Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Putting children under surveillance and limiting their access to information doesn’t make them safer — in fact, researchsuggests just the opposite. Unfortunately those tactics are the ones endorsed by the Kids Online Safety Act of 2022 (KOSA), introduced by Sens. Blumenthal and Blackburn. The bill deserves credit for attempting to improve online data privacy for young people, and for attempting to update 1998’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA). But its plan to require surveillance and censorship of anyone under sixteen would greatly endanger the rights, and safety, of young people online.
KOSA would require the following:
A new legal duty for platforms to prevent certain harms: KOSA outlines a wide collection of content that platforms can be sued for if young people encounter it, including “promotion of self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.”
Compel platforms to provide data to researchers
An elaborate age-verification system, likely run by a third-party provider
Parental controls, turned on and set to their highest settings, to block or filter a wide array of content
There are numerous concerns with this plan. The parental controls would in effect require a vast number of online platforms to create systems for parents to spy on — and control — the conversations young people are able to have online, and require those systems be turned on by default. It would also likely result in further tracking of all users.
Data collection is a scourge for every internet user, regardless of age.
And in order to avoid liability for causing the listed harms, nearly every online platform would hide or remove huge swaths of content. And because each of the listed areas of concern involves significant gray areas, the platforms will over-censor to attempt to steer clear of the new liability risks.
These requirements would be applied far more broadly than the law KOSA hopes to update, COPPA. Whereas COPPA applies to anyone under thirteen, KOSA would apply to anyone under sixteen — an age group that child rights organizations agree have a greater need for privacy and independence than younger teens and kids. And in contrast to COPPA’s age self-verification scheme, KOSA would authorize a federal study of “the most technologically feasible options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.”
Age verification systems are troubling — requiring such systems could hand over significant power, and private data, to third-party identity verification companies like Clear or ID.me. Additionally, such a system would likely lead platforms to set up elaborate age-verification systems for everyone, meaning that all users would have to submit personal data.
Lastly, KOSA’s incredibly broad definition of a covered platform would include any “commercial software application or electronic service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.”
That would likely encompass everything from Apple’s iMessage and Signal to web browsers, email applications and VPN software, as well as platforms like Facebook and TikTok — platforms with wildly different user bases and uses.
It’s also unclear how deep into the ‘tech stack’ such a requirement would reach – web hosts or domain registries likely aren’t the intended platforms for KOSA, but depending on interpretation, could be subject to its requirements.
And, the bill raises concerns about how providers of end-to-end encrypted messaging platforms like iMessage, Signal, and WhatsApp would interpret their duty to monitor minors’ communications, with the potential that companies will simply compromise encryption to avoid litigation.
Censorship Isn’t The Answer
KOSA would force sites to use filters to block content — filters that we’ve seen, time and time again, fail to properly distinguish“good” speech from “bad” speech. The types of content targeted by KOSA are complex, and often dangerous — but discussing them is not bad by default.
It’s very hard to differentiate between minors having discussions about these topics in a way that encourages them, as opposed to a way that discourages them. Under this bill, all discussion and viewing of these topics by minors should be blocked.
The law requires platforms to ban the potentially infinite category of “other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.
Research already exists showing bans like these don’t work: when Tumblr banned discussions of anorexia, it discovered that the keywords used in pro-anorexia content were the same ones used to discourage anorexia. Other research has shown that bans like these actually make the content easier to find by forcing people to create new keywords to discuss it (for example, “thinspiration” became “thynsperation”).
The law also requires platforms to ban the potentially infinite category of “other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.” As we’ve seen in the past, whenever the legality of material is up for interpretation, it is far more likely to be banned outright, leaving huge holes in what information is accessible online. The law would seriously endanger access to information to teenagers, who may want to explore ideas without their parents knowledge or approval.
For example, they might have questions about sexual health that they do not feel safe asking their parents about, or they may want to help a friend with an eating disorder or a substance abuse problem. (Research has shown that a large majority of young people have used the internet for health-related research.)
KOSA would allow individual state attorneys general to bring actions against platforms when the state’s residents are “threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a practice that violates this Act.” This leaves it up to individual state attorneys general to decide what topics pose a risk to the physical and mental health of a minor. A co-author of this bill, Sen. Blackburn of Tennessee, has referred to education about race discrimination as “dangerous for kids.” Many states have agreed, and recently moved to limit public education about the history of race, gender, and sexuality discrimination.
Recently, Texas’ governor directed the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate gender affirming care as child abuse. KOSA would empower the Texas attorney general to define material that is harmful to children, and the current position of the state would include resources for trans youth. This would allow the state to force online services to remove and block access to that material everywhere — not only Texas. That’s not to mention the frequent conflation by tech platforms of LGBTQ content with dangerous “sexually explicit” material. KOSA could result in loss of access to information that a vast majority of people would agree is not dangerous, but is under political attack.
Surveillance Isn’t The Answer
Some legitimate concerns are driving KOSA. Data collection is a scourge for every internet user, regardless of age. Invasive tracking of young people by online platforms is particularly pernicious — EFF has long pushed back against remote proctoring, for example.
But the answer to our lack of privacy isn’t more tracking. Despite the growing ubiquity of technology to make it easy, surveillance of young people is actually bad for them, even in the healthiest household, and is not a solution to helping young people navigate the internet. Parents have an interest in deciding what their children can view online, but no one could argue that this interest is the same if a child is five or fifteen.
KOSA would put all children under sixteen in the same group, and require that specific types of content be hidden from them, and that other content be tracked and logged by parental tools. This would force platforms to more closely watch what all users do.
KOSA’s parental controls would give parents, by default, access to monitor and control a young person’s online use. While a tool like Apple’s Screen Time allows parents to restrict access to certain apps, or limit their usage to certain times, platforms would need to do much more under KOSA.
They would have to offer parents the ability to modify the results of any algorithmic recommendation system, “including the right to opt-out or down-rank types or categories of recommendations,” effectively deciding for young people what they see – or don’t see – online. It would also give parents the ability to delete their child’s account entirely if they’re unhappy with their use of the platform.
The answer to our lack of privacy isn’t more tracking.
The bill tackles algorithmic systems by requiring that platforms provide “an overview of how algorithmic recommendation systems are used …to provide information to users of the platform who are minors, including how such systems use personal data belonging to minors.” Transparency about how a platform’s algorithms work, and tools to allow users to open up and create their own feeds, are critical for wider understanding of algorithmic curation, the kind of content it can incentivize, and the consequences it can have.
EFF has also supported giving users more control over the content they see online. But KOSA requires that parents be able to opt-out or down-rank types or categories of recommendations, without the consent or knowledge of the user, including teenage users.
Lastly, under KOSA, platforms would be required to prevent patterns of use that indicate addiction, and to offer parents the ability to limit features that “increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by a minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, and notifications.” While minimizing dark patterns that can trick users into giving up personal information is a laudable goal, determining what features “cause addiction” is highly fraught.
If a sixteen year-old spends three hours a day on Discord working through schoolwork or discussing music with their friends, would that qualify as “addictive” behavior? KOSA would likely cover features as different as Netflix’s auto-playing of episodes and iMessage’s new message notifications. Putting these features together under the heading of “addictive” misunderstands which dark patterns actually harm users, including young people.
EFF has long supported comprehensive data privacy legislation for all users. But the Kids Online Safety Act would not protect the privacy of children or adults. It is a heavy-handed plan to force technology companies to spy on young people and stop them from accessing content that is “not in their best interest,” as defined by the government, and interpreted by tech platforms.
“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” — George Carlin
Cancel culture — political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance — has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.
Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.
In this way, the most controversial issues of our day — race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc. — have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.
