For years, the Pentagon tried to convince the public that they work on your dream secretary. Can you believe that?
Funny how much those plans looked just like today’s Google and Facebook. But it’s not just the looks, it’s also the money, the timeline and the personal connections.
Funnier how the funding scheme was often similar to the one used for Wuhan, with proxy organizations used as middlemen.

WIRED 05.20.2003

A Spy Machine of DARPA’s Dreams

IT’S A MEMORY aid! A robotic assistant! An epidemic detector! An all-seeing, ultra-intrusive spying program!

The Pentagon is about to embark on a stunningly ambitious research project designed to gather every conceivable bit of information about a person’s life, index all the information and make it searchable.

What national security experts and civil libertarians want to know is, why would the Defense Department want to do such a thing?

The embryonic LifeLog program would dump everything an individual does into a giant database: every e-mail sent or received, every picture taken, every Web page surfed, every phone call made, every TV show watched, every magazine read.

All of this — and more — would combine with information gleaned from a variety of sources: a GPS transmitter to keep tabs on where that person went, audio-visual sensors to capture what he or she sees or says, and biomedical monitors to keep track of the individual’s health.

This gigantic amalgamation of personal information could then be used to “trace the ‘threads’ of an individual’s life,” to see exactly how a relationship or events developed, according to a briefing from the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, LifeLog’s sponsor.

Someone with access to the database could “retrieve a specific thread of past transactions, or recall an experience from a few seconds ago or from many years earlier … by using a search-engine interface.”

On the surface, the project seems like the latest in a long line of DARPA’s “blue sky” research efforts, most of which never make it out of the lab. But DARPA is currently asking businesses and universities for research proposals to begin moving LifeLog forward. And some people, such as Steven Aftergood, a defense analyst with the Federation of American Scientists, are worried.News of the future, now.

With its controversial Total Information Awareness database project, DARPA already is planning to track all of an individual’s “transactional data” — like what we buy and who gets our e-mail.

While the parameters of the project have not yet been determined, Aftergood said he believes LifeLog could go far beyond TIA’s scope, adding physical information (like how we feel) and media data (like what we read) to this transactional data.

“LifeLog has the potential to become something like ‘TIA cubed,'” he said.

In the private sector, a number of LifeLog-like efforts already are underway to digitally archive one’s life — to create a “surrogate memory,” as minicomputer pioneer Gordon Bell calls it.

Bell, now with Microsoft, scans all his letters and memos, records his conversations, saves all the Web pages he’s visited and e-mails he’s received and puts them into an electronic storehouse dubbed MyLifeBits.

DARPA’s LifeLog would take this concept several steps further by tracking where people go and what they see.

That makes the project similar to the work of University of Toronto professor Steve Mann. Since his teen years in the 1970s, Mann, a self-styled “cyborg,” has worn a camera and an array of sensors to record his existence. He claims he’s convinced 20 to 30 of his current and former students to do the same. It’s all part of an experiment into “existential technology” and “the metaphysics of free will.”

DARPA isn’t quite so philosophical about LifeLog. But the agency does see some potential battlefield uses for the program.

“The technology could allow the military to develop computerized assistants for war fighters and commanders that can be more effective because they can easily access the user’s past experiences,” DARPA spokeswoman Jan Walker speculated in an e-mail.

It also could allow the military to develop more efficient computerized training systems, she said: Computers could remember how each student learns and interacts with the training system, then tailor the lessons accordingly.

John Pike, director of defense think tank GlobalSecurity.org, said he finds the explanations “hard to believe.”

“It looks like an outgrowth of Total Information Awareness and other DARPA homeland security surveillance programs,” he added in an e-mail.

Sure, LifeLog could be used to train robotic assistants. But it also could become a way to profile suspected terrorists, said Cory Doctorow, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In other words, Osama bin Laden’s agent takes a walk around the block at 10 each morning, buys a bagel and a newspaper at the corner store and then calls his mother. You do the same things — so maybe you’re an al Qaeda member, too!

“The more that an individual’s characteristic behavior patterns — ‘routines, relationships and habits’ — can be represented in digital form, the easier it would become to distinguish among different individuals, or to monitor one,” Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists analyst, wrote in an e-mail.

In its LifeLog report, DARPA makes some nods to privacy protection, like when it suggests that “properly anonymized access to LifeLog data might support medical research and the early detection of an emerging epidemic.”

But before these grand plans get underway, LifeLog will start small. Right now, DARPA is asking industry and academics to submit proposals for 18-month research efforts, with a possible 24-month extension. (DARPA is not sure yet how much money it will sink into the program.)

The researchers will be the centerpiece of their own study.

Like a game show, winning this DARPA prize eventually will earn the lucky scientists a trip for three to Washington, D.C. Except on this excursion, every participating scientist’s e-mail to the travel agent, every padded bar bill and every mad lunge for a cab will be monitored, categorized and later dissected.

WIRED 07.14.2003

Pentagon Alters LifeLog Project

By Noah Shachtman.

Bending a bit to privacy concerns, the Pentagon changes some of the experiments to be conducted for LifeLog, its effort to record every tidbit of information and encounter in daily life. No video recording of unsuspecting people, for example.

MONDAY IS THE deadline for researchers to submit bids to build the Pentagon’s so-called LifeLog project, an experiment to create an all-encompassing über-diary.

But while teams of academics and entrepreneurs are jostling for the 18- to 24-month grants to work on the program, the Defense Department has changed the parameters of the project to respond to a tide of privacy concerns.

Lifelog is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s effort to gather every conceivable element of a person’s life, dump it all into a database, and spin the information into narrative threads that trace relationships, events and experiences.

It’s an attempt, some say, to make a kind of surrogate, digitized memory.

“My father was a stroke victim, and he lost the ability to record short-term memories,” said Howard Shrobe, an MIT computer scientist who’s leading a team of professors and researchers in a LifeLog bid. “If you ever saw the movie Memento, he had that. So I’m interested in seeing how memory works after seeing a broken one. LifeLog is a chance to do that.”

Researchers who receive LifeLog grants will be required to test the system on themselves. Cameras will record everything they do during a trip to Washington, D.C., and global-positioning satellite locators will track where they go. Biomedical sensors will monitor their health. All the e-mail they send, all the magazines they read, all the credit card payments they make will be indexed and made searchable.

By capturing experiences, Darpa claims that LifeLog could help develop more realistic computerized training programs and robotic assistants for battlefield commanders.

Defense analysts and civil libertarians, on the other hand, worry that the program is another piece in an ongoing Pentagon effort to keep tabs on American citizens. LifeLog could become the ultimate profiling tool, they fear.

A firestorm of criticism ignited after LifeLog first became public in May. Some potential bidders for the LifeLog contract dropped out as a result.

“I’m interested in LifeLog, but I’m going to shy away from it,” said Les Vogel, a computer science researcher in Maui, Hawaii. “Who wants to get in the middle of something that gets that much bad press?”

New York Times columnist William Safire noted that while LifeLog researchers might be comfortable recording their lives, the people that the LifeLoggers are “looking at, listening to, sniffing or conspiring with to blow up the world” might not be so thrilled about turning over some of their private interchanges to the Pentagon.

In response, Darpa changed the LifeLog proposal request. Now: “LifeLog researchers shall not capture imagery or audio of any person without that person’s a priori express permission. In fact, it is desired that capture of imagery or audio of any person other than the user be avoided even if a priori permission is granted.”

Steven Aftergood, with the Federation of American Scientists, sees the alterations as evidence that Darpa proposals must receive a thorough public vetting.

“Darpa doesn’t spontaneously modify their programs in this way,” he said. “It requires public criticism. Give them credit, however, for acknowledging public concerns.”

But not too much, said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org.

“Darpa adds these contractual provisions to appear to be above suspicion,” Pike said. “But if you can put them in, you can take them out.”

WIRED 07.29.2003

Helping Machines Think Different

By Noah Shachtman.

While the Pentagon’s project to record and catalog a person’s life scares privacy advocates, researchers see it as a step in the process of getting computers to think like humans.

TO PENTAGON RESEARCHERS, capturing and categorizing every aspect of a person’s life is only the beginning.

LifeLog — the controversial Defense Department initiative to track everything about an individual — is just one step in a larger effort, according to a top Pentagon research director. Personalized digital assistants that can guess our desires should come first. And then, just maybe, we’ll see computers that can think for themselves.

Computer scientists have dreamed for decades of building machines with minds of their own. But these hopes have been overwhelmed again and again by the messy, dizzying complexities of the real world.

In recent months, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has launched a series of seemingly disparate programs — all designed, the agency says, to help computers deal with the complexities of life, so they finally can begin to think.

“Our ultimate goal is to build a new generation of computer systems that are substantially more robust, secure, helpful, long-lasting and adaptive to their users and tasks. These systems will need to reason, learn and respond intelligently to things they’ve never encountered before,” said Ron Brachman, the recently installed chief of Darpa’s Information Processing Technology Office, or IPTO. A former senior executive at AT&T Labs, Brachman was elected president of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence last year.

LifeLog is the best-known of these projects. The controversial program intends to record everything about a person — what he sees, where he goes, how he feels — and dump it into a database. Once captured, the information is supposed to be spun into narrative threads that trace relationships, events and experiences.

For years, researchers have been able to get programs to make sense of limited, tightly proscribed situations. Navigating outside of the lab has been much more difficult. Until recently, even getting a robot to walk across the room on its own was a tricky task.

“LifeLog is about forcing computers into the real world,” said leading artificial intelligence researcher Doug Lenat, who’s bidding on the project.

What LifeLog is not, Brachman asserts, is a program to track terrorists. By capturing so much information about an individual, and by combing relationships and traits out of that data, LifeLog appears to some civil libertarians to be an almost limitless tool for profiling potential enemies of the state. Concerns over the Terrorism Information Awareness database effort have only heightened sensitivities.

“These technologies developed by the military have obvious, easy paths to Homeland Security deployments,” said Lee Tien, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Brachman said it is “up to military leaders to decide how to use our technology in support of their mission,” but he repeatedly insisted that IPTO has “absolutely no interest or intention of using any of our technology for profiling.”

What Brachman does want to do is create a computerized assistant that can learn about the habits and wishes of its human boss. And the first step toward this goal is for machines to start seeing, and remembering, life like people do.

Human beings don’t dump their experiences into some formless database or tag them with a couple of keywords. They divide their lives into discreet installments — “college,” “my first date,” “last Thursday.” Researchers call this “episodic memory.”

LifeLog is about trying to install episodic memory into computers, Brachman said. It’s about getting machines to start “remembering experiences in the commonsensical way we do — a vacation in Bermuda, a taxi ride to the airport.”

IPTO recently handed out $29 million in research grants to create a Perceptive Assistant that Learns, or PAL, that can draw on these episodes and improve itself in the process. If people keep missing conferences during rush hour, PAL should learn to schedule meetings when traffic isn’t as thick. If PAL’s boss keeps sending angry notes to spammers, the software secretary eventually should just start flaming on its own.

In the 1980s, artificial intelligence researchers promised to create programs that could do just that. Darpa even promoted a thinking “pilot’s associate — a kind of R2D2,” said Alex Roland, author of The Race for Machine Intelligence: Darpa, DoD, and the Strategic Computing Initiative.

But the field “fell on its face,” according to University of Washington computer scientist Henry Kautz. Instead of trying to teach computers how to reason on their own, “we said, ‘Well, if we just keep adding more rules, we could cover every case imaginable.'”

It’s an impossible task, of course. Every circumstance is different, and there will never be enough to stipulations to cover them all.

A few computer programs, with enough training from their human masters, can make some assumptions about new situations on their own, however. Amazon.com’s system for recommending books and music is one of these.

But these efforts are limited, too. Everyone’s received downright kooky suggestions from that Amazon program.

Overcoming these limitations requires a combination of logical approaches. That’s a goal behind IPTO’s new call for research into computers that can handle real-world reasoning.

It’s one of several problems Brachman said are “absolutely imperative” to solve as quickly as possible.

Although computer systems are getting more complicated every day, this complexity “may be actually reversing the information revolution,” he noted in a recent presentation (PDF). “Systems have grown more rigid, more fragile and increasingly open to attack.”

What’s needed, he asserts, is a computer network that can teach itself new capabilities, without having to be reprogrammed every time. Computers should be able to adapt to how its users like to work, spot when they’re being attacked and develop responses to these assaults. Think of it like the body’s immune system — or like a battlefield general.

But to act more like a person, a computer has to soak up its own experiences, like a human being does. It has to create a catalog of its existence. A LifeLog, if you will.

WIRED 02.04.2004

Pentagon Kills LifeLog Project

THE PENTAGON CANCELED its so-called LifeLog project, an ambitious effort to build a database tracking a person’s entire existence.

Run by Darpa, the Defense Department’s research arm, LifeLog aimed to gather in a single place just about everything an individual says, sees or does: the phone calls made, the TV shows watched, the magazines read, the plane tickets bought, the e-mail sent and received. Out of this seemingly endless ocean of information, computer scientists would plot distinctive routes in the data, mapping relationships, memories, events and experiences.

LifeLog’s backers said the all-encompassing diary could have turned into a near-perfect digital memory, giving its users computerized assistants with an almost flawless recall of what they had done in the past. But civil libertarians immediately pounced on the project when it debuted last spring, arguing that LifeLog could become the ultimate tool for profiling potential enemies of the state.

Researchers close to the project say they’re not sure why it was dropped late last month. Darpa hasn’t provided an explanation for LifeLog’s quiet cancellation. “A change in priorities” is the only rationale agency spokeswoman Jan Walker gave to Wired News.

However, related Darpa efforts concerning software secretaries and mechanical brains are still moving ahead as planned.

LifeLog is the latest in a series of controversial programs that have been canceled by Darpa in recent months. The Terrorism Information Awareness, or TIA, data-mining initiative was eliminated by Congress — although many analysts believe its research continues on the classified side of the Pentagon’s ledger. The Policy Analysis Market (or FutureMap), which provided a stock market of sorts for people to bet on terror strikes, was almost immediately withdrawn after its details came to light in July.

“I’ve always thought (LifeLog) would be the third program (after TIA and FutureMap) that could raise eyebrows if they didn’t make it clear how privacy concerns would be met,” said Peter Harsha, director of government affairs for the Computing Research Association.

“Darpa’s pretty gun-shy now,” added Lee Tien, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been critical of many agency efforts. “After TIA, they discovered they weren’t ready to deal with the firestorm of criticism.”

