I finally had time to watch all of this and am disappointed in it. Webb brings up many good points and it is worth viewing but she is also missing the deep framework of what is truly going on. I will touch on that by describing what Eris Schmidt says and how she responds.
Schmidt is talking about a geopolitical conflict that presents questions such as: How do we deal with China? On Chinese AI and technological advancements, Schmidt says: “China is not a near-peer. It is a peer competitor. They are also now demonstrating quantum capabilities that we did not expect…” He goes on to list several other major Chinese tech advancements. What Schmidt is referring to here is our inevitable ineluctable competition with China across virtually all domains. This is the fundamental “game theory” of great powers. “Game theory” does not mean it is merely a “game,” or that it is something we can choose to participate in or not. This fundamental game theory is inescapably basic to top world power competition. This game/competition is extremely dangerous. Whoever wins will control the world. Schmidt asks, “How do we manage this?” meaning how do we manage competition with China. He answers by saying, “We don’t have a good answer but… we need groups to get together to agree on what the ethics in these areas should look like…. If we don’t do this, those decisions will be made by computer scientists like me… We need to make these decisions with the best minds that include non-computer scientists.” Webb misquotes and misconstrues what Schmidt is saying and then digs deep into the past to smear his ethics when Schmidt himself clearly said he wants to avoid having people “like me” making these decisions. Webb does not understand that increasingly advanced AI is inevitable and that someone will control it. That someone will be some sort of configuration of people (and gangs) in the West, in China, in Russia or India or some other place. No one has a choice in whether this happens or not. Each player must strive for total control because there is no other option. Right now, in Schmidt’s implied view if the West loses, China wins. Beyond this fundamental frame, which is all-important in this discussion, I share many of Webb’s fears about governmental totalitarian control. ABN
A major survey into the accuracy of climate models has found that almost all the past temperature forecasts between 1980-2021 were excessive compared with accurate satellite measurements. The findings were recently published by Professor Nicola Scafetta, a physicist from the University of Naples. He attributes the inaccuracies to a limited understanding of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the number of degrees centigrade the Earth’s temperature will rise with a doubling of carbon dioxide.
Scientists have spent decades trying to find an accurate ECS number, to no avail. Current estimates range from 0.5°C to around 6-7°C. Without knowing this vital figure, the so-called ‘settled’ science narrative around human-caused climate change remains a largely political invention, not a credible scientific proposition. Professor Scafetta has conducted extensive work into climate models and is a long-time critic of their results and forecasts. In a previous work, he said many of the climate models should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”. Along with around 250 professors, he is a signatory to the World Climate Declaration which states there is no climate emergency and also notes climate models are “not remotely plausible as global tools”.
Computer modeling is not scientific evidence. We saw the enormous mistakes made in computer modeling of covid and the buildings that collapsed on 9/11. To base global energy policies on computer models that have already been shown to be almost entirely wrong is folly. I have been agnostic on Anthropogenic Global Warming for many years, but after watching covid pseudoscience happen in real-time and also watch it take the lives of millions of people needlessly, I cannot remain neutral any longer. Big Science is run by Big Money and Big Government and is fueled by payola and egomania, and not by selfless quest for the truth. ABN
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced a $1.27 billion commitment to advance ”Global Goals” which are the 17 goals outlined in the UN Agenda 2030.
As part of this, a ton of funding is going to push for global digital ID. Yes, you read that correctly. Global digital ID.
A whopping $200 million will be spent to ”expand global Digital Public Infrastructure” according to their website.
On behalf of X Holdings I, Inc., X Holdings II, Inc. and Elon R. Musk (the “Musk Parties”), we write to notify you that the Musk Parties intend to proceed to closing of the transaction contemplated by the April 25, 2022 Merger Agreement, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein and pending receipt of the proceeds of the debt financing contemplated thereby, provided that the Delaware Chancery Court enter an immediate stay of the action, Twitter vs. Musk, et al. (C.A. No. 202-0613-KSJM) (the “Action”) and adjourn the trial and all other proceedings related thereto pending such closing or further order of the Court.
The Musk Parties provide this notice without admission of liability and without waiver of or prejudice to any of their rights, including their right to assert the defenses and counterclaims pending in the Action, including in the event the Action is not stayed, Twitter fails or refuses to comply with its obligations under the April 25, 2022 Merger Agreement or if the transaction contemplated thereby otherwise fails to close.
In this graph, we can also see the massive fail of vaccine mandates as cases soar in tandem with them. The WHO is not to blame for this. Australian officials and to a lesser extent the Australian people are. ABN
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) this month said it will invest $200 million in digital ID projects, encompassing “digital public infrastructure, including civil registry databases and digital ID” to help meet the 2030 target date for reaching the United Nation’s (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The $200 million in new funding — part of an overall $1.27 billion commitment by the BMGF in support of “global health and development projects,” is closely tied to Goal 16.9 of the SDGs, for which “digital identity programs are supposedly needed,” Reclaim the Net reported.
