao: I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right.
President Nixon: And General DeGaulle.
Chairman Mao: DeGaulle is a different question. They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.

Find the shill

President Nixon: I think the important thing to note is that in America, at least at this time, those on the right can do what those on the left talk about.

Dr. Kissinger: There is another point, Mr. President. Those on the left are pro-Soviet and would not encourage a move toward the People’s Republic, and in fact criticize you on those grounds.

Chairman Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you. In our country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to our contact with you. The result was that they got on an airplane and fled abroad.

Prime Minister Chou: Maybe you know this.

Chairman Mao: Throughout the whole world, the U.S. intelligence reports are comparatively accurate. The next was Japan. As for the Soviet Union, they finally went to dig out the corpses, but they didn’t say anything about it.

Prime Minister Chou: In Outer Mongolia.

President Nixon: We had similar problems recently in the crisis on India-Pakistan. The American left criticized me very heavily for failing to side with India. This was for two reasons: they were pro-Indian and they were pro-Soviet.

I thought it was important to look at the bigger issue. We could not let a country, no matter how big, gobble up its neighbor. It cost – I don’t say this with sorrow because it was right – it cost me politically, but I think history will record that it was the right thing to do.

Chairman Mao: As a suggestion, may I suggest that you do a little less briefing? (The President points at Dr. Kissinger and Chou laughs.) Do you think it is good if you brief others on what we talk about, our philosophic discussions here?

President Nixon: The Chairman can be sure that whatever we discuss, or whatever I and the Prime Minister discuss, nothing goes beyond the room. That is the only way to have conversations at the highest level.

Chairman Mao: That’s good.

President Nixon: For example, I hope to talk with the Prime Minister and later with the Chairman about issues like Taiwan, Vietnam and Korea. I also want to talk about—and this is very sensitive—the future of Japan, the future of the subcontinent, and what India’s role with be; and on the broader world scene, the future of US-Soviet relations. Because only if we see the whole picture of the world and the great forces that move the world will we be able to make the right decisions about the immediate and urgent problems that always completely dominate our vision.

Chairman Mao: All those troublesome problems I don’t want to get into very much. I think your topic is better—philosophic questions.

President Nixon: For example, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that most nations would approve of this meeting, but the Soviets disapprove, the Japanese have doubts which they express, and the Indians disapprove. So we must examine why, and determine how our policies should develop to deal with the whole world, as well as the immediate problems such as Korea, Vietnam, and of course, Taiwan.

Chairman Mao: Yes, I agree.

President Nixon: We, for example, must ask ourselves—again in the confines of this room—why the Soviets have more forces on the border facing you than on the border facing Western Europe. We must ask ourselves, what is the future of Japan? Is it better—here I know we have disagreements—is it better for Japan to be neutral, totally defenseless, or it is [sic] better for a time for Japan to have some relations with the United States? The point being—I am talking now in the realm of philosophy—in international relations there are no good choices. One thing is sure—we can leave no vacuums, because they can be filled. The Prime Minister, for example, has pointed out that the United States reaches out its hands and that the Soviet Union reaches out its hands. The question is which danger the People’s Republic faces, whether it is the danger of American aggression or Soviet aggression. There are hard questions, but we have to discuss them.

Chairman Mao: At the present time, the question of aggression from the United States or aggression from China is relatively small; that is, it could be said that this is not a major issue, because the present situation is one in which a state of war does not exist between our two countries. You want to withdraw some of your troops back on your soil; ours do not go abroad.

Therefore, the situation between our two countries is strange because during the past 22 years our ideas have never met in talks. Now the time is less than 10 months since we began playing table tennis; if one counts the time since you put forward your suggestion at Warsaw it is less than two years. Our side also is bureaucratic in dealing with matters. For example, you wanted some exchange of persons of a personal level, things like that; also trade. But rather than deciding that we stuck with our stand that without settling major issues there is nothing to do with smaller issues. I myself persisted in that position. Later on I saw you were right, and we played table tennis. The Prime Minister said this was also after President Nixon came to office.

The former President of Pakistan introduced President Nixon to us. At that time, our Ambassador to Pakistan refused to agree on our having a contact with you. He said it should be compared whether President Johnson or President Nixon would be better. But President Yahya said the two men cannot be compared, that these two men are incomparable. He said that one was like a gangster—he meant President Johnson. I don’t know how he got that impression. We on our side were not very happy with that President either. We were not very happy with your former Presidents, beginning from Truman through Johnson. We were not very happy with these Presidents, Truman and Johnson.
In between there were eight years of a Republican President. During that period probably you hadn’t thought things out either.