That’s too bad, artificial-intelligence researchers say. LifeLog would have addressed one of the key issues in developing computers that can think: how to take the unstructured mess of life, and recall it as discreet episodes — a trip to Washington, a sushi dinner, construction of a house.

“Obviously we’re quite disappointed,” said Howard Shrobe, who led a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory which spent weeks preparing a bid for a LifeLog contract. “We were very interested in the research focus of the program … how to help a person capture and organize his or her experience. This is a theme with great importance to both AI and cognitive science.”

To Tien, the project’s cancellation means “it’s just not tenable for Darpa to say anymore, ‘We’re just doing the technology, we have no responsibility for how it’s used.'”

Private-sector research in this area is proceeding. At Microsoft, for example, minicomputer pioneer Gordon Bell’s program, MyLifeBits, continues to develop ways to sort and store memories.

David Karger, Shrobe’s colleague at MIT, thinks such efforts will still go on at Darpa, too.

“I am sure that such research will continue to be funded under some other title,” wrote Karger in an e-mail. “I can’t imagine Darpa ‘dropping out’ of such a key research area.”

MEANWHILE…

Google: seeded by the Pentagon

By dr. Nafeez Ahmed

In 1994 — the same year the Highlands Forum was founded under the stewardship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the ONA, and DARPA — two young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google’s search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency programme of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.

But that’s just one side of the story.

Min 6:44!


Also check: OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

Throughout the development of the search engine, Sergey Brin reported regularly and directly to two people who were not Stanford faculty at all: Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham and Dr. Rick Steinheiser. Both were representatives of a sensitive US intelligence community research programme on information security and data-mining.

Thuraisingham is currently the Louis A. Beecherl distinguished professor and executive director of the Cyber Security Research Institute at the University of Texas, Dallas, and a sought-after expert on data-mining, data management and information security issues. But in the 1990s, she worked for the MITRE Corp., a leading US defense contractor, where she managed the Massive Digital Data Systems initiative, a project sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence, to foster innovative research in information technology.

“We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,” Prof. Thuraisingham told me. “One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community’s MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.”

This sort of funding is certainly not unusual, and Sergey Brin’s being able to receive it by being a graduate student at Stanford appears to have been incidental. The Pentagon was all over computer science research at this time. But it illustrates how deeply entrenched the culture of Silicon Valley is in the values of the US intelligence community.

In an extraordinary document hosted by the website of the University of Texas, Thuraisingham recounts that from 1993 to 1999, “the Intelligence Community [IC] started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation.” The program funded 15 research efforts at various universities, including Stanford. Its goal was developing “data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data,” including for “query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration.”

At the time, Thuraisingham was chief scientist for data and information management at MITRE, where she led team research and development efforts for the NSA, CIA, US Air Force Research Laboratory, as well as the US Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and Communications and Electronic Command (CECOM). She went on to teach courses for US government officials and defense contractors on data-mining in counter-terrorism.

In her University of Texas article, she attaches the copy of an abstract of the US intelligence community’s MDDS program that had been presented to the “Annual Intelligence Community Symposium” in 1995. The abstract reveals that the primary sponsors of the MDDS programme were three agencies: the NSA, the CIA’s Office of Research & Development, and the intelligence community’s Community Management Staff (CMS) which operates under the Director of Central Intelligence. Administrators of the program, which provided funding of around 3–4 million dollars per year for 3–4 years, were identified as Hal Curran (NSA), Robert Kluttz (CMS), Dr. Claudia Pierce (NSA), Dr. Rick Steinheiser (ORD — standing for the CIA’s Office of Research and Devepment), and Dr. Thuraisingham herself.

Thuraisingham goes on in her article to reiterate that this joint CIA-NSA program partly funded Sergey Brin to develop the core of Google, through a grant to Stanford managed by Brin’s supervisor Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman:

“In fact, the Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre’s chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.”

Brin and Page officially incorporated Google as a company in September 1998, the very month they last reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser. ‘Query Flocks’ was also part of Google’s patented ‘PageRank’ search system, which Brin developed at Stanford under the CIA-NSA-MDDS programme, as well as with funding from the NSF, IBM and Hitachi. That year, MITRE’s Dr. Chris Clifton, who worked under Thuraisingham to develop the ‘Query Flocks’ system, co-authored a paper with Brin’s superviser, Prof. Ullman, and the CIA’s Rick Steinheiser. Titled ‘Knowledge Discovery in Text,’ the paper was presented at an academic conference.

“The MDDS funding that supported Brin was significant as far as seed-funding goes, but it was probably outweighed by the other funding streams,” said Thuraisingham. “The duration of Brin’s funding was around two years or so. In that period, I and my colleagues from the MDDS would visit Stanford to see Brin and monitor his progress every three months or so. We didn’t supervise exactly, but we did want to check progress, point out potential problems and suggest ideas. In those briefings, Brin did present to us on the query flocks research, and also demonstrated to us versions of the Google search engine.”

Brin thus reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser regularly about his work developing Google.

==

UPDATE 2.05PM GMT [2nd Feb 2015]:

Since publication of this article, Prof. Thuraisingham has amended her article referenced above. The amended version includes a new modified statement, followed by a copy of the original version of her account of the MDDS. In this amended version, Thuraisingham rejects the idea that CIA funded Google, and says instead:

“In fact Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (at Stanford) and my colleague at MITRE Dr. Chris Clifton together with some others developed the Query Flocks System, as part of MDDS, which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. Also, Mr. Sergey Brin, the cofounder of Google, was part of Prof. Ullman’s research group at that time. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community periodically and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. During our last visit to Stanford in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which I believe became Google soon after…

There are also several inaccuracies in Dr. Ahmed’s article (dated January 22, 2015). For example, the MDDS program was not a ‘sensitive’ program as stated by Dr. Ahmed; it was an Unclassified program that funded universities in the US. Furthermore, Sergey Brin never reported to me or to Dr. Rick Steinheiser; he only gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s. Also, MDDS never funded Google; it funded Stanford University.”

Here, there is no substantive factual difference in Thuraisingham’s accounts, other than to assert that her statement associating Sergey Brin with the development of ‘query flocks’ is mistaken. Notably, this acknowledgement is derived not from her own knowledge, but from this very article quoting a comment from a Google spokesperson.

However, the bizarre attempt to disassociate Google from the MDDS program misses the mark. Firstly, the MDDS never funded Google, because during the development of the core components of the Google search engine, there was no company incorporated with that name. The grant was instead provided to Stanford University through Prof. Ullman, through whom some MDDS funding was used to support Brin who was co-developing Google at the time. Secondly, Thuraisingham then adds that Brin never “reported” to her or the CIA’s Steinheiser, but admits he “gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s.” It is unclear, though, what the distinction is here between reporting, and delivering a detailed presentation — either way, Thuraisingham confirms that she and the CIA had taken a keen interest in Brin’s development of Google. Thirdly, Thuraisingham describes the MDDS program as “unclassified,” but this does not contradict its “sensitive” nature. As someone who has worked for decades as an intelligence contractor and advisor, Thuraisingham is surely aware that there are many ways of categorizing intelligence, including ‘sensitive but unclassified.’ A number of former US intelligence officials I spoke to said that the almost total lack of public information on the CIA and NSA’s MDDS initiative suggests that although the progam was not classified, it is likely instead that its contents was considered sensitive, which would explain efforts to minimise transparency about the program and the way it fed back into developing tools for the US intelligence community. Fourthly, and finally, it is important to point out that the MDDS abstract which Thuraisingham includes in her University of Texas document states clearly not only that the Director of Central Intelligence’s CMS, CIA and NSA were the overseers of the MDDS initiative, but that the intended customers of the project were “DoD, IC, and other government organizations”: the Pentagon, the US intelligence community, and other relevant US government agencies.

In other words, the provision of MDDS funding to Brin through Ullman, under the oversight of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser, was fundamentally because they recognized the potential utility of Brin’s work developing Google to the Pentagon, intelligence community, and the federal government at large.

==

The MDDS programme is actually referenced in several papers co-authored by Brin and Page while at Stanford, specifically highlighting its role in financially sponsoring Brin in the development of Google. In their 1998 paper published in the Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committeee on Data Engineering, they describe the automation of methods to extract information from the web via “Dual Iterative Pattern Relation Extraction,” the development of “a global ranking of Web pages called PageRank,” and the use of PageRank “to develop a novel search engine called Google.” Through an opening footnote, Sergey Brin confirms he was “Partially supported by the Community Management Staff’s Massive Digital Data Systems Program, NSF grant IRI-96–31952” — confirming that Brin’s work developing Google was indeed partly-funded by the CIA-NSA-MDDS program.

This NSF grant identified alongside the MDDS, whose project report lists Brin among the students supported (without mentioning the MDDS), was different to the NSF grant to Larry Page that included funding from DARPA and NASA. The project report, authored by Brin’s supervisor Prof. Ullman, goes on to say under the section ‘Indications of Success’ that “there are some new stories of startups based on NSF-supported research.” Under ‘Project Impact,’ the report remarks: “Finally, the google project has also gone commercial as Google.com.”

Thuraisingham’s account, including her new amended version, therefore demonstrates that the CIA-NSA-MDDS program was not only partly funding Brin throughout his work with Larry Page developing Google, but that senior US intelligence representatives including a CIA official oversaw the evolution of Google in this pre-launch phase, all the way until the company was ready to be officially founded. Google, then, had been enabled with a “significant” amount of seed-funding and oversight from the Pentagon: namely, the CIA, NSA, and DARPA.

The DoD could not be reached for comment.

When I asked Prof. Ullman to confirm whether or not Brin was partly funded under the intelligence community’s MDDS program, and whether Ullman was aware that Brin was regularly briefing the CIA’s Rick Steinheiser on his progress in developing the Google search engine, Ullman’s responses were evasive: “May I know whom you represent and why you are interested in these issues? Who are your ‘sources’?” He also denied that Brin played a significant role in developing the ‘query flocks’ system, although it is clear from Brin’s papers that he did draw on that work in co-developing the PageRank system with Page.

When I asked Ullman whether he was denying the US intelligence community’s role in supporting Brin during the development of Google, he said: “I am not going to dignify this nonsense with a denial. If you won’t explain what your theory is, and what point you are trying to make, I am not going to help you in the slightest.”

The MDDS abstract published online at the University of Texas confirms that the rationale for the CIA-NSA project was to “provide seed money to develop data management technologies which are of high-risk and high-pay-off,” including techniques for “querying, browsing, and filtering; transaction processing; accesses methods and indexing; metadata management and data modelling; and integrating heterogeneous databases; as well as developing appropriate architectures.” The ultimate vision of the program was to “provide for the seamless access and fusion of massive amounts of data, information and knowledge in a heterogeneous, real-time environment” for use by the Pentagon, intelligence community and potentially across government.

These revelations corroborate the claims of Robert Steele, former senior CIA officer and a founding civilian deputy director of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, whom I interviewed for The Guardian last year on open source intelligence. Citing sources at the CIA, Steele had said in 2006 that Steinheiser, an old colleague of his, was the CIA’s main liaison at Google and had arranged early funding for the pioneering IT firm. At the time, Wired founder John Batelle managed to get this official denial from a Google spokesperson in response to Steele’s assertions:

“The statements related to Google are completely untrue.”

This time round, despite multiple requests and conversations, a Google spokesperson declined to comment.

UPDATE: As of 5.41PM GMT [22nd Jan 2015], Google’s director of corporate communication got in touch and asked me to include the following statement:

“Sergey Brin was not part of the Query Flocks Program at Stanford, nor were any of his projects funded by US Intelligence bodies.”

This is what I wrote back:

My response to that statement would be as follows: Brin himself in his own paper acknowledges funding from the Community Management Staff of the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) initiative, which was supplied through the NSF. The MDDS was an intelligence community program set up by the CIA and NSA. I also have it on record, as noted in the piece, from Prof. Thuraisingham of University of Texas that she managed the MDDS program on behalf of the US intelligence community, and that her and the CIA’s Rick Steinheiser met Brin every three months or so for two years to be briefed on his progress developing Google and PageRank. Whether Brin worked on query flocks or not is neither here nor there.

In that context, you might want to consider the following questions:

1) Does Google deny that Brin’s work was part-funded by the MDDS via an NSF grant?

2) Does Google deny that Brin reported regularly to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser from around 1996 to 1998 until September that year when he presented the Google search engine to them?

LESS KNOWN FACT: AROUND THE SAME YEAR 2004, SERGEY BRIN JOINED WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM’S YOUTH ORGANIZATION, THE “YOUNG GLOBAL LEADERS”

Total Information Awareness

A call for papers for the MDDS was sent out via email list on November 3rd 1993 from senior US intelligence official David Charvonia, director of the research and development coordination office of the intelligence community’s CMS. The reaction from Tatu Ylonen (celebrated inventor of the widely used secure shell [SSH] data protection protocol) to his colleagues on the email list is telling: “Crypto relevance? Makes you think whether you should protect your data.” The email also confirms that defense contractor and Highlands Forum partner, SAIC, was managing the MDDS submission process, with abstracts to be sent to Jackie Booth of the CIA’s Office of Research and Development via a SAIC email address.

By 1997, Thuraisingham reveals, shortly before Google became incorporated and while she was still overseeing the development of its search engine software at Stanford, her thoughts turned to the national security applications of the MDDS program. In the acknowledgements to her book, Web Data Mining and Applications in Business Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism (2003), Thuraisingham writes that she and “Dr. Rick Steinheiser of the CIA, began discussions with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on applying data-mining for counter-terrorism,” an idea that resulted directly from the MDDS program which partly funded Google. “These discussions eventually developed into the current EELD (Evidence Extraction and Link Detection) program at DARPA.”

So the very same senior CIA official and CIA-NSA contractor involved in providing the seed-funding for Google were simultaneously contemplating the role of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, and were developing ideas for tools actually advanced by DARPA.

Today, as illustrated by her recent oped in the New York Times, Thuraisingham remains a staunch advocate of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, but also insists that these methods must be developed by government in cooperation with civil liberties lawyers and privacy advocates to ensure that robust procedures are in place to prevent potential abuse. She points out, damningly, that with the quantity of information being collected, there is a high risk of false positives.

In 1993, when the MDDS program was launched and managed by MITRE Corp. on behalf of the US intelligence community, University of Virginia computer scientist Dr. Anita K. Jones — a MITRE trustee — landed the job of DARPA director and head of research and engineering across the Pentagon. She had been on the board of MITRE since 1988. From 1987 to 1993, Jones simultaneously served on SAIC’s board of directors. As the new head of DARPA from 1993 to 1997, she also co-chaired the Pentagon’s Highlands Forum during the period of Google’s pre-launch development at Stanford under the MDSS.