This tendency to censor, silence, delete, label as “hateful,” and demonize viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite is being embraced with a near-fanatical zealotry by a cult-like establishment that values conformity and group-think over individuality.
For instance, are you skeptical about the efficacy of the COVID-19 jabs? Do you have concerns about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? Do you subscribe to religious beliefs that shape your views on sexuality, marriage and gender? Do you, deliberately or inadvertently, engage in misgendering (identifying a person’s gender incorrectly) or deadnaming (using the wrong pronouns or birth name for a transgender person)?
Say yes to any of those questions and then dare to voice those views in anything louder than a whisper and you might find yourself suspended on Twitter, shut out of Facebook, and banned across various social media platforms.
This authoritarian intolerance masquerading as tolerance, civility and love (what comedian George Carlin referred to as “fascism pretending to be manners”) is the end result of a politically correct culture that has become radicalized, institutionalized and tyrannical.
In the past few years, for example, prominent social media voices have been censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that were deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.
J.K. Rowling, author of the popular Harry Potter series, has found herself denounced as transphobic and widely shunned for daring to criticize efforts by transgender activists to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender. Rowling’s essay explaining her views is a powerful, articulate, well-researched piece that not only stresses the importance of free speech and women’s rights while denouncing efforts by trans activists to demonize those who subscribe to “wrongthink,” but also recognizes that while the struggle over gender dysmorphia is real, concerns about safeguarding natal women and girls from abuse are also legitimate.
Ironically enough, Rowling’s shunning included literal book burning. Yet as Ray Bradbury once warned, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”
Indeed, the First Amendment is going up in flames before our eyes, but those first sparks were lit long ago and have been fed by intolerance all along the political spectrum.
Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.
Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and a growing hostility to those who exercise their rights to speak freely. Where this has become painfully evident is on college campuses, which have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.
Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”
Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its ongoing war on “extremism,” the government has partnered with the tech industry to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online can be considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted. In fact, the Justice Department is planning to form a new domestic terrorism unit to ferret out individuals “who seek to commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of domestic social or political goals.” What this will mean is more surveillance, more pre-crime programs, and more targeting of individuals whose speech may qualify as “dangerous.”
The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state.
Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use.
In totalitarian regimes — a.k.a. police states — where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.
In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.
Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned — discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred — inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.
“By ordering members to be cut off, they can no longer participate. Information and sharing of thoughts, feelings, and experiences are stifled. Thought-stopping and use of loaded terms keep a person constrained into a black-and-white, all-or-nothing world. This controls members through fear and guilt.”
This mind control can take many forms, but the end result is an enslaved, compliant populace incapable of challenging tyranny.
The problem as I see it is that we’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government and its corporate partners to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.
In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears.
As Nat Hentoff, that inveterate champion of the First Amendment, once observed, “The quintessential difference between a free nation, as we profess to be, and a totalitarian state, is that here everyone, including a foe of democracy, has the right to speak his mind.”
What this means is opening the door to more speech not less, even if that speech is offensive to some.
Understanding that freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society, James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one — even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints — would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.
We haven’t done ourselves — or the nation — any favors by becoming so fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful or closed-minded that we’ve eliminated words, phrases and symbols from public discourse.
We have allowed our fears — fear for our safety, fear of each other, fear of being labeled racist or hateful or prejudiced, etc. — to trump our freedom of speech and muzzle us far more effectively than any government edict could.
Ultimately the war on free speech — and that’s exactly what it is: a war being waged by Americans against other Americans — is a war that is driven by fear.
By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.
By muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”
The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows, and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.
Be warned: whatever we tolerate now — whatever we turn a blind eye to — whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.
Eventually, “we the people” will be the ones in the crosshairs.
At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “hate” or “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.
When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.
After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.
We are on a fast-moving trajectory.
In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.
This is the tyranny of the majority against the minority marching in lockstep with technofascism.
If Americans don’t vociferously defend the right of a minority of one to subscribe to, let alone voice, ideas and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different, then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).
No matter what our numbers might be, no matter what our views might be, no matter what party we might belong to, it will not be long before “we the people” constitute a powerless minority in the eyes of a power-fueled fascist state driven to maintain its power at all costs.
We are almost at that point now.
Free speech is no longer free.
On paper — at least according to the U.S. Constitution — we are technically free to speak.
In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official — or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube — may allow.
The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.
The World Economic Forum recently posted a video with the caption “Take a peek at the future”. Evidently, the future they want is a dystopian nightmare where dehumanization is taken to absurd levels.
As you probably know, since 2020, this pandemic has poisoned the lives of billions of individuals across the world. Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum (WEF) cannot contain its excitement. Indeed, this powerful, influential, elite-owned organization keeps posting bizarrely upbeat videos about the “advantages” and “opportunities” of COVID-19.
Needless to say, people absolutely hate these videos. They are ruthlessly downvoted on YouTube and 99.85% of the comments express utter disgust. But that did stop the WEF from creating more absurdities.
On August 17th, the WEF posted a video titled “This is how our lives would soon look”. And it looks likes the trailer of a dystopian horror movie where people are treated like dehumanized cattle.
Here’s the video:
The first thing they make abundantly clear is that they don’t want you or your children to leave the house. They want you to work from home and they want your children to learn from home. And they believe that these changes will be so permanent that offices will need to be repurposed and entire neighborhoods will need to be redesigned.
They don’t even want you to leave the house to get food. Also, they want you to wear a mask in your own house when you get that food. “Analytics-driven services” implies that big tech companies will analyze your web searches and consuming habits to “predict” what you want and have it sent to you.
If you decide to go crazy and actually get out of the house to meet other people, they want it to be like this:
If you meet another human being, it’s going to be with hand sanitizer and permanent masks. Don’t forget to scan that QR code so they know exactly where you are and who you are meeting with.
They’ll also want to track you in the creepiest way possible.
I hate every word in this sentence.
According to the WEF, masks will be a permanent thing. And, because of that, their precious face recognition systems won’t work as well. So what’s the solution? Stop with the masks because pandemics are temporary? Of course not. Stop with the tracking of individuals? Are you crazy? Their answer: Shoot lasers right at our hearts and listen to our heartbeats to ID us. Yes, that’s the most insane answer to that question and that’s what they put in their video.
These creeps are also “laser-focused” on our children. They want to shape and mold them according to their dystopian principles. For this reason, the WEF promotes permanent remote learning on screens.
They want your children to be locked inside the house, staring at screens all day.
Although remote learning has been nothing less than disastrous for the development and mental well-being of children, the WEF wants it to become permanent. And to sell that insane idea, they claim that it would “improve their digital skills”.
That’s the weakest argument I’ve ever heard regarding anything in my life. Children today absolutely do not need to “improve their digital skills”. They learn how to use phones and tablets before they actually learn how to walk. If anything, they need to scale back their “digital skills” by a couple of notches and boost their “go outside and get dirty” skills by a couple of notches.
The WEF knows very well that children need to play, socialize and communicate with other children to develop properly. However, they do not want children to develop properly. That’s the scary, terrifying truth about their agenda. They’re looking to deny vital elements of a child’s development in order to create the kind of human they want living in their dystopian society.
They really want COVID hysteria to be permanent.
Not unlike previous WEF videos, this one was received with universal disgust. Here are some Twitter replies to the video (I didn’t cherry-pick them, they’re literally all like that).
As you might have noticed, these videos aggravate me, like they aggravate nearly everyone who watches them. And for several reasons. First, who voted for any of this? Did anyone see the name of Klaus Schwab – the head of the WEF – on any election ballot? Of course not. In fact, Schwab has been working for years to dismantle national democracies.