Prime Minister Chou: The main thing was John Foster Dulles’ policy.

Chairman Mao: He (Chou) also discussed this with Dr. Kissinger before.

President Nixon: But they (gesturing towards Prime Minister Chou and Dr. Kissinger) shook hands. (Chou laughs.)

Chairman Mao: Do you have anything to say, Doctor?

Dr. Kissinger: Mr. Chairman, the world situation has also changed dramatically during that period. We’ve had to learn a great deal. We thought all socialist/communist states were the same phenomenon. We didn’t understand until the President came into office the different nature of revolution in China and the way revolution had developed in other socialist states.

President Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that over a period of years my position with regard to the People’s Republic was one that the Chairman and Prime Minister totally disagreed with. What brings us together is a recognition of a new situation in the world and a recognition on our part that what is important is not a nation’s internal political philosophy. What is important is its policy toward the rest of the world and toward us. That is why—this point I think can be said to be honest—we have differences. The Prime Minister and Dr. Kissinger discussed these differences.

It also should be said—looking at the two great powers, the United States and China—we know China doesn’t threaten the territory of the United States; I think you know the United States has no territorial designs on China. We know China doesn’t want to dominate the United States. We believe you too realize the United States doesn’t want to dominate the world. Also—maybe you don’t believe this, but I do—neither China nor the United States, both great nations, want to dominate the world. Because our attitudes are the same on these two issues, we don’t threaten each others’ territories.

President Nixon: Therefore, we can find common ground, despite our differences, to build a world structure in which both can be safe to develop in our own way on our own roads. That cannot be said about some other nations in the world.

Chairman Mao: Neither do we threaten Japan or South Korea.

President Nixon: Nor any country. Nor do we.

Chairman Mao: (Checking the time with Chou) Do you think we have covered enough today?

President Nixon: Yes. I would like to say as we finish, Mr. Chairman, we know you and the Prime Minister have taken great risks in inviting us here. For us also it was a difficult decision. But having read some of the Chairman’s statements, I know he is one who sees when an opportunity comes, that you must seize the hour and seize the day.

I would also like to say in a personal sense –and this to you Mr. Prime Minister—you do not know me. Since you do not know me, you shouldn’t trust me. You will find I never say something I cannot do. And I always will do more than I can say. On this basis I want to have frank talks with the Chairman and, of course, with the Prime Minister.

Chairman Mao: (Pointing to Dr. Kissinger) “Seize the hour and seize the day.” I think that, generally speaking, people like me sound a lot of big cannons. (Chou laughs) That is, things like “the whole world should unite and defeat imperialism, revisionism, and all reactionaries, and establish socialism.”

President Nixon: Like me. And bandits.

Chairman Mao: But perhaps you as an individual may not be among those to be overthrown. They say that he (Dr. Kissinger) is also among those not to be overthrown personally. And if all of you are overthrown we wouldn’t have any more friends left.

President Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the Chairman’s life is well-known to all of us. He came from a very poor family to the top of the most populous nation in the world, a great nation.
My background is not so well known. I also came from a very poor family, and to the top of a very great nation. History has brought us together. The question is whether we, with different philosophies, but both with feet on the ground, and having come from the people, can make a breakthrough that will serve not just China and America, but the whole world in the years ahead. And that is why we are here.

Chairman Mao: Your book, “The Six Crises,” is not a bad book.

President Nixon: He (Mao) reads too much.

Chairman Mao: Too little. I don’t know much about the United States. I must ask you to send some teachers here, mainly teachers of history and geography.

President Nixon: That’s good, the best.

Chairman Mao: That’s what I said to Mr. Edgar Snow, the correspondent who passed away a few days ago.

President Nixon: That was very sad.

Chairman Mao: Yes, indeed.

It is alright to talk well and also alright if there are no agreements, because what use is there if we stand in deadlock? Why is it that we must be able to reach results? People will say… if we fail the first time, then people will talk why are we not able to succeed the first time? The only reason would be that we have taken the wrong road. What will they say if we succeed the second time?

(There were then some closing pleasantries. The Chairman said he was not well. President Nixon responded that he looked good. The Chairman said that appearances were deceiving. After handshakes and more pictures, Prime Minister Chou then escorted the President out of the residence.)

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

ORDER