Thus, when Thuraisingham and Steinheiser were talking to DARPA about the counter-terrorism applications of MDDS research, Jones was DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair. That year, Jones left DARPA to return to her post at the University of Virgina. The following year, she joined the board of the National Science Foundation, which of course had also just funded Brin and Page, and also returned to the board of SAIC. When she left DoD, Senator Chuck Robb paid Jones the following tribute : “She brought the technology and operational military communities together to design detailed plans to sustain US dominance on the battlefield into the next century.”

Dr. Anita Jones, head of DARPA from 1993–1997, and co-chair of the Pentagon Highlands Forum from 1995–1997, during which officials in charge of the CIA-NSA-MDSS program were funding Google, and in communication with DARPA about data-mining for counterterrorism

On the board of the National Science Foundation from 1992 to 1998 (including a stint as chairman from 1996) was Richard N. Zare. This was the period in which the NSF sponsored Sergey Brin and Larry Page in association with DARPA. In June 1994, Prof. Zare, a chemist at Stanford, participated with Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (who supervised Sergey Brin’s research), on a panel sponsored by Stanford and the National Research Council discussing the need for scientists to show how their work “ties to national needs.” The panel brought together scientists and policymakers, including “Washington insiders.”

DARPA’s EELD program, inspired by the work of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser under Jones’ watch, was rapidly adapted and integrated with a suite of tools to conduct comprehensive surveillance under the Bush administration.

According to DARPA official Ted Senator, who led the EELD program for the agency’s short-lived Information Awareness Office, EELD was among a range of “promising techniques” being prepared for integration “into the prototype TIA system.” TIA stood for Total Information Awareness, and was the main global electronic eavesdropping and data-mining program deployed by the Bush administration after 9/11. TIA had been set up by Iran-Contra conspirator Admiral John Poindexter, who was appointed in 2002 by Bush to lead DARPA’s new Information Awareness Office.

The Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) was another contractor among 26 companies (also including SAIC) that received million dollar contracts from DARPA (the specific quantities remained classified) under Poindexter, to push forward the TIA surveillance program in 2002 onwards. The research included “behaviour-based profiling,” “automated detection, identification and tracking” of terrorist activity, among other data-analyzing projects. At this time, PARC’s director and chief scientist was John Seely Brown. Both Brown and Poindexter were Pentagon Highlands Forum participants — Brown on a regular basis until recently.

TIA was purportedly shut down in 2003 due to public opposition after the program was exposed in the media, but the following year Poindexter participated in a Pentagon Highlands Group session in Singapore, alongside defense and security officials from around the world. Meanwhile, Ted Senator continued to manage the EELD program among other data-mining and analysis projects at DARPA until 2006, when he left to become a vice president at SAIC. He is now a SAIC/Leidos technical fellow.

Google, DARPA and the money trail

Long before the appearance of Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Stanford University’s computer science department had a close working relationship with US military intelligence. A letter dated November 5th 1984 from the office of renowned artificial intelligence (AI) expert, Prof Edward Feigenbaum, addressed to Rick Steinheiser, gives the latter directions to Stanford’s Heuristic Programming Project, addressing Steinheiser as a member of the “AI Steering Committee.” A list of attendees at a contractor conference around that time, sponsored by the Pentagon’s Office of Naval Research (ONR), includes Steinheiser as a delegate under the designation “OPNAV Op-115” — which refers to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations’ program on operational readiness, which played a major role in advancing digital systems for the military.

From the 1970s, Prof. Feigenbaum and his colleagues had been running Stanford’s Heuristic Programming Project under contract with DARPA, continuing through to the 1990s. Feigenbaum alone had received around over $7 million in this period for his work from DARPA, along with other funding from the NSF, NASA, and ONR.

Brin’s supervisor at Stanford, Prof. Jeffrey Ullman, was in 1996 part of a joint funding project of DARPA’s Intelligent Integration of Information program. That year, Ullman co-chaired DARPA-sponsored meetings on data exchange between multiple systems.

In September 1998, the same month that Sergey Brin briefed US intelligence representatives Steinheiser and Thuraisingham, tech entrepreneurs Andreas Bechtolsheim and David Cheriton invested $100,000 each in Google. Both investors were connected to DARPA.

As a Stanford PhD student in electrical engineering in the 1980s, Bechtolsheim’s pioneering SUN workstation project had been funded by DARPA and the Stanford computer science department — this research was the foundation of Bechtolsheim’s establishment of Sun Microsystems, which he co-founded with William Joy.

As for Bechtolsheim’s co-investor in Google, David Cheriton, the latter is a long-time Stanford computer science professor who has an even more entrenched relationship with DARPA. His bio at the University of Alberta, which in November 2014 awarded him an honorary science doctorate, says that Cheriton’s “research has received the support of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for over 20 years.”

In the meantime, Bechtolsheim left Sun Microsystems in 1995, co-founding Granite Systems with his fellow Google investor Cheriton as a partner. They sold Granite to Cisco Systems in 1996, retaining significant ownership of Granite, and becoming senior Cisco executives.

An email obtained from the Enron Corpus (a database of 600,000 emails acquired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and later released to the public) from Richard O’Neill, inviting Enron executives to participate in the Highlands Forum, shows that Cisco and Granite executives are intimately connected to the Pentagon. The email reveals that in May 2000, Bechtolsheim’s partner and Sun Microsystems co-founder, William Joy — who was then chief scientist and corporate executive officer there — had attended the Forum to discuss nanotechnology and molecular computing.

In 1999, Joy had also co-chaired the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, overseeing a report acknowledging that DARPA had:

“… revised its priorities in the 90’s so that all information technology funding was judged in terms of its benefit to the warfighter.”

Throughout the 1990s, then, DARPA’s funding to Stanford, including Google, was explicitly about developing technologies that could augment the Pentagon’s military intelligence operations in war theatres.

The Joy report recommended more federal government funding from the Pentagon, NASA, and other agencies to the IT sector. Greg Papadopoulos, another of Bechtolsheim’s colleagues as then Sun Microsystems chief technology officer, also attended a Pentagon Highlands’ Forum meeting in September 2000.

In November, the Pentagon Highlands Forum hosted Sue Bostrom, who was vice president for the internet at Cisco, sitting on the company’s board alongside Google co-investors Bechtolsheim and Cheriton. The Forum also hosted Lawrence Zuriff, then a managing partner of Granite, which Bechtolsheim and Cheriton had sold to Cisco. Zuriff had previously been an SAIC contractor from 1993 to 1994, working with the Pentagon on national security issues, specifically for Marshall’s Office of Net Assessment. In 1994, both the SAIC and the ONA were, of course, involved in co-establishing the Pentagon Highlands Forum. Among Zuriff’s output during his SAIC tenure was a paper titled ‘Understanding Information War’, delivered at a SAIC-sponsored US Army Roundtable on the Revolution in Military Affairs.

After Google’s incorporation, the company received $25 million in equity funding in 1999 led by Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. According to Homeland Security Today, “A number of Sequoia-bankrolled start-ups have contracted with the Department of Defense, especially after 9/11 when Sequoia’s Mark Kvamme met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to discuss the application of emerging technologies to warfighting and intelligence collection.” Similarly, Kleiner Perkins had developed “a close relationship” with In-Q-Tel, the CIA venture capitalist firm that funds start-ups “to advance ‘priority’ technologies of value” to the intelligence community.

John Doerr, who led the Kleiner Perkins investment in Google obtaining a board position, was a major early investor in Becholshtein’s Sun Microsystems at its launch. He and his wife Anne are the main funders behind Rice University’s Center for Engineering Leadership (RCEL), which in 2009 received $16 million from DARPA for its platform-aware-compilation-environment (PACE) ubiquitous computing R&D program. Doerr also has a close relationship with the Obama administration, which he advised shortly after it took power to ramp up Pentagon funding to the tech industry. In 2013, at the Fortune Brainstorm TECH conference, Doerr applauded “how the DoD’s DARPA funded GPS, CAD, most of the major computer science departments, and of course, the Internet.”

From inception, in other words, Google was incubated, nurtured and financed by interests that were directly affiliated or closely aligned with the US military intelligence community: many of whom were embedded in the Pentagon Highlands Forum.

Google captures the Pentagon

In 2003, Google began customizing its search engine under special contract with the CIA for its Intelink Management Office, “overseeing top-secret, secret and sensitive but unclassified intranets for CIA and other IC agencies,” according to Homeland Security Today. That year, CIA funding was also being “quietly” funneled through the National Science Foundation to projects that might help create “new capabilities to combat terrorism through advanced technology.”

The following year, Google bought the firm Keyhole, which had originally been funded by In-Q-Tel. Using Keyhole, Google began developing the advanced satellite mapping software behind Google Earth. Former DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair Anita Jones had been on the board of In-Q-Tel at this time, and remains so today.

Then in November 2005, In-Q-Tel issued notices to sell $2.2 million of Google stocks. Google’s relationship with US intelligence was further brought to light when an IT contractor told a closed Washington DC conference of intelligence professionals on a not-for-attribution basis that at least one US intelligence agency was working to “leverage Google’s [user] data monitoring” capability as part of an effort to acquire data of “national security intelligence interest.”

photo on Flickr dated March 2007 reveals that Google research director and AI expert Peter Norvig attended a Pentagon Highlands Forum meeting that year in Carmel, California. Norvig’s intimate connection to the Forum as of that year is also corroborated by his role in guest editing the 2007 Forum reading list.

The photo below shows Norvig in conversation with Lewis Shepherd, who at that time was senior technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible for investigating, approving, and architecting “all new hardware/software systems and acquisitions for the Global Defense Intelligence IT Enterprise,” including “big data technologies.” Shepherd now works at Microsoft. Norvig was a computer research scientist at Stanford University in 1991 before joining Bechtolsheim’s Sun Microsystems as senior scientist until 1994, and going on to head up NASA’s computer science division.

Lewis Shepherd (left), then a senior technology officer at the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, talking to Peter Norvig (right), renowned expert in artificial intelligence expert and director of research at Google. This photo is from a Highlands Forum meeting in 2007.

Norvig shows up on O’Neill’s Google Plus profile as one of his close connections. Scoping the rest of O’Neill’s Google Plus connections illustrates that he is directly connected not just to a wide range of Google executives, but also to some of the biggest names in the US tech community.

Those connections include Michele Weslander Quaid, an ex-CIA contractor and former senior Pentagon intelligence official who is now Google’s chief technology officer where she is developing programs to “best fit government agencies’ needs”; Elizabeth Churchill, Google director of user experience; James Kuffner, a humanoid robotics expert who now heads up Google’s robotics division and who introduced the term ‘cloud robotics’; Mark Drapeau, director of innovation engagement for Microsoft’s public sector business; Lili Cheng, general manager of Microsoft’s Future Social Experiences (FUSE) Labs; Jon Udell, Microsoft ‘evangelist’; Cory Ondrejka, vice president of engineering at Facebook; to name just a few.

In 2010, Google signed a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract with the NSA’s sister agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The contract was to use Google Earth for visualization services for the NGA. Google had developed the software behind Google Earth by purchasing Keyhole from the CIA venture firm In-Q-Tel.

Then a year after, in 2011, another of O’Neill’s Google Plus connections, Michele Quaid — who had served in executive positions at the NGA, National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — left her government role to become Google ‘innovation evangelist’ and the point-person for seeking government contracts. Quaid’s last role before her move to Google was as a senior representative of the Director of National Intelligence to the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force, and a senior advisor to the undersecretary of defense for intelligence’s director of Joint and Coalition Warfighter Support (J&CWS). Both roles involved information operations at their core. Before her Google move, in other words, Quaid worked closely with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, to which the Pentagon’s Highlands Forum is subordinate. Quaid has herself attended the Forum, though precisely when and how often I could not confirm.

In March 2012, then DARPA director Regina Dugan — who in that capacity was also co-chair of the Pentagon Highlands Forum — followed her colleague Quaid into Google to lead the company’s new Advanced Technology and Projects Group. During her Pentagon tenure, Dugan led on strategic cyber security and social media, among other initiatives. She was responsible for focusing “an increasing portion” of DARPA’s work “on the investigation of offensive capabilities to address military-specific needs,” securing $500 million of government funding for DARPA cyber research from 2012 to 2017.

Regina Dugan, former head of DARPA and Highlands Forum co-chair, now a senior Google executive — trying her best to look the part

By November 2014, Google’s chief AI and robotics expert James Kuffner was a delegate alongside O’Neill at the Highlands Island Forum 2014 in Singapore, to explore ‘Advancement in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Society, Security and Conflict.’ The event included 26 delegates from Austria, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Britain and the US, from both industry and government. Kuffner’s association with the Pentagon, however, began much earlier. In 1997, Kuffner was a researcher during his Stanford PhD for a Pentagon-funded project on networked autonomous mobile robots, sponsored by DARPA and the US Navy.

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author and international security scholar. A former Guardian writer, he writes the ‘System Shift’ column for VICE’s Motherboard, and is also a columnist for Middle East Eye. He is the winner of a 2015 Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian work.

Nafeez has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, New Internationalist, Counterpunch, Truthout, among others. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010), and the scifi thriller novel ZERO POINT, among other books. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest.

Nafeez is 120% corroborated by Quartz:

A rich history of the governments science funding

There was already a long history of collaboration between America’s best scientists and the intelligence community, from the creation of the atomic bomb and satellite technology to efforts to put a man on the moon.The internet itself was created because of an intelligence effort.

In fact, the internet itself was created because of an intelligence effort: In the 1970s, the agency responsible for developing emerging technologies for military, intelligence, and national security purposes—the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)—linked four supercomputers to handle massive data transfers. It handed the operations off to the National Science Foundation (NSF) a decade or so later, which proliferated the network across thousands of universities and, eventually, the public, thus creating the architecture and scaffolding of the World Wide Web.

Silicon Valley was no different. By the mid 1990s, the intelligence community was seeding funding to the most promising supercomputing efforts across academia, guiding the creation of efforts to make massive amounts of information useful for both the private sector as well as the intelligence community.

They funded these computer scientists through an unclassified, highly compartmentalized program that was managed for the CIA and the NSA by large military and intelligence contractors. It was called the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) project.

The Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) project 

MDDS was introduced to several dozen leading computer scientists at Stanford, CalTech, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, and others in a white paper that described what the CIA, NSA, DARPA, and other agencies hoped to achieve. The research would largely be funded and managed by unclassified science agencies like NSF, which would allow the architecture to be scaled up in the private sector if it managed to achieve what the intelligence community hoped for.