Schwab as publisher of the World Economic Forum’s 2010 “Global Redesign” report postulates that a globalized world is best managed by a coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system) and select civil society organizations (CSOs). It argues that governments no longer are “the overwhelmingly dominant actors on the world stage” and that “the time has come for a new stakeholder paradigm of international governance”. The WEF’s vision includes a “public-private” UN, in which certain specialized agencies would operate under joint State and non-State governance systems.
According to the Transnational Institute (TNI), the Forum is hence planning to replace a recognised democratic model with a model where a self-selected group of ‘stakeholders’ make decisions on behalf of the people.The think tank summarises that we are increasingly entering a world where gatherings such as Davos are “a silent global coup d’etat” to capture governance. – Wikiepdia, Klaus Schwab
Second, every single WEF video unironically promotes a joyless, freedomless world where everything that makes life worth living is banned. They want you to stay in your house while they extract what they need from you using technology. They want to train your children to be the same. They don’t want you to wander too far from your home and, if you do, they want to track you on a biological level. They especially don’t want you to interact with other human beings in a normal way because that might spark some humanity in you.
Is this how you want to live? Is this the world you want your children to grow up in? If not, we need to actively reject every attempt to make their plans a reality, on every level possible.
Buckle your seat belts for this one because it’s more chilling than any horror movie you’ve ever seen. You’ve heard your “crazy” friend at work bring it up in conversation. Perhaps you heard it briefly mentioned on TV the other day. And now you’re left wondering, “Just what on earth is The Great Reset?”
Meet The World Economic Forum (WEF)
You’ve heard of the WEF before. They’ve been in the news quite a bit for the past year or so. The reason? The Great Reset initiative. It is there that a man by the name of Klaus Schwabb runs the show. Schwabb founded the WEF and is one of the most powerful men in the world.
Each year the World Economic Forum hosts an event at a ski resort in the mountains of Switzerland where “the self-proclaimed global elite” meet to discuss global problems they can all work together to “fix.”
In 2020, Schwabb released a book titled COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he lays out his plans for what he believes needs to happen next.
Now, Let’s Talk About Agendas
First, you need to understand one thing: the World Economic Forum and the United Nations march together hand in hand. In short, they’re two sides of the same coin.
The United Nations previously announced two separate agendas eerily similar to The Great Reset that contain many of the same components. These two UN agendas, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, include plans for what needs to happen on earth by 2021 and 2030 (there’s also an Agenda 2050, by the way).
Agenda 2030 has publicly stated goals of promoting racial and gender equality, eradicating global poverty, and abolishing violence, hate, and war from the globe. It also states it will reduce natural resource use in every country and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized country.
And How Do You Suppose Agenda 2030 Would Accomplish Those Goals?
Suppose you’re a lumberjack. A global organization has just stated you’re no longer permitted to cut down trees to “reduce natural resource use.” You’re now out of a job and can’t afford to feed your newborn daughter.
Or, let’s say you’re a farmer. A global organization has just stated that your cows produce too much methane. They’re all slaughtered and left to rot in a field (we’ll get to why later). You’ve now lost a significant investment, your primary source of income, and are out of a job. Farmers in non-industrialized nations are permitted to raise cattle. But you’re an American, so you are not.
Here’s another example. You’re an American with unalienable rights, a Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. You have the Declaration of Independence and a long history of fierce protection of freedom. Protection of freedom necessitates the possession of arms.
But now, a global organization has landed troops on your shores. Why? To “abolish violence.” The organization deems your possession of arms as a hindrance to such. Therefore, the organization will take measures against you to abolish violence.
The Great Reset Incorporates All These Ideas Into Its Plans
Publicly, the WEF states The Great Reset is going to be about completely revamping capitalism.
“Every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” – The WEF
The WEF particularly likes to say they want to instigate “stakeholder capitalism,” where the bulk of the private sector works hand in hand with the government. They say that such “will require stronger and more effective governments.” According to the WEF, there are human and financial costs of capitalism not being addressed.
What do you call it when the government owns and controls all private business?
Communism. You call it communism.
And, what happens when capitalism dies?
As Ayn Rand pointed out in her excellent book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, man on this earth without capitalism is bound. It’s inseparable from true human freedom. Collectivism leads to further and further slavery every single time.
According to Schwabb, the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution is “Ubiquitous, mobile supercomputing. Intelligent robots. Self-driving cars. Neuro-technological brain enhancements. Genetic editing. The evidence of dramatic change is all around us, and it’s happening at exponential speed.”
In Short, Schwabb Wants To Turn The World Into A Digital Mecca
Perhaps you don’t care about the above “improvements” – they don’t bother you? Well, let’s continue to delve deeper.
As it is, the WEF has already alluded to the possibility of using an AI to govern humanity. Humans would no longer have elected representatives in office (not that the US has that now, but I digress). Instead, super-powerful AI would determine what supplies went where and what prices would be, and so on.
It’s the surrender of humanity to a machine.
Furthermore, What About These Brain Enhancements And Genetic Editing?
Look around at the world before you and what “the powers that be” have forced upon society. In a world full of brain enhancements and genetic editing, do you genuinely think you would still be free to choose?
Remember that The Fourth Industrial Revolution heavily ties in with The Great Reset, which seeks a one-world government. In such a world, should it be decreed under the guise of law that overpopulation is a problem, the ability to genetically edit sterility into 20% of the population becomes a reality. Let’s say the lottery system selects both of your kids. Do you really think they would grant you a say?
Freedom Would Have Long Been Rotting In The Grave In Such A World.
Further aspects of The Fourth Industrial Revolution include digital surveillance everywhere, made possible worldwide by 5G (with the hope of utilizing 6G eventually).
There would be no privacy in such a world. It would be Nazi Germany on steroids. Have you read Zamyatin’s dystopian novel We (in many ways, the inspiration for 1984)? Practically, you’d be living in a world of glasshouses.
It’s worth noting that there are several other aspects of TGR that bear mentioning. Consider the following:
Rural Populations Will Be Forcibly Coerced Into Urban Environments
Allegedly, to combat climate change. In reality, it is to have easier control over potential dissidents. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to leave your farm. The good of the whole compels you, and men who have heartily devoured Mao Zedong’s philosophy on power (“Political power only grows out of the barrel of a gun.”) will be happy to assist you in your mental transition here.
Citizens Now Rent Everything Because They Own Nothing
Aden Tate wrote about what the world would like like without personal property in this article. Aden writes, “Within the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, the mantra has come out that by the year 2030, ‘you’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.’”
The government now owns everything, as a group of men comes in to tell you they are stealing what is rightfully yours. The world falls back to a system of feudalism. The Irish are well-familiarized with how such a system works out.
All Media Is Digital
Climate change, of course. And let’s not forget the recent trend to battle “disinformation’. If everything is digital, it is censorable. This serves as the ultimate means of wholly controlling what it is people read and say.
A Chinese-Style Social Credit System
Good global citizens of the one-world government will have a higher social credit score than the older American who supports those fighting against foreign invaders. These higher scores will permit access to travel “privileges,” better food, and better jobs. And in a world full of brain implants and genetic editing, I wonder what some of the punishments for low-scoring Americans could be?
A Digital Blockchain Currency Is Now The Way Forward
Cash becomes a vector of disease, expensive to produce, and inefficient. Of course, this means they can track every purchase you ever make. There is no anonymity of purchases any longer. Given the new ability to pay for food with your palm, the push for using a QR code to pay for anything, and quantum dot tattoos that may be able to store your financial data, this may not be too far off.
What’s For Dinner? Bugs And Fake, Food-Like Lab Products
According to The Great Reset, animals are a “resource-intensive” form of protein. The GR seeks to steer you away from such foods and “towards four main categories of alternatives – aquatic, plant-based, insect-based, and laboratory-cultured.”