The funding adds to several existing BMFG-supported global digital ID initiatives, even as such initiatives come under fire for violating people’s right to privacy.
Michael Rectenwald, author of “Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom,” said that far from promoting an improved digital infrastructure or “global health and development,” digital identity will have more onerous applications.
Virtually all information available is now “curated,” which means censored, culled, propagandized, distorted. We have seen the deadly failures of covid pseudoscience promoted by information “curators.” Fleming describes with evident pleasure just one of the techniques they use to do this with global warming. See my comment on free speech here. And an analysis of Google search here.
The king of manipulating Wall Street shorts is Citadel founder Ken Griffin.
The Wall Street hedge fund billionaire has made most of his money betting against Main Street stocks and then manipulating their downfall to reap the rewards.
Griffin is despised by small investors, especially the Reddit WallStreetBets group who went head-to-head against the titan in the Gamestop and Robinhood story {backstory}. Recently Griffin moved his financial HQ from Chicago to Miami after giving Florida governor Ron DeSantis $10 million for his reelection effort.
Bloomberg News reported earlier today that Ken Griffin has said he is open to taking the position of U.S. Treasury Secretary after he is successful installing Ron DeSantis as the 2024 presidential winner.
Here’s the COVID-origin debate footnote that explains everything:
98%-100% of research/articles defending the natural origin were paid for by taxpayers Almost ALL lab-origin leaning research was unfunded/self-funded Yet, we persisted
[2/3]
In other words, American taxpayers have paid for the experiments that may have caused this pandemic, & every penny to cover up all of that research, & well as the trillions in response.
Yet Fauci releases blank pieces of paper FOR FOIA’s @quay_dr@R_H_Ebright@BretWeinstein
[3/3]
Further,
The scientists who’ve gaslighted all of us have sacrificed nothing – in fact, they’ve been rewarded with MORE taxpayer $
Any member of Congress who won’t stand for an origin inv. [with 1M 🇺🇸dead] has no place representing the living @alykhansatchu@thackerpd
[4/3]
However, I have no reservations about standing up for the dead who deserve justice.
And doing so hasn’t come without a cost⬇️
So be it.
I gave DC plenty of warning that I was coming, and I’m going to stay here until justice is obtained
The Bundy ranch issue in Nevada is characterized by a battle over semiotics.
The other day, the New York Times used an edited video of Bundy that makes him look and sound like a racist.
This link compares the NYT video with a fuller version of Bundy’s remarks.
And here is another link where former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, identified as a “black leader,“ defends Bundy, saying:
He wasn’t talking so much about black folks, but about the harm and damage that the leftist socialism has done to blacks.
What I see and hear in the longer version of the video is an unsophisticated man using ordinary language to express a legitimate idea. The way he puts his ideas and his use of the word “negro,” especially in the shorter version of the video, creates a bad impression which Harry Reid has been quick to exploit.
Reid has called Bundy a “hateful racist” and urged Republicans and other to “condemn Bundy” for his “hateful, dangerous extremism.”
Notice how your own feelings can go back and forth on this issue and how Bundy’s comments are probably going to destroy most of his support. In the realm of political semiotics, he was like an untrained boxer stepping into the ring with a pro. All Reid had to do was wait for Bundy to make a bad move and pounce, as he has done.
Whatever you may think about Bundy or this issue it is illustrative of how unsophisticated language can create a semiotic that is devastating to a political position.
Bundy rose to prominence on the semiotics of freedom, cowboys, and anti-federal government. He may well fall on the semiotics of unintended “racism.”
As with so many other complex issues, the Budy ranch standoff is being judged on small aspects of the whole, as the main weight of American political and media forces line up against him.
When that same political/media weight lines up in favor of “nice” semiotics—such as the Patriot Act or the Clean Air Act or the War on Terrorism—it wins the day time and again. The combination of sophisticated semiotics and media control almost always decides the course of American politics.
A co-author of a recent scholarly study on the American “oligarchy” has this to say about American politics:
I’d say that contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups — of economic elites and of organized interests. (Source, with other links)
We are now living in a “Semiotic Age” or an “Age of Signals.” The Modern era is gone. In this current age, we have to be ever mindful of how semiotics are manipulated and used to further the interests of powerful groups that have control of media, government, and the US economy. I do not believe there is a humble person anywhere in the USA that can stand up to those forces and win.
___________________
Edit: Readers may also want to notice that the short video version of Bundy’s comments was edited by Media Matters for America, a well-funded group that claims it is “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” This group, and others, will very likely continue to use Bundy’s “racism” to slur what they will call Bundy’s “ultra right-wing” supporters, many of whom will make semiotic mistakes as bad or worse than Bundy’s. An individual going up against Media Matters, Harry Reid, the New York Times, or the Democratic Party is like a Baltic peasant going up against the Teutonic knights in the Middle Ages. They don’t have a prayer.
As a nation, I believe there is no hope for rational dialog on anything, but as individuals, we can understand our predicament.
American Buddhist Net 