“Not only are activities becoming more complex, but changing demands require that the IC [Intelligence Community] process different types as well as larger volumes of data,” the intelligence community said in its 1993 MDDS white paper. “Consequently, the IC is taking a proactive role in stimulating research in the efficient management of massive databases and ensuring that IC requirements can be incorporated or adapted into commercial products. Because the challenges are not unique to any one agency, the Community Management Staff (CMS) has commissioned a Massive Digital Data Systems [MDDS] Working Group to address the needs and to identify and evaluate possible solutions.”

Over the next few years, the program’s stated aim was to provide more than a dozen grants of several million dollars each to advance this research concept. The grants were to be directed largely through the NSF so that the most promising, successful efforts could be captured as intellectual property and form the basis of companies attracting investments from Silicon Valley. This type of public-to-private innovation system helped launch powerful science and technology companies like Qualcomm, Symantec, Netscape, and others, and funded the pivotal research in areas like Doppler radar and fiber optics, which are central to large companies like AccuWeather, Verizon, and AT&T today. Today, the NSF provides nearly 90% of all federal funding for university-based computer-science research.

MIT is but a Pentagon lab

The CIA and NSAs end goal

The research arms of the CIA and NSA hoped that the best computer-science minds in academia could identify what they called “birds of a feather:” Just as geese fly together in large V shapes, or flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in harmony, they predicted that like-minded groups of humans would move together online. The intelligence community named their first unclassified briefing for scientists the “birds of a feather” briefing, and the “Birds of a Feather Session on the Intelligence Community Initiative in Massive Digital Data Systems” took place at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose in the spring of 1995.The intelligence community named their first unclassified briefing for scientists the “birds of a feather” briefing.

Their research aim was to track digital fingerprints inside the rapidly expanding global information network, which was then known as the World Wide Web. Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could “birds of a feather” be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?

By working with emerging commercial-data companies, their intent was to track like-minded groups of people across the internet and identify them from the digital fingerprints they left behind, much like forensic scientists use fingerprint smudges to identify criminals. Just as “birds of a feather flock together,” they predicted that potential terrorists would communicate with each other in this new global, connected world—and they could find them by identifying patterns in this massive amount of new information. Once these groups were identified, they could then follow their digital trails everywhere.

Sergey Brin and Larry Page, computer-science boy wonders 

In 1995, one of the first and most promising MDDS grants went to a computer-science research team at Stanford University with a decade-long history of working with NSF and DARPA grants. The primary objective of this grant was “query optimization of very complex queries that are described using the ‘query flocks’ approach.” A second grant—the DARPA-NSF grant most closely associated with Google’s origin—was part of a coordinated effort to build a massive digital library using the internet as its backbone. Both grants funded research by two graduate students who were making rapid advances in web-page ranking, as well as tracking (and making sense of) user queries: future Google cofounders Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

The research by Brin and Page under these grants became the heart of Google: people using search functions to find precisely what they wanted inside a very large data set. The intelligence community, however, saw a slightly different benefit in their research: Could the network be organized so efficiently that individual users could be uniquely identified and tracked?

This process is perfectly suited for the purposes of counter-terrorism and homeland security efforts: Human beings and like-minded groups who might pose a threat to national security can be uniquely identified online before they do harm. This explains why the intelligence community found Brin’s and Page’s research efforts so appealing; prior to this time, the CIA largely used human intelligence efforts in the field to identify people and groups that might pose threats. The ability to track them virtually (in conjunction with efforts in the field) would change everything.

It was the beginning of what in just a few years’ time would become Google. The two intelligence-community managers charged with leading the program met regularly with Brin as his research progressed, and he was an author on several other research papers that resulted from this MDDS grant before he and Page left to form Google.

The grants allowed Brin and Page to do their work and contributed to their breakthroughs in web-page ranking and tracking user queries. Brin didn’t work for the intelligence community—or for anyone else. Google had not yet been incorporated. He was just a Stanford researcher taking advantage of the grant provided by the NSA and CIA through the unclassified MDDS program.

Left out of Googles story

The MDDS research effort has never been part of Google’s origin story, even though the principal investigator for the MDDS grant specifically named Google as directly resulting from their research: “Its core technology, which allows it to find pages far more accurately than other search engines, was partially supported by this grant,” he wrote. In a published research paper that includes some of Brin’s pivotal work, the authors also reference the NSF grant that was created by the MDDS program.

Instead, every Google creation story only mentions just one federal grant: the NSF/DARPA “digital libraries” grant, which was designed to allow Stanford researchers to search the entire World Wide Web stored on the university’s servers at the time. “The development of the Google algorithms was carried on a variety of computers, mainly provided by the NSF-DARPA-NASA-funded Digital Library project at Stanford,” Stanford’s Infolab says of its origin, for example. NSF likewise only references the digital libraries grant, not the MDDS grant as well, in its own history of Google’s origin. In the famous research paper, “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine,” which describes the creation of Google, Brin and Page thanked the NSF and DARPA for its digital library grant to Stanford. But the grant from the intelligence community’s MDDS program—specifically designed for the breakthrough that Google was built upon—has faded into obscurity.

Google has said in the past that it was not funded or created by the CIA. For instance, when stories circulated in 2006 that Google had received funding from the intelligence community for years to assist in counter-terrorism efforts, the company told Wired magazine founder John Battelle, “The statements related to Google are completely untrue.”

Did the CIA directly fund the work of Brin and Page, and therefore create Google? No. But were Brin and Page researching precisely what the NSA, the CIA, and the intelligence community hoped for, assisted by their grants? Absolutely.The CIA and NSA funded an unclassified, compartmentalized program designed from its inception to spur something that looks almost exactly like Google.

To understand this significance, you have to consider what the intelligence community was trying to achieve as it seeded grants to the best computer-science minds in academia: The CIA and NSA funded an unclassified, compartmentalized program designed from its inception to spur the development of something that looks almost exactly like Google. Brin’s breakthrough research on page ranking by tracking user queries and linking them to the many searches conducted—essentially identifying “birds of a feather”—was largely the aim of the intelligence community’s MDDS program. And Google succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

The intelligence communitys enduring legacy within Silicon Valley

Digital privacy concerns over the intersection between the intelligence community and commercial technology giants have grown in recent years. But most people still don’t understand the degree to which the intelligence community relies on the world’s biggest science and tech companies for its counter-terrorism and national-security work.

Civil-liberty advocacy groups have aired their privacy concerns for years, especially as they now relate to the Patriot Act. “Hastily passed 45 days after 9/11 in the name of national security, the Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and track the activity of innocent Americans on the Internet,” says the ACLU. “While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into suspects.”

When asked, the biggest technology and communications companies—from Verizon and AT&T to Google, Facebook, and Microsoft—say that they never deliberately and proactively offer up their vast databases on their customers to federal security and law enforcement agencies: They say that they only respond to subpoenas or requests that are filed properly under the terms of the Patriot Act.

But even a cursory glance through recent public records shows that there is a treadmill of constant requests that could undermine the intent behind this privacy promise. According to the data-request records that the companies make available to the public, in the most recent reporting period between 2016 and 2017, local, state and federal government authorities seeking information related to national security, counter-terrorism or criminal concerns issued more than 260,000 subpoenas, court orders, warrants, and other legal requests to Verizon, more than 250,000 such requests to AT&T, and nearly 24,000 subpoenas, search warrants, or court orders to Google. Direct national security or counter-terrorism requests are a small fraction of this overall group of requests, but the Patriot Act legal process has now become so routinized that the companies each have a group of employees who simply take care of the stream of requests.

In this way, the collaboration between the intelligence community and big, commercial science and tech companies has been wildly successful. When national security agencies need to identify and track people and groups, they know where to turn – and do so frequently. That was the goal in the beginning. It has succeeded perhaps more than anyone could have imagined at the time.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH BOOK PRESENTATION BY THE AUTHOR

FFW to 2020

From DARPA to Google: How the Military Kickstarted AV Development

 27 Feb 2020

FromDarpatoGoogle

The Stanford Racing Team

by Arrow Mag, Feb 2020

Sebastian Thrun was entertaining the idea of self-driving cars for many years. Born and raised in Germany, he was fascinated with the power and performance of German cars. Things changed in 1986, when he was 18, when his best friend died in a car crash because the driver, another friend, was going too fast on his new Audi Quattro.

As a student at the University of Bonn, Thrun developed several autonomous robotic systems that earned him international recognition. At the time, Thrun was convinced that self-driving cars would soon make transportation safer, avoiding crashes like the one that took his friend’s life.

In 1998, he became an assistant professor and co-director of the Robot Learning Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University. In July 2003, Thrun left Carnegie Mellon for Stanford University, soon after the first DARPA Grand Challenge was announced. Before accepting the new position, he asked Red Whittaker, the leader of the CMU robotics department, to join the team developing the vehicle for the DARPA race. Whittaker declined. After moving to California, Thrun joined the Stanford Racing Team.

On Oct. 8, 2005, the Stanford Racing Team won $2 million for being the first team to complete the 132-mile DARPA Grand Challenge course in California’s Mojave Desert. Their robot car, “Stanley,” finished in just under 6 hours and 54 minutes and averaged over 19 mph on the course.

Google’s Page wanted to develop self-driving cars

Two years after the third Grand Challenge, Google co-founder Larry Page called Thrun, wanting to turn the experience of the DARPA races into a product for the masses.

When Page first approached Thrun about building a self-driving car that people could use on the real roads, Thrun told him it couldn’t be done.

But Page had a vision, and he would not abandon his quest for an autonomous vehicle.

Thrun recalled that a short time later, Page came back to him and said, “OK, you say it can’t be done. You’re the expert. I trust you. So I can explain to Sergey [Brin] why it can’t be done, can you give me a technical reason why it can’t be done?”

Finally, Thrun accepted Page’s offer and, in 2009, started Project Chauffeur, which began as the Google self-driving car project.

The Google 101,000-Mile Challenge

To develop the technology for Google’s self-driving car, Thrun called Urmson and offered him the position of chief technical officer of the project.

To encourage the team to build a vehicle, and its systems, to drive on any public road, Page created two challenges, with big cash rewards for the entire team: a 1,000-mile challenge to show that Project Chauffeur’s car could drive in several situations, including highways and the streets of San Francisco, and another 100,000-mile challenge to show that driverless cars could be a reality in a few years.

By the middle of 2011, Project Chauffeur engineers completed the two challenges.

In 2016, the Google self-driving car project became Waymo, a “spinoff under Alphabet as a self-driving technology company with a mission to make it safe and easy for people and things to move around.”

Urmson led Google’s self-driving car project for nearly eight years. Under his leadership, Google vehicles accumulated 1.8 million miles of test driving.

In 2018, Waymo One, the first fully self-driving vehicle taxi service, began in Phoenix, Arizona.

From Waymo to Aurora

In 2016, after finishing development of the production-ready version of Waymo’s self-driving technology, Urmson left Google to start Aurora Innovation, a startup backed by Amazon, aiming to provide the full-stack solution for self-driving vehicles.

Urmson believes that in 20 years, we’ll see much of the transportation infrastructure move over to automation. – Arrow.com

TO BE CONTINUED

Here’s a peek into the next episode:

Facebook Hired a Former DARPA Head To Lead An Ambitious New Research Lab

Source: TIME | by VICTOR LUCKERSON

If you need another sign that Facebook’s world-dominating ambitions are just getting started, here’s one: the Menlo Park, Calif. company has hired a former DARPA chief to lead its new research lab.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced April 14 that Regina Dugan will guide Building 8, a new research group developing hardware projects that advance the company’s efforts in virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence and global connectivity.

Dugan served as the head of the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from 2009 and 2012. Most recently, she led Google’s Advanced Technology and Projects Lab, a highly experimental arm of the company responsible for developing new hardware and software products on a strict two-year timetable.

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

“The greatest conspiracies are in plain sight” – Edward Snowden

UPDATE JANUARY 25th, 2022: 200% VINDICATED

A 2017 interview, resurfaced just now by Rise Melbourne (thanks!), shows Klaus Schwab making a summary of this expose in just one minute:

UPDATE JANUARY 9, 2022: SHAMELESS SHILLS:

I’ve just unearthed a series of videos that show an unpublicized side of the World Economic Forum and its leader Klaus Schwab.

These videos are extra bonuses to a 2019 German Documentary titled “Das Forum” (The Forum), which seems part of Klaus Schwab’s idea of imprinting his personal image in history for the 50th WEF anniversary.

In 2018, Schwab decided to allow a carefully selected outsider in his kitchen, in a mutually complicit attempt at positive publicity and fame. There are precedents in history. What followed was quite a disaster, in my personal opinion, because Klaus doesn’t have the subtlety needed to do this and it all derailed in a blatant bad-taste cult of personality. All under the disguise of investigative journalism, of course.

I have previously published some of these extras, but now I have the full package and we’re going to weed out the propaganda looking for real truth gems.

From this first video we find out about the so called “Young Global Leaders”, which are pretty clearly World Economic Forum’s youth elite organization. I don’t have yet a quality translation of the part in German, but the English dialogue in the beginning is quite telling.

This second video reveals shocking former Young Global Learders names, and possible new candidates (as of 2018)

Class of 2011

Justin Trudeau has been among the first to let us know he’s aligned and awaiting instructions, even before he came out in the news claiming “The Great Reset” is a conspiracy. He’s been mentioning “Build Back Better” since February-March 2020, before Biden ever heard this oxymoron put together for the first time.

“Kyle Kemper is not a nobody. Not only is he Justin Trudeau’s half-brother, and the son of Margaret Trudeau, but he has a business portfolio: a founder and the Chief Executive Officer of Swiss Key, and previously an Executive Director and Strategic advisor at the Chamber of Digital Commerce Canada. He finished his BCOMM, marketing business, from Dalhousie University.” – En-volve

In the video above, Putin confirms Blair is one of his “good friends”. Recorded 10 years ago, when they were fresh YGL alumni.

In this third “resurrected” video, we watch them openly discussing regime change in countries unaligned with WEF’s “democratic liberalism” and the Fourth Industrial Revolution

VIDEO DELETED BY YOUTUBE, COULDN’T RECOVER IT YET, BUT I WILL…

Welcome to the younger Forum!

No one’s younger than the king and his heirs, right?

Young Global Leaders

The Young Global Leaders, or Forum of Young Global Leaders, is an independent non-profit organization managed from GenevaSwitzerland, under the supervision of the Swiss government.