The Great Reset And The World Economic Forum Are NOT Your Friends
Should The Great Reset succeed, the world will firmly fall into the grip of a totalitarian government. You will be a slave in every sense of the word, liable to medical experimentation and forced treatments. The state will own your children, and if history serves as a guide, you won’t get to keep them for long. Should the AI determine it’s convenient, your family will be uprooted and transferred to a newly created ghetto.
Forced to ingest chemicals rather than food, you will never know what genetic-altering agents and medications are in those foods.
Your lifelong dream to be a parent could be vaporized as mandates of forced sterility begin. Should woke culture decide masculine men are an issue, would it be outside the scope of the power of a government that owns everything to mandate the creation of eunuchs throughout your town?
Though the rest of the world may have fallen, Americans can never let their country follow suit.
The government of South Australia, one of the country’s six states, developed and is now testing an app as Orwellian as any in the free world to enforce its quarantine rules.
Returning travelers quarantining at home will be forced to download an app that combines facial recognition and geolocation.
The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be, reported The Atlantic.
Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person.
“We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,” Premier Steven Marshall explained.
“I think every South Australian should feel pretty proud that we are the national pilot for the home-based quarantine app.”
Other states also curtailed their citizens’ liberty in the name of safety. The state of Victoria announced a curfew and suspended its Parliament for key parts of the pandemic.
“To put this in context, federal and state parliaments sat during both world wars and the Spanish Flu, and curfews have never been imposed,” the scholar John Lee observed in an article for the Brookings Institution.
“In responding to a question about whether he had gone too far with respect to imposing a curfew (avoiding the question of why a curfew was needed when no other state had one), Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews replied: ‘it is not about human rights. It is about human life.’”
High-profile restaurant chains like Shake Shack and Union Square Hospitality will require staff and indoor diners in New York City and Washington D.C. to show proof of COVID “vaccination,” starting September 7, 2021
Vaccinated-only bars and restaurants have also popped up in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Boulder, St. Louis and New Orleans
A growing number of private companies are also requiring workers to participate in human medical experimentation or forfeit their job. High profile examples include Facebook, Google, Twitter, Lyft, Uber, Saks Fifth Avenue, The Washington Post, BlackRock, Ascension Health, Netflix, Walmart, the Walt Disney Corporation and Morgan Stanley
PayPal is vowing to block transactions and cancel accounts held by “extremists” and anyone endangering “at-risk communities,” which could include just about anything, including anti-vaccine rhetoric
CNN anchor Don Lemon has suggested unvaccinated people ought to be barred from buying food in grocery stores and have their driver’s license taken away
In 2020, the proposition that COVID-19 countermeasures would come to include forced vaccination and vaccine passports, resulting in a segregated society where only those participating in the COVID injection experiment have human rights, was labeled a wild conspiracy theory unworthy of discussion.
Fast-forward to August 2, 2021, and Forbes announces, “No Vax, No Service: Here’s Where Bars and Restaurants Across U.S. Are Requiring Proof of Vaccination.”1
No Jab, No Dining
According to Forbes,2 high-profile restaurant chains like Shake Shack and Union Square Hospitality are leading the way, requiring all staff and indoor diners in New York City and Washington D.C. to prove they’ve received the required doses of COVID-19 injections, starting September 7, 2021.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio hailed the decision, saying others will follow — and indeed, they did, with de Blasio himself announcing August 3, 2021, that proof of vaccination will be mandatory for all indoor dining, visiting gyms and going to movie theaters in the city:3
“This is a miraculous place literally full of wonders,” Mr. de Blasio said. “If you’re vaccinated, all that’s going to open up to you. But if you’re unvaccinated, unfortunately you will not be able to participate in many things.”
Several New York City eateries were already checking vaccination status, and during the last week of July 2021, the San Francisco Bar Owners Alliance urged its 300 members to require proof of COVID-19 injection or a negative COVID test for patrons wanting to have a drink indoors.
Several Los Angeles restaurants, bars and comedy clubs are also following suit, as are more than 60 establishments in Seattle. Vaccinated-only restaurants have also popped up in Oakland, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Boulder, St. Louis and New Orleans.
Since COVID countermeasures are a global lockstep operation,4 the same segregation trend is emerging in other countries as well. On the other hand, in Florida, where I live, businesses are prohibited by law5,6 from requiring customers to show proof of participation in the COVID jab experiment.
No Jab, No Job
A growing number of private companies are also requiring workers to participate in human medical experimentation or forfeit their job. As reported by Axios,7 this includes Facebook, Google, Twitter, Lyft, Uber, Saks Fifth Avenue, The Washington Post, BlackRock, Ascension Health, Netflix, Walmart, the Walt Disney Corporation and Morgan Stanley.
As mentioned, Florida prohibits businesses from requiring customers to provide proof of COVID “vaccination,” but it does not bar companies from mandating vaccination for its employees.
For now, Disney’s jab mandate only pertains to salaried and nonunion hourly employees, but according to Yahoo! News,8 Disney is in negotiations with union officials who represent theme park employees and members of its movie and TV production crews. The goal is to extend the vaccine mandate to union employees as well.
In May 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decreed that it is legal for companies to require employees to get the COVID shots.9 This despite the fact that the four available COVID injections are only authorized for emergency use and are as yet unlicensed.10 Testing is not expected to conclude for another two years.
Private companies also have the right to not mandate COVID shots, of course, but standing up for workers’ right to choose could hamper their ability to conduct business at all, as PayPal is now vowing to block transactions and cancel accounts held by “extremists” and anyone endangering “at-risk communities,”11 which could include just about anything at this point.
Seeing how the White House is promoting the idea that people who question the safety and effectiveness of COVID shots are “killing people” and the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) labels anti-vaccine rhetoric as a form of hate speech, is it a stretch to suspect PayPal will start taking down the accounts of so-called “anti-vaxxers”?
Business owners and self-employed entrepreneurs who speak out against other official narratives probably face the same risk. Venture capitalist David Sacks recently commented on the situation:12
“When I helped create PayPal in 1999, it was in furtherance of a revolutionary idea. No longer would ordinary people be dependent on large financial institutions to start a business …
But now PayPal is turning its back on its original mission. It is now leading the charge to restrict participation by those it deems unworthy … [W]e are talking about … shutting down people and organizations that express views that are entirely lawful …
If history is any guide, other fintech companies will soon follow suit … When … your name lands on a No-Buy List created by a consortium of private fintech companies, to whom can you appeal?
As for the notion of building your own PayPal or Facebook: because of their gigantic network effects and economies of scale, there is no viable alternative when the whole industry works together to deny you access.
Kicking people off social media deprives them of the right to speak in our increasingly online world. Locking them out of the financial economy is worse: It deprives them of the right to make a living.
We have seen how cancel culture can obliterate one’s ability to earn an income, but now the cancelled may find themselves without a way to pay for goods and services.
Previously, cancelled employees who would never again have the opportunity to work for a Fortune 500 company at least had the option to go into business for themselves. But if they cannot purchase equipment, pay employees, or receive payment from clients and customers, that door closes on them, too.”
If this trend continues, which it probably will, might people who question COVID shots and/or refuse to participate in human experimentation be barred from having a credit card or a bank account?
No Jab, No Food
Some are promoting even more severe punishment for the unvaccinated. Yet, it’s not enough for some thought leaders that unvaccinated individuals can’t enter a bar or restaurant, and might lose their ability to send or receive money for goods and services using PayPal (and potentially other digital transaction services).