History

Launched by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum in 2004, the Young Global Leaders are governed by a board of twelve world and industry leaders, ranging from Queen Rania of Jordan to Marissa Mayer of Yahoo! and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales. Schwab created the group with $1 million won from the Dan David Prize, and the inaugural 2005 class comprised 237 young leaders. Young Global Leaders participate in the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, established in 2007 and known informally as “Summer Davos“, alongside Global Growth Companies and other delegations to the World Economic Forum.

Papa Schwab welcomes his “Young Global Leaders” at their Inaugural Summit in 2005

In this shape and form, YGL exists since 2004, but it’s actually an older structure bearing different names over time, such as Global Leaders for Tomorrow. Thus, the archives intertwin and overlap, and named get lost. But the agenda stayed the same.
I just dug out a very interesting little gem from the belly of the Internets, which brings us to:

Selection process

Found their original playbook!
SOURCE

As per this Israeli SOURCE:

“The World Economic Forum, which is an independent international organization that defines its goal as improving the state of the world, started the Global Leaders for Tomorrow Program began in 1993. The program’s aim is “to provide an informal, efficient framework for an ongoing exchange of opinions on strategic issues of concern to this younger generation of decision-makers,” the forum describes.

“The GLT Community represents the new generation of global leaders, nearly 500 individuals from business, politics, public interest groups, the media, the arts and the sciences, who have demonstrated responsible leadership vis-a-vis society, business developments, the environment and socially responsible initiatives,” the Geneva-based forum said.

The criteria for making the list include being under 37 years old, proving a commitment to public affairs, and demonstrating leadership in addressing issues beyond their immediate professional interest.

Once selected, GLTs are invited for three consecutive years to a special GLT program at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, and for five years to a yearly GLT Summit and to regional activities of the World Economic Forum.”

The current narrative, as per Wikipedia:
“Representing over 70 different nations, Young Global Leaders are nominated by alumni to serve six-year terms and are subject to veto during the selection process. Candidates must be younger than 38 years old at the time of acceptance (meaning active YGLs are 44 and younger), and highly accomplished in their fields. Over the years, there have been hundreds of honorees, including several popular celebrities, alongside recognized high achievers and innovators in politics, business, academia, media, and the arts.”

Reception

BusinessWeeks Bruce Nussbaum describes the Young Global Leaders as “the most exclusive private social network in the world”, while the organization itself describes the selected leaders as representing “the voice for the future and the hopes of the next generation”.

Members and alumni

Notable members and alumni of Young Global Leaders include:

Young Global Leader David Rothschild, fresh off the YGL boat, preaching the WEF gospel on TV
YOPP! SHE GOT HER OWN FEATURE

BOOM! IVANKA TRUMP A WEF YOUNG GLOBAL LEADER CONFIRMED BY WH

More American horsemen of the Great Reset

Let’s look at more celebrity YGL’s

Interestingly enough, Daniel Crenshaw has been deleted from their website. But not from the Internet Archive 😉

Crenshaw is also confirmed by this CNBC report

Dude doesn’t even look alive

Young Global Leaders–Anderson Cooper and Leonardo DiCaprio Are In The Most Exclusive Private Social Network In The World.

By Bloomberg, March 18, 2008, 4:00 AM GMT

The World Economic Forum out of Davos just announced its new 2008 list of YGLs—Young Global Leaders. In a growing universe of private social networks, the YGL network has got to be one of—if not THE—most exclusive sn around. A few weeks ago, I predicted that Cameron Sinclair, who founded Architecture for Humanity  would become a YGL—and he did.

YGL website profile

YGLers can find out who fellow members of the social network are in any particular city around the world by clicking on the map site (can’t do it here, sorry). Works for regions too. Want to chat with a fellow YGLer if you’re visiting Silicon Valley, call up Marc Benioff, Shai Agassi, Sergey Brin (Google founder), Gavin Newson (San Fran mayor), Jerry Yang or John Battelle. If you’re in New York City, Business News TV star Maria Bartiromo is a YGLer.

WEF’s ‘Young Global Leader’ and Google owner Sergey Brin chats with his mentor at Davos 2017

Fellowship Supporters

  • Aliko Dangote Foundation

Executive Education Partners and Supporters

  • Bill and Penny George
  • David Rubenstein
  • Harvard Kennedy School
  • Howard Cox
  • Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
  • Marilyn Carlson Nelson and Glen Nelson
  • Princeton University Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment
  • Singapore Economic Development Board
  • University of Oxford Saïd Business School
  • University of Cape Town Graduate School of Business
  • Willis Towers Watson

Endowment Supporters (gifts from YGL members of 50,000+ CHF)

The YGL Endowment Fund was created by the community’s members to support the long-term ambitions of the Forum of Young Global Leaders. Its proceeds are intended to support the community programming and to ensure participation is accessible to all members.

  • Andrew Cohen
  • Ellana Lee
  • Georges Kern
  • Henrik Naujoks
  • Jill Otto
  • Katherine Garrett-Cox
  • M Arsjad Rasjid Mangkuningrat
  • Peter Lacy
  • Richard Stromback
  • Ron Cao
  • Sandro Salsano
  • Thor Björgolfsson
  • Veronica Colondam
  • Yana Peel
  • Zhang Yi-Chen

About us

Our growing membership of more than 1,400 members and alumni of 120 nationalities includes civic and business innovators, entrepreneurs, technology pioneers, educators, activists, artists, journalists, and more.

Aligned with the World Economic Forum’s mission, we seek to drive public-private co-operation in the global public interest. We are united by the belief that today’s pressing problems present an opportunity to build a better future across sectors and boundaries.

History

Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, created the Forum of Young Global Leaders in 2004 to help the world meet increasingly complex and interdependent problems. His vision was to create a proactive multistakeholder community of the world’s next-generation leaders to inform and influence decision-making and mobilize transformation.

Through the Forum of Young Global Leaders, Klaus Schwab envisioned facilitating earnest dialogue and friendships across cultures to bridge divides, fostering fresh thinking and dynamic new ways of collaboration to shape a more positive, peaceful and prosperous society.

Annual Reports

AND THE ACTUAL GOAL OF THIS WHOLE OPERATION:

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

ORDER

Imagine Jewish company Ben&Jerry went like: “People who don’t eat our ice-cream are anti-food and anti-semitic”. That’s exactly what Pharmafia does, amplified by their presstitutes and mass-mediots.
But facts don’t care about fake Semites impersonating a victim while caring out a worldwide genocide.

Btw. Times of Israel deleted its most popular post of 2012, last one in my collage, but not quite every trace of it.

Source
Source
Dershowitz: Jews should never hide or excuse their disproportionate control over society

COVID-19 Vaccines Have Jewish Links

“AS A PROUD JEW, I WANT AMERICA TO KNOW ABOUT OUR ACCOMPLISHMENT. YES, WE CONTROL HOLLYWOOD”

Who are the Jews behind the coronavirus vaccines?

World’s 50 most influential Jews – The Jerusalem Post’s first annual list of those who are shaping the future.

Argentine TV host fired over ‘Jews control the media’ tweet

Microsoft and Google invest in medical research platform

PULITZER-WORTHY! KLAUS SCHWAB’S NAZI ROOTS FINALLY TRACED!

Want more? There’s tons out there.

BONUS: 2021: Companies who gassed Jews and those who jab them hold hands, throw money at BLM & Climate-19

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 fact, the headline is borrowed from Scientific American and I’m just following up with more knowledge from all sorts of “authoritative sources”, none of the claims are mine. The knowledge and vision that put them together are, not much else. The rest is “science”

THERE SEEMS TO BE A FORCE OF ATTRACTION BETWEEN HUNCH-BACKED science elites AND PEDOPHILES

Science Philanthropist, Jeffrey Epstein, Convenes a Conference of Nobel Laureates to Define Gravity.

New York, NY, March 29, 2012 –(PR.com)


Twenty one of the world’s top physicists, including three Nobel Laureates, opened a symposium on St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands to debate the essence of gravity and a unified gravity theory. The private meetings were called, “Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology.” The goal of the conference was to establish what the current consensus is, if any, for defining gravity.

The conference was financed by science philanthropist, Jeffrey Epstein and his foundation, J. Epstein Virgin Islands Inc. It was organized by physicist and cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Department, and Inaugural Director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. The Nobel laureates included, particle physicists, Gerardus’t Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek. Other scientists in attendance were theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking, Jim Peebles from Princeton University, Alan Guth from MIT, Kip Thorne from Caltech, Lisa Randall from Harvard University, Barry Barish from LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory, a bevy of observational cosmologists and Maria Spiropulu from CERN near Geneva, Switzerland.

Understanding gravity is critical right now Krauss argues because “many of the key ideas at the forefront of particle physics cosmology relate to our lack of understanding of how to accommodate gravity and quantum mechanics.” Indeed, conventional notions of gravity require little to no spatial energy for entities to be bound to the other, a sense of anti-gravity or vacuum. But on the quantum level, subatomic particles are bound by the exchange of increasingly intense energy parcels: electrons by the exchange of photons, neutrons and protons (made up of quarks) by the exchange of gluons, and the decay of quarks and leptons by the exchange of vector W and Z bosons.

To make it even harder, there is a lack of experimental evidence in the murky field of quantum gravity, and classical physics has really only observed the effects of gravity over larger ranges of 50 orders of magnitude of mass, i.e., for masses of objects from about 10−23 to 1030 kg.

The outcome of the conference however was quite astounding, Krauss asserts. There was a general consensus that gravity might exist in the form of gravitational waves and that these waves could be a part of “what we’ve been calling, empty space.”

The notion of gravitational waves is not new. They were predicted by Einstein to exist from the curvature of space time, and although they’ve never been directly detected, there is indirect evidence from the study of binary stars, neutron stars and black holes. What bothers Krauss though is that there’s still a lack of basic physics to explain them. “…We have these ideas and these parameters and every experiment is consistent with this picture, and yet nothing points to the fundamental physics beneath it.”

At the conference though, Krauss and others focused on finding such an explanation. Empty space, they suggested, is perhaps neither full, nor empty but is rather in a state of flux between intense energy spurts and their cancellation. “We know empty space isn’t empty, because it’s full of these virtual particles that pop in and out of existence,” Krauss points out, “If you try and calculate the energy level in a hydrogen atom, and you don’t include those virtual particles, you get a wrong answer. Every now and then you have an electron positron pair that pops into existence,” he continues. “And [while] the electron wants to hang around near the proton because it’s oppositely charged, the positron is pushed to the outskirts of the atom, and while there, they change the atom’s charged distribution in a very small, but calculable, way. Feynman and others calculated that effect, which allows us to get agreement between theory and observation at the level of nine decimal places. It’s the best prediction in all of science. There’s no other place in science where, from fundamental principles, you can calculate a number and compare it to an experiment at nine decimal places like that.”

But if empty space is full of intense virtual particles, not to mention other particles, it’s equally full of the cancellation of energy. Symmetry in nature occurs all the time, Krauss notes and can produce exact cancellations, for example the peak of a wave coinciding with the trough of another. Absolute cancellation is mathematically challenging though, Krauss points out. “You can’t take two [energy] numbers that are very large and expect them to exactly cancel leaving something that’s 120 orders of magnitude smaller left over. And that’s what would be required to have an energy that was comparable with the observational upper limits on the energy of empty space.”

To deal with this difficulty, Krauss simply derives that the energy of empty space could never be exactly zero. And to distinguish it from pure empty space, one would have to measure it over time as it fluctuates. “The only observation that would give you positive information is if you could measure it changing over time. Then you’d know it wasn’t vacuum energy.”

This view of not quite empty space, made up of intense energies that almost cancel each other out, might very well help to explain the physics of gravitational waves beyond the consequences of curved space time: not just in their architecture but their capacity to occur in both the high energy quantum realm as well as the apparent voids of gravitational space.

“Right now we’re floundering,” Krauss admits. “We’re floundering, in a lot of different areas.” But from a gravity point of view, that approach might well lead to a unified theory.

Contact:

Christina Galbraith

jeffreyepsteinorg@gmail.com

http://www.jeffreyepsteinfoundation.com

Contact Information:

The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation

Christina Galbraith

(917) 573-7604

Contact via Email

http://www.jeffreyepsteinfoundation.com

Physicists Debate Gravity at St. Thomas Symposium

The St. Thomas Source, March 17, 2006

March 17, 2006 – The Ritz-Carlton hummed like the inside of an atom Thursday night as 20 of the world’s top physicists – including three Nobel Prize winners – opened an informal symposium to debate the makeup and origins of the universe.
The private meetings, dubbed “Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology,” bring some of physics’ top minds to St. Thomas to discuss some of the science’s most puzzling questions, such as the existence of black holes and alternate dimensions.
Nobel prize winners Gerardus’t Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek, and experimental and theoretical physics pioneer Stephen Hawking, attended an informal reception at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Thursday night.
Wilczek, who with Gross and H. David Politzer won the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics for exploring of the force that binds particles inside the atomic nucleus, said it was rare to have so many top minds at a relatively small physics conference.
“This is a remarkable group,” he said.
Gross said it was important for physicists at the top level to get together, not only to discuss new theories, but to keep each other sane.
“It’s a little scary to be out there probing the unknown and you need to have people around to say, ‘No, you’re not crazy,'” Gross said. “This is special.”
The driving force behind the conference, New York and Virgin Islands money manager Jeffrey Epstein, said he pooled the group on St. Thomas with hopes that the relaxed setting would free the physicists’ minds to explore one of the 20th century’s last unanswered physics questions: What is gravity.
“They say Newton discovered it but no one knows what it is,” said Epstein, whose J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation helped finance the six-day conference.
Delegates from the University of the Virgin Islands and Antilles School also attended the reception, where a few free spirited physicists braved the dance floor.


“There is no agenda except fun and physics, and that’s fun with a capital ‘F,'” Epstein said.

The St. Thomas Source

Many pedophiles die battling gravity.

SILVIEW.media

ONCE UPON A TIME THERE EVEN WAS A WEBSITE CALLED JEFFREYEPSTEINSCIENCE.COM

About Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey E. Epstein serves as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Trust Company. Mr. Epstein started his career at Bear Stearns with an educational background in physics. He has been a Trustee of Institute Of International Education Inc. since October 2001.

He serves as a Director of Financial Trust Company. Previously, Mr. Epstein was a Member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations as well as the New York Academy of Science.  He is also a former Rockefeller University Board Member.  Currently, Mr. Epstein is actively involved in the Santa Fe Institute, the Theoretical Biology Initiative at the Institute for Advanced Study, the Quantum Gravity Program at the University of Pennsylvania, and also sits on the Mind, Brain & Behavior Advisory Committee at Harvard.