For example, CNN anchor Don Lemon recently suggested unvaccinated people ought to be barred from buying food and have their driver’s license taken away.13,14Why is fascism so commonly associated with genocide …? It is because it needs a unifying force powerful enough to sweep aside all resistance. ~ Charles Eisenstein
I’d like you to conduct a thought experiment, and think this through from start to finish. What would your life be like if you were:
Barred from driving
Barred from working and earning a paycheck
Barred from sending or receiving money online
Barred from having a bank account and credit card
Barred from eating food at a restaurant (assuming you somehow got the cash to pay for it)
Barred from buying food in a grocery store (again, assuming you somehow got the cash to pay for it)
Are Lemon and countless others actually saying it is acceptable to make half the U.S. population homeless and starve them to death in order to, theoretically, prevent the spread of an infection that, so far, has had a 99.74% survival rate?15
To understand what’s really happening and what Lemon’s rhetoric is accomplishing, I highly recommend reading Charles Eisenstein’s article “Mob Morality and the Unvaxxed.” It’s an excellent and thought-provoking piece. Here’s a few chosen excerpts:16
“We would like to think that modern societies like ours have outgrown barbaric customs like human sacrifice … we don’t actually kill people in hopes of placating the gods and restoring order. Or do we? …
Not just any victim will do as an object of human sacrifice. Victims must be, as [legal scholar Roberta] Harding puts it, ‘in, but not of, the society.’ That is why, during the Black Death, mobs roamed about murdering Jews for ‘poisoning the wells.’
The entire Jewish population of Basel was burned alive, a scene repeated throughout Western Europe. Yet this was not mainly the result of preexisting virulent hatred of Jews waiting for an excuse to erupt; it was that victims were needed to release social tension, and hatred, an instrument of that release, coalesced opportunistically on the Jews …
‘Combatting hatred’ is combatting a symptom. Scapegoats needn’t be guilty, but they must be marginal, outcasts, heretics, taboo-breakers, or infidels of one kind or another … If they are not already marginal, they must be made so …
[D]efying left-right categorization is a promising new scapegoat class, the heretics of our time: the anti-vaxxers. As a readily identifiable subpopulation, they are ideal candidates for scapegoating. It matters little whether any of these pose a real threat to society … their guilt is irrelevant to the project of restoring order through blood sacrifice …
All that is necessary is that the dehumanized class arouse the blind indignation and rage necessary to incite a paroxysm of unifying violence. More relevant to current times, this primal mob energy can be harnessed toward fascistic political ends …
Sacrificial subjects carry an association of pollution or contagion; their removal thus cleanses society. I know people in the alternative health field who are considered so unclean that if I so much as mention their names in a Tweet or Facebook post, the post may be deleted …
The public’s ready acceptance of such blatant censorship cannot be explained solely in terms of its believing the pretext of ‘controlling misinformation.’ Unconsciously, the public recognizes and conforms to the age-old program of investing a pariah subclass with the symbology of pollution …
This program is well underway toward the Covid-unvaxxed, who are being portrayed as walking cesspools of germs who might contaminate the Sanctified Brethren (the vaccinated).
My wife perused an acupuncture Facebook page today … where someone asked, ‘What is the word that comes to mind to describe unvaccinated people?’ The responses were things like ‘filth,’ ‘assholes,’ and ‘death-eaters.’ This is precisely the dehumanization necessary to prepare a class of people for cleansing …
To prepare someone for removal as the repository of all that is evil, it helps to heap upon them every imaginable calumny. Thus we hear in mainstream publications that anti-vaxxers not only are killing people, but are raging narcissists … and tantamount to domestic terrorists.”
Dangerous Territory Ahead
If deep down in your gut you sense that we’re speeding into dangerous territory, you’re probably right. The “vaccinated” public are actively encouraged and manipulated both by media and government officials into literally despising and wishing death upon the unvaccinated, and this is indeed a very dangerous thing. It breeds mob mentality devoid of reason and logic, which can have tragic consequences.
“Why is fascism so commonly associated with genocide, when as a political philosophy it is about unity, nationalism, and the merger of corporate and state power?” Eisenstein asks.17
“It is because it needs a unifying force powerful enough to sweep aside all resistance. The us of fascism requires a them. The civic-minded moral majority participates willingly, assured that it is for the greater good. Something must be done. The doubters go along too, for their own safety.
No wonder today’s authoritarian institutions know, as if instinctively, to whip up hysteria toward the … unvaccinated. Fascism taps into, exploits, and institutionalizes a deeper instinct.
The practice of creating dehumanized classes of people and then murdering them is older than history … The campaign against the unvaccinated, garbed in the white lab coat of Science, munitioned with biased data, and waving the pennant of altruism, channels a brutal, ancient impulse.”
The Constitution still offers some measure of protection in the United States, but it may be naïve to assume it will be adhered to in the long term unless we the people demand it. In Australia, military are now roaming the streets of Sydney to make sure no one strays beyond their front door, as the country has implemented one of its strictest lockdowns yet.18
Fanning the flames of anger and hatred, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stated that vaccinated Australians might be able to regain some of their mobility once the vaccination rate reaches 70%, and broad lockdowns may be avoidable altogether if the vaccination rate hits 80%.
“If you get vaccinated, there will be special rules that apply to you,” Morrison told reporters. “Why? Because if you’re vaccinated, you present less of a public health risk.”
A rational person might question whether Morrison would actually hold true to his word. A person blinded by anger probably won’t, but will instead direct their frustration onto the holdouts that prevent the vaccination rate from reaching that magical threshold where they believe freedom will be restored.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The Biden Administration is attempting to push legislation to overtake local zoning laws and allow the federal government to set zoning throughout the country. This column was originally written in August 2015 about the subject of the globalist intentions for not only the United States, but for the world.
In 1992 “Agenda 21” was made public by the United Nations at a UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio De Janeiro and signed by 178 countries. It had been modified many times since then.
“Agenda 21” is transforming into a new set of laws being pushed through the United Nations. More oppressive and couched in language that hides its true meaning, it is based on the UN’s Sustainability Goals as part of “sustainable development goals” that will complete the submission of sovereign countries to the UN mandates.
The new laws called “Agenda 2030” are being finalized at the “Sustainable Development Summit” to be held in New York City from September 25th through the 27th.
Agenda 21 focused primarily on the environment; the 2030 Agenda is the foundation for governing the entire planet. It encompasses climate change and the areas of economics, health, energy, education, agriculture, gender equality, and social justice.
The UN is hailing it as a new universal Agenda for all of humanity.
Agenda 2030 is a plan of action for the people, the planet, and prosperity. It will require the collaboration of all countries acting in partnership to take bold and transformative steps to place the world on a more sustainable path. In essence, this is a plan for transforming global society.
These are some interesting concepts that must be questioned. I admit many of them sound pretty good; I would even go so far as to say admirable. But upon closer inspection, these 17 goals and the 169 targets that are a part of them appear to be nothing more than globalism at its worst.
It will give the United Nations and those elite who have been working for a one-world government for many years the opportunity to micromanage the lives of every man, woman, and child on the planet.
These are the same elites who tell us that liberty and freedom are “Dangerous,” and we can’t have everyone going around the earth just doing what they want.
Just a few thoughts on the 17 goals that immediately come to mind.
1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Admirable, but not possible. The only way that would even approach feasibility would be to force those countries with a high level of satisfaction in the lifestyle they have worked for to be taxed in one form or another to give money to those who still have poverty. This money will wind up just like the monies that are being sent to UN NGO’s, wasted and used to line the pockets of the governments and those in charge of running the programs.
2. End hunger, achieve food security and promote sustainable agriculture.
This would mean that farmers would be told where to farm, how to farm, and who to sell their products. American farmers may be required to sell the products they sell to a country or faction that can not pay or not pay enough to create a profit. Farms may go bankrupt, creating even more of a food shortage.
3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all.
Perhaps a one-world healthcare system. Does anyone believe that the healthcare we had enjoyed because of the markets here in America before Obama destroyed them with Obamacare will ever return as the system that it was? What will be the wait time when we need to get approval through a bureaucracy set up by the United Nations?
4. Ensure equitable and inclusive education for all.
The admirable idea, but what about the Islamic World. What will the UN do about the concept of women being second-class citizens in the Islamic World and not eligible for school? I fail to see how this would be resolved without military intervention, and I doubt the people of the US would allow the country to be pulled into another war.
5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Another good idea, but for the same reasons as #4 above, not attainable.
6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
This would take a massive influx of monies from the developed nations to happen. It would not reach its objectives, and in fact, would force the developed countries into third world status rather than improve the non-developed countries.
7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable energy for all.
Think Obama’s clean energy fiasco on a global level.
8. Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.
This sounds straight out of the socialist handbook. There has never been full employment in any developed country. And who will determine who works at each job?
9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization.
If that innovation involves pushing people to live in “rabbit warren” megacities and allowing the rest of the land to return to nature, that will never happen, not in America. The government of this country, much less the United Nations, has no authority to tell us what to do with our private property. This would be the start of a global civil war within the developed countries of the world.
10. Reduce inequality within and among countries.
What possibly makes the United Nations believe that they would be given the right to dictate to the US or England, Canada, or any other country they fell would be equal. Would this allow the UN to set reparations or force the country’s citizens to live where the UN feels is equal?
11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Once again, the megacities that the globalists envision for the world’s populations feel they know better where we should live and force people into specific areas so that the rest of the land would return to nature.
12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
The UN uses its “wisdom” to control consumption, including oil, food, and anything else they feel is not sustainable. I do not think the American people are ready to abide by rules on what they can eat, drink, or virtually anything they do to the reach of globalists.
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change.
This is a subject that has proven to be a false flag for the globalists to manage every aspect of our lives. Most people of any intelligence know it is a lie but remain silent not to incur the wrath of the scientists and lobbyists making all the money from the government to push this agenda.
14. Conserve the oceans, sea, and marine resources for sustainable development.
This is nothing more but an act to assure that all mineral resources and the use of the oceans will be under the command of the United Nations, giving them the ability to buy and sell the resources and line the pockets of the globalists. They would be stealing the resources from those countries least able to afford it, the very same people they purport to want to help.
15. Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, manage forests, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss.
Once again, the UN wants the ability to tell us how to live, what we can and can not do with our property, at least until it is taken for “Biodiversity loss” and push the citizens into megacities.
16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide justice for all, and accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
It concerns me and should concern you that the UN wants to institute its form of government at all levels. They have already started with the International Criminal Court, an ineffective and anti-Semitic organization. If you read this the way it is written, it would mean the UN would have the ability to rewrite laws and interfere with all judicial and regulatory institutions down to the local level.
17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.
The globalists expect the world’s population to wait for them to make the rules and meekly comply.
“Sustainability Development” is being used as a false flag for the implementation of a global force that will fundamentally transform all laws, cultures, entertainment, and even our beliefs in religion and families. And society in general.
These are the globalists who feel they know what is best for us, and we must be forced to comply with their ideas of what a perfect government is.
China’s surveillance system of ‘social credit’ has expanded globally and is now openly operational in Western Canada.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: China’s Orwellian “social credit system” that records the social and financial behaviour of individuals and corporations across China, using a vast surveillance system, has expanded globally, and is now openly operational at the renowned Haidilao hot pot restaurant, in Western Canada.
Ryan Pan, a manager with Haidilao Hot Pot in Vancouver confirmed that over 60 surveillance cameras have been installed in the restaurant at the request of the Haidilao corporation, as part of the social credit system in China. He said that the Vancouver location has 30 tables with two cameras assigned to each table.
When asked specifically why Haidilao required so many cameras to monitor staff and patrons, Ryan Pan said that the cameras were installed to “punish” staff if they didn’t adhere to corporate standards and to “people track”. Pan also said that the video is sent back to China but declined to say why this was, other than to say the reason for this was “secret.”
Founded in Sichuan, China, the Haidilao opened up at two locations in the Vancouver region, the most recent of which was opened in 2018 in a former Swiss Chalet restaurant in the trendy Kitsilano district of Vancouver. The location is within walking distance of the home rented by Huawei for staff temporarily re-located to Vancouver to assist Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer (CFO) of the telecom giant. Following her arrest and hearing over a provisional US extradition request for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in order to circumvent US sanctions against Iran. The Haidilao location is no more than 10 minutes to Meng Wanzhou’s mansion and the Peoples Republic of China Consulate. Haidilao has over 935 locations around the world and more than 36 million VIP members and 60,000 plus staff.
We reached out to Ivy Li, with the Canadian Friends of Hong Kong, who is a well-known public speaker, writer and activist on matters related to China and pro-democracy, to ask why Canadians should be concerned that China’s social credit system is now operational in Canada.
Ivy, who was born and raised in Hong Kong, had this to say in response: “Not only ethnic Chinese Canadians and residents, and businesses with Chinese ties are put at risk, but the privacy and safety of all Canadians and our society are compromised. Customers at a popular ethnic cuisine restaurant, especially in an upscale area, could be diplomats and politicians entertaining their guests, CEOs discussing their business strategies, professionals talking about company projects, journalists conducting interviews, etc., etc. Dinners discuss a wide range of subjects, especially after a couple of wine. The dining table in a popular restaurant is one of the best places to eavesdrop on someone and to get the pulse of a society.”
CHINA’S SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM
China’s social credit system was officially rolled out nationwide in 2014 with a plan to build “trust” in the marketplace and broader society. According to a report by USA Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 2020, China’s social credit system has developed into two connected but distinct systems: a system for monitoring individual behaviour, still in early pilot stages, and a more robust system for monitoring corporate behaviour.
The deadline for implementing China’s social credit system was 2020 when it became mandatory for all Chinese citizens to be enrolled in the national database and rated with a “social score” based on different behaviours; these “social scores” are then used to punish or reward. Praise the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on social media and you will be given a higher score, potentially leading to benefits such as priority for school admissions, free gym services, shorter wait times at hospitals and other benefits. Illegally protest against the CCP, forget to pay your utility bill, or knowingly associate with another individual who has a low score, and you might be restricted in accessing public services, excluded from taking transportation, or perhaps your children will be denied entry into the best schools.
A similar model is applied to businesses in China called the Corporate Social Credit System (CSCS) designed to create a single, standardized reputation system for local and foreign firms alike. The system touches on virtually all aspects of a company’s business operations in China by assessing company performance, making sure they pay their taxes, uphold standard of service and other market entities. Based on their rating, Chinese authorities will reward or punish businesses that can result in penalty fees, higher inspection rates and possibly even blacklisting. Companies receiving a high corporate social credit score could result in better tax rate, market access and possibly being placed on what is known as a “redlist”.
That is inside China. What isn’t clear is how China’s social credit system impacts overseas Chinese living in Canada who work for companies with ties to China who are required to be a part of CSCS. Will the behaviours and actions taken by individuals working in Canada for Chinese companies impact the score of relatives or other employees inside China? It’s not inconceivable that a person protesting in Canada about human rights abuses in China, may not be hired by a Chinese owned company because they have been blacklisted by China’s social credit system, even if they live in Canada. What about the impact of China’s social credit system on Canadian employment laws, privacy, and human rights laws?
We know that China has already started to move forward with the creation of an English language corporate social credit system version by Xinhua Credit for non-Chinese firms.