Jeffrey Epstein’s philanthropic affiliations include both the Wexner Foundation and The COUQ Foundation. He is a member of the Edge Group, an internationally respected group of thinkers and achievers.

TESTIMONIALS

Stephen Kosslyn on Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein is more than just interested, he gets out into the field and meets the scientists who are doing the cutting-edge work.

Howard Gardner on Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein has proven to be generally interested in supporting empirically oriented researchers.

Lee Smolin on Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein asked me what was my most ambitious and crazy idea. Then unexpectedly he gave me the chance to try and make good on my answers.

Richard Axel on Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein also has an extremely short attention span. Why?—it’s not that he’s bored. He has enough information after fifteen minutes so that you can see his mind thrashing about, as if in a labyrinth.

Joe Pagano on Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein takes the smallest amount of information and gets the correct answer in the shortest period of time. That’s my definition of IQ.

Confronting Gravity with Lawrence Krauss

THIS POST WAS WRITTEN BY ADMIN ON OCTOBER 25, 2010
POSTED UNDER: THEORETICAL PHYSICS

In 2006, Lawrence Krauss wanted to have “a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology”. They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event.

For Krauss, what came out of the conference was the over-riding issue that “there appears to be energy of empty space that isn’t zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won’t be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.”

“It’s not clear to me”, he says, “that the landscape idea will be anything but impotent. Ultimately it might lead to interesting suggestions about things, but real progress will occur when we actually have new ideas. If string theory is the right direction, and I’m willing to argue that it might be, even if there’s just no evidence that it is right now, then a new idea that tells us a fundamental principle for how to turn that formalism to a theory will give us a direction that will turn into something fruitful. Right now we’re floundering. We’re floundering, in a lot of different areas.”

Lawrence Krauss testing density equilibrium around Epstein’s Island

LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS, a physicist/cosmologist, is the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics and chairman of the Physics Department of Case Western Reserve University. He is the author of The Fifth Essence, Quintessence, Fear of Physics, The Physics of Star Trek, Beyond Star Trek, Atom, and Hiding in the Mirror.

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN’T ZERO
A Talk with Lawrence Krauss

I invited a group of cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists and cosmologists. Stephen Hawking came; we had three Nobel laureates, Gerard ‘tHooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; well-known cosmologists and physicists such as Jim Peebles at Princeton, Alan Guth at MIT, Kip Thorne at Caltech, Lisa Randall at Harvard; experimentalists, such as Barry Barish of LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory; we had observational cosmologists, people looking at the cosmic microwave background; we had Maria Spiropulu from CERN, who’s working on the Large Hadron Collider — which a decade ago people wouldn’t have thought it was a probe of gravity, but now due to recent work in the possibility of extra dimensions it might be.

I just returned from the Virgin Islands, from a delightful event — a conference in St. Thomas sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein — that I organized with 21 physicists. I like small events, and I got to hand-pick the people. The topic of the meeting was “Confronting Gravity. ” I wanted to have a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology. And if you think about it they all revolve in one way or another around gravity. Someone at the meeting said, well, you know, don’t we understand gravity? Things fall. But really, many of the key ideas that right now are at the forefront of particle physics cosmology, relate to our lack of understanding of how to accommodate gravity and quantum mechanics.
I invited a group of cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists and cosmologists. Stephen Hawking came; we had three Nobel laureates, Gerard ‘tHooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; well-known cosmologists and physicists such as Jim Peebles at Princeton, Alan Guth at MIT, Kip Thorne at Caltech, Lisa Randall at Harvard; experimentalists, such as Barry Barish of LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory; we had observational cosmologists, people looking at the cosmic microwave background; we had Maria Spiropulu from CERN, who’s working on the Large Hadron Collider — which a decade ago people wouldn’t have thought it was a probe of gravity, but now due to recent work in the possibility of extra dimensions it might be.

I wanted to have a series of sessions where we would, each of us, try and speak somewhat provocatively about what each person was thinking about, what the key issues are, and then have a lot of open time for discussion. And so the meeting was devoted with a lot of open time for discussion, a lot of individual time for discussion, as well as some fun things like going down in a submarine, which we did.  It was a delightful event, where we defied gravity by having buoyancy, I guess.

I came away from this meeting realizing that the search for gravitational waves may be the next frontier. For a long time I pooh-poohed it in my mind, because it was clear it’s going to be a long time before we could ever detect them if they’re there, and it wasn’t clear to me what we’d learn — except that they exist. But one of the key worries I have as a cosmologist right now is that we have these ideas and these parameters and every experiment is consistent with this picture, and yet nothing points to the fundamental physics beneath it.

It’s been very frustrating for particle physicists, and some people might say it’s led to sensory deprivation, which has resulted in hallucination otherwise known as string theory. And that could be true. But in cosmology what we’re having now is this cockamamie universe. We’ve discovered a tremendous amount. We’ve discovered the universe is flat, which most of us theorists thought we knew in advance, because it’s the only beautiful universe. But why is it flat? It’s full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands. This was an amazing discovery in 1998 or so.

What’s happened since then is every single experiment agrees with this picture without adding insight into where it comes from. Similarly all the data is consistent with ideas from inflation and everything is consistent with the simplest predictions of that, but not in a way that you can necessarily falsify it. Everything is consistent with this dark energy that looks like a cosmological constant; which tells us nothing.

It’s a little subtle, but I’ll try and explain it.

We’ve got this weird antigravity in the universe, which is making the expansion of the universe accelerate. Now: if you plug in the equations of general relativity, the only thing that can ‘anti-gravitate’ is the energy of nothing. Now: this has been a problem in physics since I’ve been a graduate student. It was such a severe problem we never talked about it. When you apply quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space inevitably has energy. The problem is, way too much energy. It has 120 orders of magnitude more energy than is contained in everything we see!

Now that is the worst prediction in all of physics. You might say, if that’s such a bad prediction, then how do we know empty space can have energy? The answer is, we know empty space isn’t empty, because it’s full of these virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, and we know that because if you try and calculate the energy level in a hydrogen atom, and you don’t include those virtual particles, you get a wrong answer.  One of the greatest developments in physics in the 20th century was to realize that when you incorporate special relativity in quantum mechanics you have virtual particles that can pop in and out of existence, and they change the nature of a hydrogen atom, because a hydrogen atom isn’t just a proton and electron.

That’s the wrong picture, because every now and then you have an electron positron pair that pops into existence. And the electron is going to want to hang around near the proton because it’s oppositely charged, the positron is going to be pushed out to the outskirts of the atom, and while they’re there they change the charged distribution in the atom in a very small, but calculable, way. Feynman and others calculated that effect, which allows us to get agreement between theory and observation at the level of nine decimal places. It’s the best prediction in all of science. There’s no other place in science where, from fundamental principles, you can calculate a number and compare it to an experiment at nine decimal places like that.

But then when we ask, if they’re there, how much should they contribute to the energy in the universe, we come up with the worst prediction in physics. it says if empty space has so much energy we shouldn’t be here. And physicists like me, theoretical physicists, knew they had the answer. They didn’t know how to get there. It reminds me or the Sidney Harris cartoon where you’ve got this big equation, and the answer, and the middle step says “And then a miracle occurs”. And then one scientist says to another, “I think you have to be a little more specific at this step right here”.

The answer had to be zero. The energy of empty space had to be precisely zero. Why? Because you’ve got these virtual particles that are apparently contributing huge amounts of energy, you can imagine in physics, how underlying symmetries in nature can produce exact cancellations — that happens all the time. Symmetries produce two numbers that are exactly equal and opposite because somewhere there’s an underlying mathematical symmetry of equations.  So that you can understand how symmetries could somehow cause an exact cancellation of the energy of empty space.

There appears to be energy of empty space that isn’t zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won’t be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.

But what you couldn’t understand was how to cancel a number to a hundred and twenty decimal places and leave something finite left over. You can’t take two numbers that are very large and expect them to almost exactly cancel leaving something that’s 120 orders of magnitude smaller left over. And that’s what would be required to have an energy that was comparable with the  observational upper limits on the energy of empty space.

We knew the answer. There was a symmetry and the number had to be exactly zero.  Well, what have we discovered? There appears to be this energy of empty space that isn’t zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won’t be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem. When we look out at the universe, if this dark energy is something that isn’t quite an energy of empty space but its just something that’s pretending to be that, we might measure that it’s changing over time.

Then we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that’s pretending to be energy of empty space. And many people have hoped they’d see that is because then you wouldn’t need quantum gravity, which is a theory we don’t yet have, to understand this apparent dark energy. Indeed, one of the biggest failures of string theory’s many failures, I think, is it never successfully addressed this cosmological constant problem. You’d think if you had a theory of quantum gravity, it would explain precisely what the energy of empty space should be. And we don’t have any other theory that addresses that problem either! But if this thing really isn’t vacuum energy, then it’s something else, then you might be able to find out what it is, and learn and do physics without having to understand quantum gravity.

The problem is, when we actually look out, every measure we’ve made right now is completely consistent with a constant energy in the universe over cosmological time. And that’s consistent with the cosmological constant, with vacuum energy. So if you make the measurement that it’s consistent with that, you learn nothing. Because it doesn’t tell you that it is vacuum energy, because there could be other things that could mimic it. The only observation that would tell you, give you positive information is if you could measure it was changing over time. Then you’d know it wasn’t vacuum energy.

All if we  keep measuring this quantity better and better and better, it is quite possible that we will find out it looks more and more like a vacuum energy, and we’re going to learn nothing. And the only way to resolve this problem will be to have a theory. And theories are a lot harder to come by than experiments. Good ideas are few and far between. And what we’re really going to need is a good idea, and it may require an understanding of quantum gravity, or it may require that you throw up your hands, which is what we’re learning that a lot of people are willing to do.  In the Virgin Islands we had a session on the anthropic principle, and what is surprising is how many physicists have really said, you know, maybe the answer is an anthropic one.  Twenty years ago if you’d asked physicists if they would hope that one day we’ll have a theory that tells us why the universe is the way it is, you would have heard a resounding ‘Yes’. They would all say ‘that’s why I got into physics’.

They might paraphrase Einstein, who said, while referring to God but not really meaning God, that the question that really interested him is did God have any choice in the creation of the universe. What he really meant by that was, is there only one consistent set of laws that works. If you changed one — if you twiddled one aspect of physical reality — would it all fall apart? Or are there lots of possible viable physical realities?

Twenty years ago most physicists would have said, on the basis of 450 years of science, that they believed that there’s only one allowed law of nature that works, that ultimately we might discover fundamental symmetries and mathematical principles that cause the nature to be the way it is, because it’s always worked that way.

So that is the way science has worked. But now because of this energy of empty space — which is so inexplicable that if it really is an energy of empty space, the value of that number is so ridiculous that it’s driven people to think that maybe, maybe it’s an accident of our environment, that physics is an environmental science — that certain fundamental constants in nature may just be accidents, and there may be many different universes, in which the laws of physics are different, and the reasons those constants have the values they have might be — in our universe — might be because we’re there to observe them.

This is not intelligent design; it’s the opposite of intelligent design. It’s a kind of cosmic natural selection. The qualities we have exist because we can survive in this environment. That’s natural selection, right? If we couldn’t survive we wouldn’t be around. Well, it’s the same with the universe. We live in a universe — in this universe — we’ve evolved in this universe, because this universe is conducive to life. There may be other universes that aren’t conducive to life, and lo and behold there isn’t life in them. That’s the kind of cosmic natural selection.

We’re allowed to presume anything; the key question is, is it a scientific question to presume there are other universes? That’s something we were looking at in the meeting as well. I wrote a piece where I argued that is a disservice to evolutionary theory to call string theory a theory, for example. Because it’s clearly not a theory in the same sense that evolutionary theory is, or that quantum electrodynamics is, because those are robust theories that make rigorous predictions that can be falsified. And string theory is just a formalism now that one day might be a theory. And when I’m lecturing, talking about science, people say to me, evolution is just a theory,  I say, in science theory means a different thing, and they say, what do you mean? Look at string theory, how can you falsify that? It’s no worse than intelligent design.

I do think there are huge differences between string theory and intelligent design. People who are doing string theory are earnest scientists who are trying to come up with ideas that are viable. People who are doing intelligent design aren’t doing any of that. But the question is, is it falsifiable? And do we do a disservice to real theories by calling hypotheses or formalisms theories? Is a multiverse — in one form or another — science?

In my sarcastic moments I’ve argued that the reason that some string theorists have latched onto the landscape idea so much is that since string theory doesn’t make any predictions, it’s good to have a universe where you can’t make any predictions. But less sarcastically, if you try and do science with idea, you can try and do real science and calculate probabilities. But whatever you do, you find that all you get is suggestive arguments. Because if you don’t have an underlying theory, you never know.

I say, well, what’s the probability of our universe having a vacuum energy if it is allowed to vary over different universes? Then I come up with some result which is interesting, and Steven Weinberg was one of the first people to point out, that if the value of the energy of empty space was much greater than it is, then galaxies wouldn’t have formed, and astronomers wouldn’t have formed, so that gave the anthropic argument that, well, maybe that’s why it is what it is — it can’t be much more.

But the problem is, you don’t know if that’s the only quantity that’s varying! Maybe there are other quantities that are varying. Whatever you’re doing is always a kind of ad hoc suggestive thing at best. You can debate it, but it doesn’t lead very far. It’s not clear to me that the landscape idea will be anything but impotent. Ultimately it might lead to interesting suggestions about things, but real progress will occur when we actually have new ideas. If string theory is the right direction, and I’m willing to argue that it might be, even if there’s just no evidence that it is right now, then a new idea that tells us a fundamental principle for how to turn that formalism to a theory will give us a direction that will turn into something fruitful. Right now we’re floundering. We’re floundering, in a lot of different areas.

As a theorist, when I go to meetings I often get much more out of the experimental talks. Because I often know what’s going on in theory, or at least I like to think I do. I was profoundly affected by the experimental talks. In principle, we are now able to be sensitive to gravitational waves that might change a meter stick that’s three kilometers long by a length equal to less than the size of atom!. It’s just amazing that we have the technology to do that. While that is not actually detecting any gravitational waves, there’s no technological obstructions, to going to the advanced stage. Gravitational waves may be indeed allow us a probe that might take us beyond our current state of having observations that don’t lead anywhere. I was very impressed with these findings.