International brands are already punished if they step out of line in and out of China. They must either stay silent or actively support China’s policies if they want future access to the Chinese market. We saw the NBA’s Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of the Hong Kong protests and ultimately was forced to apologize. More recently, the boycott of H&M and other Western brands in China after they spoke out against forced labour in the cotton industry in the Xinjiang region of China. There is already a punishment-based system for corporations that don’t comply with the CCP regime regardless of compliance with China’s CSCS.
HAVE ANY CANADIAN LAWS BEEN BROKEN?
China’s CSCS operating within Canadian borders all boils down to the safety of workers, human rights, privacy of citizenry and national security, all of which is governed by legislation at a municipal, provincial, and federal level. The Canadian government is aware that China has implemented the CSCS and has even issued recommendations on how to conduct business inside China now that it has been implemented. But little to nothing has been done by elected officials to prevent China from implementing the CSCS inside Canada as a way to control foreign workers from China and Chinese owned businesses, or anyone for that matter, who is ethnic Chinese with personal or professional ties to China.
At a municipal (city) level, until recently, commercial security cameras used to be powered from a plug in the wall with a video cable going back to a personal video recorder (PVR). The City of Vancouver would normally require an electrical permit for this kind of set-up which would have, at the very least, alerted city officials in this case, given the large volume of cameras installed. However, the Haidilao cameras appear to be more modern cameras powered over Ethernet (POE). Meaning they are plugged into a network that can send video footage live back to China. They can be installed at any point without a permit. Quite simply, there is nothing stopping the Chinese government from insisting that all businesses in Canada who have ties to China either professionally or personally install a surveillance system as part of China’s social credit system.
British Columbia purports to have strict privacy laws with the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) governing how an organization can collect, use, or disclose information on individuals. When asked if the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was aware of CSCS sending private footage of temporary foreign workers and Canadian citizens back to China, Michelle Mitchell with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in BC (unrelated to author), stressed that an important component of PIPA is consent and that an organization must have consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information, citing three types of consent under PIPA, which is express consent, implied consent, and opt-out consent.
Since many of the staff at the Haidilao restaurant are Chinese citizens and work under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program in Canada, and are already listed in the Social Credit system in China as citizens of China, they aren’t likely to demand privacy under Canadian law. Even staff members who live in Canada permanently with “permanent resident status” face the same pressure to conform to China’s mandatory CSCS program, because China doesn’t consider individuals with permanent resident status in Canada unless they renounce their Chinese citizenship. “Consent” isn’t an option in totalitarian regimes.
SAFETY OF WORKERS AND PRIVACY OF CITIZENS
We asked the Minister of Labour in British Columbia, Harry Bains, if he was aware that China’s social credit program was active in BC, and if he had any plans to update labour laws to protect employees—both foreign and domestic—to prevent punishment of overseas employees working in BC. The Minister didn’t answer the question at all, choosing instead to have Lisa Beare, the Minister of Citizens’ Services in British Columbia, who is in charge of governing PIPA legislation, respond. Lisa Beare also didn’t respond directly to the question either, instead the Ministry provided a boiler plate response to say that they expect organizations to essentially adhere to the honour system by following current privacy legislation. “The Province expects organizations to follow Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) in regards to the handling of British Columbians’ personal information.” There was no mention by Ms Beare of government plans to update legislation to reflect current privacy concerns around China’s intrusion into the Canadians’ right to privacy.
A more insidious aspect to China’s CSCS is that it can be used to spy on Canadian citizens under the pretence of being a part of China’s social credit program. Canadian authorities may take the approach that CSCS has nothing to do with Canada and our laws. However, the Haidilao hot pot restaurant manager clearly stated that there were two reasons for the surveillance cameras, for both social credit and state security purposes. In all likelihood, next-generation data sources—such as information from facial recognition-driven video feeds, cell phone surveillance and e-com purchase history—are being collected from Canadians while they eat and it wouldn’t be the first time that the CCP has filmed Canadians inside Canada.
Over the past couple of years, an ever-expanding collection of surveillance cameras have been added to the Vancouver PRC Consulate, located in the prestigious Shaughnessy district of Vancouver, on the edge of a high traffic road that goes into the City. The surveillance camera has been installed on the edge of the property, one of which jettisons out into Canadian space, then retracts back. The street is a frequent place for pro-Hong Kong activists, Uyghurs protesting genocide, Iranians protesting the cooperation pact with China and members of Falun Gong protesting persecution. Canada is a multicultural country that has opened its doors to countless refugees fleeing persecution and promotes equality and the right to free speech as a core value. Yet Canada’s elected officials have done little if anything to ensure that the very people we have invited into Canada are promised a safe haven from the oppressive regimes they fled from in the first place.
The cameras used by the PRC consulate are the same cameras that the US banned the purchase and use of under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as a cyber security threat.
In 2019, Global Affairs, the department of the Government of Canada that manages Canada’s diplomatic and consular relations, also doesn’t appear to concerned that the Government of China is spying on Canadians with cameras installed on embassy grounds that jettison out into Canadian space, naively suggesting that addressing the matter is left to the Peoples Republic of China and the “honor” system of having a duty to adhere to Canadian laws.
“Diplomatic and consular representatives have a duty to respect local laws, and there is a similar expectation for the manner in which foreign missions operate. In Canada, there is an expectation that foreign missions comply with federal, provincial, and municipal laws and regulations, including those that governs the use of physical security equipment, such as cameras, fences, and lights.”
WHY MAKE IT SO OBVIOUS?
Why install over 60 security cameras in a restaurant if you don’t want customers to ask questions? Restaurant manager Ryan Pan did say that the company had a very strict food safety discipline. The chain suffered an embarrassing public incident at one of its Beijing restaurants a number of years ago that could be used to justify as an overreaction to installing so many cameras.
However, there is little doubt that Chinese surveillance within Canada can be correlated to the CCP’s need for control of its citizens. By establishing this capability within Canada, through what is believed to be capitalist corporate enterprise, the Chinese are able to identify Canada’s response. The restaurant in this case, with its “over-the-top” large volume of surveillance cameras could actually be a penetration test that measures vulnerability, as well as the reactions Canadian law enforcement and general public display.
Passive responses by Canada’s elected officials, law enforcement, and security intelligence agencies only serve to embolden influence operations, which have historically been the standard by which the Chinese base their tactics. The potential for further technology-based exploitation inside Canada will most assuredly increase.
In a rare public statement made on 9 February 2021, Director David Vigneault of Canada’s Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had this to say about the threat to Canada’s National Security by the Government of China: “To be clear, the threat does not come from the Chinese people, but rather the Government of China that is pursuing a strategy for geopolitical advantage on all fronts-economic, technical, political, and military-and using all elements of state power to carry out activities that are a direct threat to our national security and sovereignty. We must all strengthen our defenses.”
Despite Canada’s security intelligence agency warning Canadians and elected officials about the threat to Canada’s national security, Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has enjoyed the benefits of a very cozy relationship with China and isn’t likely to implement any significant changes to law that might affect that relationship.
We asked the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) if Prime Minister Trudeau was aware that China’s Corporate Social Credit System is now operational in Canada and if he was aware that Canadian citizens were having their biometric information taken via video surveillance and sent back to China. We also asked, what if anything did he intend to do legislatively to address CSCS in Canada.
The Prime Minister’s Office did not respond by deadline.
Ivy Li said this in response to the Prime Minister of Canada’s apparent lack of concern over China surveillance of Canadian citizens; “What is most chilling as a Canadian is that, knowing the Chinese Communist Party ‘Social Credit System’ is able to operate in Canada openly, yet our governments at all levels have no measures to stop it, to prevent it from replicating across the country, and to protect Canadians from being spied on directly through private companies by a dictatorial regime who is currently committing genocide, forced-labour, on-demand organ harvesting, and crushing the basic rights of Hong Kong citizens. That regime is coming for us. CCP’s social credit system should be made illegal in Canada, and sharing our information live with a foreign regime’s suppressive surveillance system by a private business should be a criminal offence. Official policy must be brough in ASAP to stamp out such practices.”