At the same time, that we had a talk from Eric Adelberger at the University of Washington, who’s been trying to measure Newton’s Law on small scales. You might think, who would want to measure Newton’s Law on small scales? But one of the suggestions for extra dimensions is that on small scales and gravity has a different behavior. There has been some tantalizing evidence that went through the rumor mills that had suggested that in these experiments in Seattle they were seeing evidence for deviations from Newton’s Theory. And Attleburger talked about some beautiful experiments. As a theorist, I’m just always amazed they can even do these experiments. And gave some new results, there are some tentative new results, which of course are not a surprise to me, that suggest that there is as yet no evidence for a deviation from Newton’s Theory.

Many of the papers in particle physics over the last five to seven years have been involved with the idea of extra dimensions of one sort or another.  And while it’s a fascinating idea, but I have to say, it’s looking to me like it’s not yet leading anywhere. The experimental evidence against it is combining with what I see as a theoretical diffusion — a breaking off into lots of parts. That’s happened with string theory. I can see it happening with extra-dimensional arguments. We’re seeing that the developments from this idea which has captured the imaginations of many physicists, hasn’t been compelling.

Right now it’s clear that what we really need is some good new ideas.  Fundamental physics is really at kind of a crossroads. The observations have just told us that the universe is crazy, but hasn’t told us what direction the universe is crazy in. The theories have been incredibly complex and elaborate, but haven’t yet made any compelling inroads. That can either be viewed as depressing or exciting. For young physicists it’s exciting in the sense that it means that the field is ripe for something new.

The great hope for particle physics, which may be a great hope for quantum gravity, is the next large particle accelerator. We’ve gone 30 years without a fundamentally new accelerator that can probe a totally new regime of the sub-atomic world. We would have had it if our legislators had not been so myopic. It’s amazing to think that if they hadn’t killed the superconducting Super Collider it would have been already been running for ten years.

The Large Hadron Collider is going to come on-line next year. And one of two things could happen: It could either reveal a fascinating new window on the universe and a whole new set of phenomena that will validate or refute the current prevailing ideas in theoretical particle physics, supersymmetry etc, or it might see absolutely nothing. I’m not sure which I’m rooting for. But it is at least a hope, finally, that we may get an empirical handle that will at least constrain the wild speculation that theorists like me might make.

Such a handle comes out of the impact of the recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) studies on Inflation Theory. I read in the New York Timesthat Alan Guth was smiling, and Alan Guth was sitting next to me at the conference when I handed him the article. He was smiling, but he always smiles, so I didn’t know what to make much of it, but I think that the results that came out of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) studies were twofold.

Indeed, as the Times suggested, they validate the notions of inflation. But I think that’s just journalists searching for a story. Because if you look at what quantitatively has come out of the new results they’re exactly consistent with the old results. Which also validate inflation. They reduce the error bars a little bit, by a factor of two. I don’t know if that is astounding. But what is intriguing to me is that while everything is consistent with the simplest models, there’s one area where there’s a puzzle. On the largest scales, when we look out at the universe, there doesn’t seem to be enough structure — not as much as inflation would predict. Now the question is, is that a statistical fluke?

That is, we live in one universe, so we’re a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we’re lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number’s smaller than you’d predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still work left for the rest of us.

CFR-Trilateral pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s corporate philanthropy tied to transhumanist neo-eugenics

Intrepid ReportJanuary 21, 2015

Jeffrey Epstein is currently infamous for his conviction for soliciting a fourteen-year-old girl for prostitution and for allegedly orchestrating underage “sex slave” orgies at his private Virgin Island mansion, where he purportedly pimped out underage girls to elite political figures such as Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, and probably Bill Clinton as well (he also traveled to Thailand in 2001 with Prince Andrew, probably to indulge in the country’s rampant child sex trade).

But before these sex scandals were the highlight of Epstein’s celebrity, he was better known not just for his financial prowess, but also for his extensive funding of biotechnological and evolutionary science. With his bankster riches, he founded the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation which established Harvard University’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics.

Epstein, a former CFR and Trilateral Commission Member, also sat on the board of Harvard’s Mind, Brain, and Behavior Committee. He has furthermore been “actively involved in . . . the Theoretical Biology Initiative at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, the Quantum Gravity Program at the University of Pennsylvania,” and the Santa Fe Institute, which “is a transdisciplinary research community that expands the boundaries of scientific understanding . . . to discover, comprehend, and communicate the common fundamental principles in complex physical, computational, biological, and social systems.”

The scope of Epstein’s various science projects spans research into genetics, neuroscience, robotics, computer science, and artificial intelligence (AI). Altogether, the convergence of these science subfields comprises an interdisciplinary science known as “transhumanism”: the artificial “perfection” of human evolution through humankind’s merger with technology. In fact, Epstein partners with Humanity+, a major transhumanism interest group.

Transhumanists believe that technologically “upgrading” humankind into a singularity will bring about a utopia in which “poor health, the ravages of old age and even death itself will all be things of the past.” In fact, eminent transhumanist Ray Kurzweil, chief of engineering at Google, believes that he will become “godlike” as a result of the singularity.

But the truth is that transhumanism is merely a more high-tech revision of eugenics conceptualized by eugenicist and UNESCO Director-General Julian Huxley. And when corporate philanthropists like pedophile Epstein—as well as Bill GatesMark ZuckerbergPeter Thiel, and Google executives such as Eric Schmidt and Larry Page—are the major bankrollers behind these transhumanism projects, the whole enterprise seems ominously reminiscent of the corporate-philanthropic funding of American and Nazi eugenics.

In America, Charles Davenport’s eugenics research at Cold Spring Harbor was bankrolled by elite financiers, such as the Harriman family, as well as robber barons and their nonprofit foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute of WashingtonDavenport collaborated with Nazi eugenicists who were likewise funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. In the end, these Rockefeller-funded eugenics programs contributed to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 Americans and the macabre human experimentation and genocide of the Nazi concentration camps. (This sinister collusion is thoroughly documented in War Against the Weak by award-winning investigative journalist Edwin Black).

If history has shown us that these are the sordid bioethics that result from corporate-funded biosocial science, shouldn’t we be weary of the transhumanism projects of neo-robber barons like Epstein, GatesZuckerbergThiel, and the Google gang?

It should be noted that Epstein once sat on the board of Rockefeller University. At the same time, the Rockefeller Foundation—which has continued to finance Cold Spring Harbor programs as recently as 2010—also funds the Santa Fe Institute and the New York Academy of Sciences, both of which Epstein has been actively involved in.

The Rockefeller Foundation also funds the Malthusian-eugenic Population Council, which transhumanist Bill Gates likewise finances in carrying on the population reduction activism of his father, William H. Gates Sr.

And in 2013, the Rockefeller Foundation funded a transhumanistic white paper titled “Dreaming the Future of Health for the Next 100 Years,” which explores “[r]e-engineering of humans into separate and unequal forms through genetic engineering or mixed human-robots.”

So, considering that transhumanism—the outgrowth of eugenics—is being steered not only by twenty-first-century robber barons, but by corporatist monopoly men who are connected to the very transhumanist Rockefeller Foundation which funded Nazi eugenics, I suspect that transhumanist technology will not “upgrade” the common person. Rather, it will only be disseminated to the public in such a way—as Stanford University Professor Paul Saffo predicts—that converts social class hierarchies into bio(techno)logical hierarchies by artificially evolving the One Percent into a species separate from the “unfit” working poor, which will be downgraded as a slave class.

In his 1932 eugenic-engineering dystopia, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley (Julian’s brother) depicts how biotechnology, drugs, and psychological conditioning would in the future be used to establish a Scientific Caste System ruled by a global scientific dictatorship. But Huxley was not warning us with his novel. As historian Joanne Woiak demonstrates in her journal article entitled “Designing a Brave New World: Eugenics, Politics, and Fiction,” Aldous’ “brave new world can . . . be understood as a serious design for social reform” (105). In a 1932 essay, titled “Science and Civilization,” Huxley promoted his eugenic caste system: “in a scientific civilization society must be organized on a caste basis. The rulers and their advisory experts will be a kind of Brahmins controlling, in virtue of a special and mysterious knowledge, vast hordes of the intellectual equivalents of Sudras and Untouchables” (153-154).

With the aforementioned digital robber barons driving the burgeoning age of transhumanist neo-eugenics, I fear that Huxley’s Scientific Caste System may become a reality. And with Epstein behind the wheel, the new GMO Sudras will likely consist of not only unskilled labor slaves, but also child sex slaves who—like the preadolescents in Brave New World—will be brainwashed with “Elementary Sex” Education, which will inculcate them with a smash monogamy sexuality that will serve the elite “World Controllers.”

FUNNY HOW JEFFREY EPSTEIN SPONSORED TED’S ‘BILLIONAIRES’ DINNER’ AND NOW HIS PRESENCE HAS BEEN SCRUBBED

by Yahoo Finance, July 15, 2019

The arrest of New York financier Jeffrey E. Epstein has resulted in many people trying to distance themselves from the registered sex offender, including scrubbing records of him attending high-profile events.

Epstein, 66, was arrested earlier this month at Teterboro Airport on charges that between 2002 and 2005, Epstein “exploited and abused” dozens of underage girls, some as young as 14.

In the early 2000s and as recently as 2011, Epstein, whose billionaire status is now under question, would hobnob with a who’s who of academia, literature and Silicon Valley at literary agent John Brockman’s gathering dubbed the “Billionaires’ Dinner,” an annual event held during the TED conference in Monterey, California.

In a now deleted post on Brockman’s nonprofit The Edge Group’s website, the “Billionaires Dinner” is described as one of Epstein’s “favorite events.” It added that Epstein “enjoys hanging with stimulating and provocative thoughtful minds, who have achieved a high degree of success in finance, company, high tech, and scientific research.”

A now removed post from The Edge Foundation shows Jeffrey Epstein.
A now removed post from The Edge Foundation shows Jeffrey Epstein.

The occasion is “a night where the large names in finance, business, philanthropy, and science gather together. For one night, the richest people in the world come face to face with the most intelligent individuals in history.”

The New York Times reported in 2002 that Epstein “flew a bunch of Tedsters to Monterey in his Boeing 727, outfitted with mink and sable throws and a high-altitude lunch catered by Le Cirque 2000.”

Photographed onboard the plane were Brockman, Steven Pinker, Daniel C. Dennett, Katinka Matson, Richard Dawkins.

Jeffrey Epstein flew speakers to California in February 2002. His name has since been deleted from photographs on The Edge Foundation's website.
Jeffrey Epstein flew speakers to California in February 2002. His name has since been deleted from photographs on The Edge Foundation’s website.

The original caption, shown above from a Yahoo Finance screengrab, has been altered to exclude the association with Epstein.

The caption has been altered to exclude Jeffrey Epstein's name.
The caption has been altered to exclude Jeffrey Epstein’s name.

Pinker, a Harvard professor of psychology and author was onboard that flight. He told Yahoo Finance that he has found himself at some of the same events as Epstein, but has no personal or professional relationship with him and has only spoken to him three times that he can recall.

“I first met Epstein a couple of years before that plane trip, when I was invited to chat with him over coffee with a few mutual friends who said he was really smart, intellectual, and scientifically curious,” Pinker told Yahoo Finance. “My own impressions were different.”

Pinker went on to describe Epstein as a “kibitzer.”

“[He] liked to hang out with [and] shoot the breeze with smart and famous people, but he was intellectually lazy and immature: abruptly changing the subject, dismissing people’s observations with wisecracks, considering his own intuition to be as valid as data from experts,” Pinker added.

Another passenger on that trip, the philosopher and author Daniel C. Dennett, described the flight as “uneventful” and that Epstein “pretty much stayed to himself.”

Two photos completely removed

While the Epstein mention in the plane photo caption was altered, two photos from the event are no longer featured on the Edge’s website.

At the 2002 dinner were guests like Dean Kamen, Linda Stone, Richard Saul Wurman, Steve Petranek, Jeff Bezos, John Markoff, Kara Swisher, Nathan Myhrvold, Christopher J. Anderson, George Dyson, W. Daniel Hillis, Stewart Brand, Katinka Matson, Peter Schwartz, Ryan Phelan, Richard Dawkins, Louis Rossetto, Daniel C. Dennett, David Bunnell, Steven Levy, Charles Simonyi, Sergey Brin, and Marney Morris, according to the page.

At least one guest, in particular, stood out as not having major business or literary accomplishments. That person is Sarah Kellen who appears in two now-deleted photographs.

Kellen, who is now married to Nascar driver Brian Vickers, has been accused of recruiting young girls, maintaining Epstein’s schedule and handling travel arrangements for the young girls being exploited. She’s specifically identified in the controversially lenient non-prosecution agreement as a “potential co-conspirator.”

Sarah Kellen at the 2002 "Billionaires' Dinner."
Sarah Kellen at the 2002 “Billionaires’ Dinner.”

Kellen can also be found numerous times in the flight manifests for Epstein’s jet,
including the trip to Monterey in February 2002. She also attended the Edge’s Science Dinner in 2003, photos show.

Sarah Kellen, named as a "possible co-conspirator" in the 2007 non-prosecution agreement for Epstein, attended the 2002 "Billionaires' Dinner."
Sarah Kellen, named as a “possible co-conspirator” in the 2007 non-prosecution agreement for Epstein, attended the 2002 “Billionaires’ Dinner.”

For nearly 15 years, Epstein’s foundations have been major financial supporters of Brockman’s non-profit the Edge Foundation, Inc., contributing more than half a million dollars in that timeframe, according to Yahoo Finance’s calculations. In 990 filings, Epstein’s The C.O.U.Q. Foundation donated $25,000 in 2001, $50,000 in 2003, $55,000 in 2004, and $200,000 in 2005, to the Edge Foundation, Inc.

The Edge Foundation received multiple donations from Epstein’s Enhanced Education, including $30,000 in 2015$50,000 in 2011, and $50,000 in 2010, 990 filings shows. The J. Epstein Foundation gave $50,000 in 2002 and $25,000 in 2001, records show.

The investigation into Epstein began in 2005 by the Palm Beach Police Department. As the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida began preparing federal criminal charges, Epstein’s attorneys began plea bargain discussions. On September 24, 2007, Epstein signed the controversial non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. attorney’s office. In that agreement, he plead guilty to one count of the solicitation of prostitution and agreed that he would register as a sex offender. He also agreed to a 30 month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. attorney’s office agreed to not pursue federal charges.

Epstein was released in 2009 from the Palm Beach county stockade after only 13 months spent in the private wing with six days of work release per week.

In 2011, Epstein appeared again at Brockman’s “Billionaires’ Dinner,” according to the New York Times reporting. Guests at that event included Bezos, Brin, Myhrvold, Elon Musk, Marissa Mayer, Zack Bogue, Anne Wojcicki, and David Brooks, a page for the dinner shows.

Epstein attended the Billionaires’ Dinner in 1999 and in 2000, but those pages appear to have also been removed. He also attended in 2004 at a “downsized” or “more exclusive” Edge dinner.

Attendees at the 1999 dinner included Richard Saul Wurman, Nathan Myhrvold, Linda Stone, Steve Case, Marney Morris, John McCrea, Joichi Ito, Katinka Matson, Jeffrey Epstein, Doug Rowan, Leon M. Lederman, Kevin Kelly, Jean Case, Pattie Maes, David Bunnell, Jeff Bezos, W. Daniel Hillis, Kai Krause, according to a cached version of the page. Another cached page for the 2000 event shows that guests included Marney Morris, Pattie Maes, Charles Simonyi, Kara Swisher, George Dyson, Linda Stone, David Braunschvig, Katinka Matson, W. Daniel Hillis, Dean Kamen, Stewart Brand, Kip Parent, Nathan Myhrvold, Jeffrey Epstein, Brewster Kahle.

Brockman, the founder of the Edge Foundation, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Mogul Donor Gives Harvard More Than Money

Reclusive investor Epstein forges intellectual and financial connections with University

The Harvard Crimson, May 1, 2003

Jeffrey E. Epstein’s recent $30 million gift to Harvard was one in a series of donations that the elusive magnate has given anonymously to the University over the past decade.

The story behind Epstein’s deep connection with Harvard parallels his giving history, with close friendships with professors and administrators spanning the past 10 years. As an individual with no formal connection to the University, save for his donations, his Harvard ties highlight the meeting between the world of minds in the academy and the world of wallets in the business arena.

Yet Epstein appears interested in more than the large collection of planes, trains and automobiles which his fortune has allowed him to amass—and he has found Harvard the perfect staging ground for his intellectual pursuits.

Networking with the University’s greatest and most well-known minds, he has spurred research through both discussion and dollars he has contributed to various faculty—most often in the sciences.

Indeed, those new to his beneficence praise his wealth of knowledge and numerous relationships within the scientific community.

“I am amazed by the connections he has in the scientific world,” says Martin A. Nowak, who will leave Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study to run the mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program at Harvard endowed by Epstein’s $30 million gift. “He knows an amazing number of scientists; he knows everyone you can imagine.”

Indeed, Epstein shares a special connection with one of the most prominent figures at Harvard—University President Lawrence H. Summers.

Summers and Epstein serve together on the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two elite international relations organizations.

Their friendship began a number of years ago—before Summers became Harvard’s president and even before he was the Secretary of the Treasury—and those close to Epstein say he holds the University president in very high regard.

“He likes Larry Summers a lot,” Epstein’s friend and Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz says. “He speaks well of Larry, and I think he admires Larry’s economic thinking.”

And Summers is not the only person at Harvard whom Epstein admires—or who admires Epstein.

Epstein counts a number of professors—including Dershowitz, Lindsley Professor of Psychology Stephen M. Kosslyn and former Dean of the Faculty Henry A. Rosovsky—among his bevy of eminent friends that includes princes, presidents and Nobel-Prize winners.

The relationships Epstein has formed inside and outside the scientific community are particularly impressive, given that he is self-taught and does not even hold a bachelor’s degree.

Kosslyn was introduced to Epstein by the famed late Harvard professor and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, and Dershowitz says he met Epstein through “mutual friends.”

Rosovsky, Epstein’s oldest friend in the bunch, met the mogul through similarly serendipitous circumstances. Twelve years ago, “we were introduced by a mutual friend, Mr. Leslie Wexner,” Rosovsky writes in an e-mail.

Wexner, the billionaire who founded Limited Brands—whose empire now includes Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works and Express—is also a longtime Harvard benefactor.

Epstein and Wexner, longtime friends and business associates, teamed up in the early 1990s to fund the construction of Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel’s new building, Rosovsky Hall.

Epstein, along with Wexner and his wife, is listed on a plaque in the building as the donor of the Rosovsky Naming Gift.

But despite running in the academy and business circles’ proverbial fast-track, Epstein himself is reserved when it comes to stepping into line of the public sight.

In fact, many of Epstein’s friends within the Harvard community say it comes as a surprise to them that Epstein, a long-time, low-profile donor, attached his name to his latest donation at all.

University officials seem to appreciate Epstein’s proclivity to privacy, and did not return repeated phone calls requesting information about his donation.

Epstein himself also declined to comment for this article. His staff say he has never granted an official interview to a member of the press.

“He was very anxious to make this donation anonymously,” Dershowitz says. “He didn’t want any building or anything named after him,” he says, adding that “the school put some pressure on him to do it.”

A source familiar with the donation confirms that Summers told Epstein a public donation would be in the best interest of the program because other donors would come forward on the basis of his support.

Epstein “did not want to damage the program by not making the donation publicly,” the source says.

But behind the scenes, Epstein is a well known figure, garnering the praise and respect of prominent academics.

A Meeting of the Minds

Dershowitz, Kosslyn and Rosovsky each herald Epstein’s keen intelligence, sharp wit and his uncommon interest in the sciences.

“Jeffrey is totally irreverent,” Dershowitz says. “To him, it doesn’t matter if it’s a prince, a pope, or the president; if Jeffrey has a good joke or a good idea, he’ll share it.”

“He is provocative, but it’s in fun,” Kosslyn writes in an e-mail.

When the joking concludes, though, it is clear that Epstein has the chops to survive—and flourish—among this formidable group of intellects.

Dershowitz, who has written 20 books, says Epstein is “brilliant,” and is the only person outside of Dershowitz’s immediate family to whom he sends pre-publication manuscripts.

Kosslyn calls Epstein “one of the brightest people I’ve ever known.”

“He’s an absolute delight to talk and argue with,” Kosslyn says. “Unlike some very bright people, Jeffrey actually wants to get at the right answer to a question, not just win a debate.”

And, Dershowitz says, discussing—and debating—concepts in mathematics, genetics, law, and psychology is a popular pastime for the trio.

“When Jeffrey, Steve and I are together, nobody finishes a sentence,” Dershowitz says. “We cut each other off all the time because we just get it.”

Dershowitz says that Epstein’s friendships with numerous high-profile intellectuals are a natural outgrowth of the financier’s great wealth.

“Jeffrey has so much money that you can’t give him anything,” Dershowitz says. “The only gift you can give him is interesting people, and someone gave me to him as a gift.”

So, while Epstein “received” both Dershowitz and Kosslyn nearly a decade ago and the two have been working at the same university for years, they came together—at Epstein’s behest—only recently.

“He’s very proud of the fact that he introduced us,” Dershowitz says. “He loves bringing people together. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.”

In this case, Dershowitz says, it did.

Dershowitz and Kosslyn currently jointly teach Psychology 2310, “The Neuroscience of Law: Can a Legal System be Grounded in Knowledge about the Brain?”

Branching Out

While Kosslyn and Rosovsky say Epstein has supported their research, others outside Epstein’s inner-circle have also benefited from his largesse.

In recent years, Epstein has funded the work of Professor of the History of Science Anne Harrington.

From 1999 to 2001, Harrington and her colleagues examined claims made by traditional Chinese medicine, with a particular focus on qi, the Chinese term for “breath of life” or “vital essence.”

In particular, Harrington says she and her colleagues focused on the phenomena to which the Chinese apply the term. Qi or qi dong commonly refer to the practices which improve individuals’ health and well-being and increase their sense of inner-peace.

Harrington’s research took her to Beijing, China—where she worked alongside traditional Chinese medical practitioners and other Western scientists—and Chicago, Ill., where the actual experiments were conducted.

In addition, Harrington says Epstein also funded a working group, which examined the placebo effect and the state of the field.

She says Epstein is known for his interest in unconventional and “cutting-edge developments in the sciences.”

“He is known for his willingness to support research that is ‘outside the box,’” Harrington writes in an e-mail. “He likes to see if he can anticipate where the emerging cutting-edge of science might be,” she writes.

Epstein likes to “invest up front in it, and, in that sense, I think his scientific interests are literally unconventional,” she adds.

Harrington says she and Epstein met through Harvard’s Mind/Brain/Behavior (MBB) program, which Harrington co-directs and Epstein advises in his capacity as a member of the committee on MBB.

Although Harrington says Epstein is not as active on the committee as he once was, he remains an important contributor to Harvard’s scientific community.

“Jeffrey’s knack for identifying future emerging, but perhaps under-appreciated or under-funded areas and ‘adopting’ interesting people within the Harvard community could have a long-term positive impact on this institution’s capacity to stay intellectually nimble and on the edge,” she says.

The Nowak Factor

In a move that is likely to do just that, Epstein donated $30 million to create a mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program at Harvard last January.

A newly recruited professor, Nowak will play an integral part in that program.

Nowak, who is currently the head of the Program in Theoretical Biology at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, will arrive at Harvard this summer to assume a rare joint appointment in the mathematics and organismic and evolutionary dynamics departments.

He says he uses mathematics to model human behavior, the evolution of language and the changes that occur in cancer cells.

Nowak says he met with then-Mathematics Department Chair and current Dean of Undergraduate Education Benedict H. Gross ’71 last spring, who told Nowak that Harvard’s natural sciences would benefit from his presence at the University. Nowak was granted a tenured position at Harvard in August 2002, which he accepted.

Epstein’s donation soon followed.

Friends at Harvard say they know little about the logistics of Epstein’s multi-million dollar donation, but Rosovsky says discussions about the gift began last spring—around the same time as Nowak’s meeting with Gross—with a final decision coming in late January.

Nowak says Epstein has been sponsoring his research—to the tune of $500,000—since the two met about three years ago.

Since colleagues say Epstein is particularly interested in an interdisciplinary approach to science, he and Nowak seem to be a natural fit.

The source familiar with the donation also says that Harvard was the only institution to which Epstein would consider making a donation of this type.

“There isn’t a university that comes close to Harvard in so many different areas,” the source says. For Epstein, “there was not a choice between Harvard and another place; there isn’t another place that exists.”

Like Harrington, Nowak says Epstein’s munificence comes with no strings attached.

A University source confirms this, saying the donation “is a general gift with no provisions of any kind in the terms.”

Nowak says Epstein’s hands-off approach makes him an attractive scientific sponsor.

“He is one of the most pleasant philanthropists to deal with,” Nowak says. “Unlike many people who support science, he supports science without any conditions. There are not any disadvantages to associating with him.”

Although Nowak describes Epstein as a “friend,” the contact between the two is such that Nowak is unaware of exactly how it is that the financier is in a position to be so generous.

“He has a company. What exactly he does I don’t know,” he says.

The Making of a Mogul

When he is not globetrotting in search of investment opportunities, colleagues say Epstein spends his days managing the fortunes of his billionaire clients from his private island, Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, but his life was not always so charmed.

50-year old Epstein was born into a working-class Brooklyn family, and attended the city’s Lafayette High School. In his early ’20s, he taught mathematics and physics to high school students at The Dalton School, an elite Manhattan preparatory school.

Epstein began his career in high finance at Bear Stearns, where he ascended the ranks to become a limited partner before leaving in 1981 to open his own business.

Shortly thereafter, he founded J. Epstein & Co., a private holding company, which he has been running ever since.

Although Epstein chooses only to manage the money of billionaires, including Wexner, a source familiar with Epstein’s business dealings says the choice does not indicate any hubris on his part.

“It’s not by reason of arrogance,” the source says. “Many people can manage $100 million. Managing $1 billion requires a totally different skill set.”

And it seems Epstein believes he is providing an important service to his incredibly wealthy, and therefore incredibly vulnerable, clients.

“The burden of wealth is often not very well thought out,” the source says. “These people couldn’t imagine their wealth. They have a [Chief Financial Officer], an accountant and stockbrokers, and their financial lives start to look like a house that is added onto every year. At the end it doesn’t work very well.”

His client list is a closely-guarded secret, bar one: Wexner is a long-time client. He is also Epstein’s mentor.

Indeed, friends say his close relationships with Wexner and others have provided him with a brand of informal education.

Epstein briefly studied physics at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York and New York University’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences but never graduated from either.

Sources close to Epstein say he found the traditional college environment stifling.

But Epstein has never approached learning and living conventionally.

From flying President Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development facing the region, to hosting the world’s elite minds at his lavish homes in New York, Palm Beach, New Mexico and his private island hideaway, to funding outreach programs to curb the spread of Cholera in Bangladesh, it seems Epstein lets his curiosities guide him.

Friends say Epstein’s scientific, intellectual and philanthropic interests—not his host of homes or his fleet of aircraft—give him the most satisfaction.

And over the past decade, those interests have consistently—and increasingly—led him to Harvard.

“He appreciates excellence,” Kosslyn says. “He thinks we are dong something special and wants to help nurture our institution.”

Friends and associates say Harvard stands only to benefit from his evolving relationship with the university because Epstein comes with more than just deep-pockets.

And Harvard, it seems, welcomes that challenge with open arms.

“He’ll benefit Harvard in a lot of ways,” Dershowitz says. “He’s a lot more interesting than some traditional academics. He has a very probing, inquiring mind. I think he’ll be a great challenge. He’s a real outsider and will challenge the current ways of thinking. He’ll have a substantial impact.”

“I hope that he will—over time—become one of the leading supporters of science at Harvard,” Rosovsky says.

With Epstein’s latest gift, it seems he is on his way to doing just that. Although—if Epstein has his way—few may know when he reaches that threshold.

If you’ve been around, you may recognize George Church from: THE WALKING SERVERS. DON’T BE ONE, LEARN ABOUT DNA STORAGE, DNA PRIVACY AND BIOHACKING – DOCUMENTARY

Also see: WE WRITE NEW DNA USING RNA ONLY – FATHER OF THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT FINANCED BY EPSTEIN, DARPA AND SCHWAB’S WYSS INST.

Source

Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was welcomed in high society — and that includes Silicon Valley.

Business Insider
Goertzel id the “father” of Sophia, the deep-fake intelligence robot
Source
Source

Source
Source
Source

Meet Sergey and the Google klan, if you haven’t already,,,

Source

PS:

The more I dig on these two freaks. the more I realize Bill Gates was Epstein’s intern, rather than a child sex client. Gates learned Epstein’s ways and replaced him when he got offed.

Bill Gates “philanthropy” filled the void left by Epstein’s, but without the pimping and with more wokeism,

Gates 2.0 is Epstein 2.0

FORGET ABOUT LOLITA, BILL GATES AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SET UP A CHARITY FOR WOMEN

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

ORDER