The ultimate question is: how many companies in Canada have installed surveillance systems at the behest of the CCP for the purpose of fulfilling their obligation to the Corporate Social Credit System? Is this just the start or is the system already well underway? Is Canada prepared to address China’s Social Credit System operating inside Canada from a labour, human rights, privacy, and national security perspective or will Canada’s elected officials just wish it all away and appease the CCP instead of protecting its citizens and living up to best practices under the 5 eyes partnership alliance?
Facebook’s growing role in the ever-expanding surveillance and “pre-crime” apparatus of the national security state demands new scrutiny of the company’s origins and its products as they relate to a former, controversial DARPA-run surveillance program that was essentially analogous to what is currently the world’s largest social network.
In mid-February, Daniel Baker, a US veteran described by the media as “anti-Trump, anti-government, anti-white supremacists, and anti-police,” was charged by a Florida grand jury with two counts of “transmitting a communication in interstate commerce containing a threat to kidnap or injure.”
The communication in question had been posted by Baker on Facebook, where he had created an event page to organize an armed counter-rally to one planned by Donald Trump supporters at the Florida capital of Tallahassee on January 6. “If you are afraid to die fighting the enemy, then stay in bed and live. Call all of your friends and Rise Up!,” Baker had written on his Facebook event page.
Baker’s case is notable as it is one of the first “precrime” arrests based entirely on social media posts—the logical conclusion of the Trump administration’s, and now Biden administration’s, push to normalize arresting individuals for online posts to prevent violent acts before they can happen. From the increasing sophistication of US intelligence/military contractor Palantir’s predictive policing programs to the formal announcement of the Justice Department’s Disruption and Early Engagement Program in 2019 to Biden’s first budget, which contains $111 million for pursuing and managing “increasing domestic terrorism caseloads,” the steady advance toward a precrime-centered “war on domestic terror” has been notable under every post-9/11 presidential administration.
This new so-called war on domestic terror has actually resulted in many of these types of posts on Facebook. And, while Facebook has long sought to portray itself as a “town square” that allows people from across the world to connect, a deeper look into its apparently military origins and continual military connections reveals that the world’s largest social network was always intended to act as a surveillance tool to identify and target domestic dissent.
Part 1 of this two-part series on Facebook and the US national-security state explores the social media network’s origins and the timing and nature of its rise as it relates to a controversial military program that was shut down the same day that Facebook launched. The program, known as LifeLog, was one of several controversial post-9/11 surveillance programs pursued by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that threatened to destroy privacy and civil liberties in the United States while also seeking to harvest data for producing “humanized” artificial intelligence (AI).
As this report will show, Facebook is not the only Silicon Valley giant whose origins coincide closely with this same series of DARPA initiatives and whose current activities are providing both the engine and the fuel for a hi-tech war on domestic dissent.
DARPA’s Data Mining for “National Security” and to “Humanize” AI
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, DARPA, in close collaboration with the US intelligence community (specifically the CIA), began developing a “precrime” approach to combatting terrorism known as Total Information Awareness or TIA. The purpose of TIA was to develop an “all-seeing” military-surveillance apparatus. The official logic behind TIA was that invasive surveillance of the entire US population was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, bio-terrorism events, and even naturally occurring disease outbreaks.
The architect of TIA, and the man who led it during its relatively brief existence, was John Poindexter, best known for being Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor during the Iran-Contra affair and for being convicted of five felonies in relation to that scandal. A less well-known activity of Iran-Contra figures like Poindexter and Oliver North was their development of the Main Core database to be used in “continuity of government” protocols. Main Core was used to compile a list of US dissidents and “potential troublemakers” to be dealt with if the COG protocols were ever invoked. These protocols could be invoked for a variety of reasons, including widespread public opposition to a US military intervention abroad, widespread internal dissent, or a vaguely defined moment of “national crisis” or “time of panic.” Americans were not informed if their name was placed on the list, and a person could be added to the list for merely having attended a protest in the past, for failing to pay taxes, or for other, “often trivial,” behaviors deemed “unfriendly” by its architects in the Reagan administration.
In light of this, it was no exaggeration when New York Times columnist William Safire remarked that, with TIA, “Poindexter is now realizing his twenty-year dream: getting the ‘data-mining’ power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.”
The TIA program met with considerable citizen outrage after it was revealed to the public in early 2003. TIA’s critics included the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that the surveillance effort would “kill privacy in America” because “every aspect of our lives would be catalogued,” while several mainstream media outlets warned that TIA was “fighting terror by terrifying US citizens.” As a result of the pressure, DARPA changed the program’s name to Terrorist Information Awareness to make it sound less like a national-security panopticon and more like a program aiming specifically at terrorists in the post-9/11 era.
The TIA projects were not actually closed down, however, with most moved to the classified portfolios of the Pentagon and US intelligence community. Some became intelligence funded and guided private-sector endeavors, such as Peter Thiel’s Palantir, while others resurfaced years later under the guise of combatting the COVID-19 crisis.
Soon after TIA was initiated, a similar DARPA program was taking shape under the direction of a close friend of Poindexter’s, DARPA program manager Douglas Gage. Gage’s project, LifeLog, sought to “build a database tracking a person’s entire existence” that included an individual’s relationships and communications (phone calls, mail, etc.), their media-consumption habits, their purchases, and much more in order to build a digital record of “everything an individual says, sees, or does.” LifeLog would then take this unstructured data and organize it into “discreet episodes” or snapshots while also “mapping out relationships, memories, events and experiences.”
LifeLog, per Gage and supporters of the program, would create a permanent and searchable electronic diary of a person’s entire life, which DARPA argued could be used to create next-generation “digital assistants” and offer users a “near-perfect digital memory.” Gage insisted, even after the program was shut down, that individuals would have had “complete control of their own data-collection efforts” as they could “decide when to turn the sensors on or off and decide who will share the data.” In the years since then, analogous promises of user control have been made by the tech giants of Silicon Valley, only to be broken repeatedly for profit and to feed the government’s domestic-surveillance apparatus.
The information that LifeLog gleaned from an individual’s every interaction with technology would be combined with information obtained from a GPS transmitter that tracked and documented the person’s location, audio-visual sensors that recorded what the person saw and said, as well as biomedical monitors that gauged the person’s health. Like TIA, LifeLog was promoted by DARPA as potentially supporting “medical research and the early detection of an emerging epidemic.”
Critics in mainstream media outlets and elsewhere were quick to point out that the program would inevitably be used to build profiles on dissidents as well as suspected terrorists. Combined with TIA’s surveillance of individuals at multiple levels, LifeLog went farther by “adding physical information (like how we feel) and media data (like what we read) to this transactional data.” One critic, Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, warned at the time that the programs that DARPA was pursuing, including LifeLog, “have obvious, easy paths to Homeland Security deployments.”
At the time, DARPA publicly insisted that LifeLog and TIA were not connected, despite their obvious parallels, and that LifeLog would not be used for “clandestine surveillance.” However, DARPA’s own documentation on LifeLog noted that the project “will be able . . . to infer the user’s routines, habits and relationships with other people, organizations, places and objects, and to exploit these patterns to ease its task,” which acknowledged its potential use as a tool of mass surveillance.
In addition to the ability to profile potential enemies of the state, LifeLog had another goal that was arguably more important to the national-security state and its academic partners—the “humanization” and advancement of artificial intelligence. In late 2002, just months prior to announcing the existence of LifeLog, DARPA released a strategy document detailing development of artificial intelligence by feeding it with massive floods of data from various sources.
The post-9/11 military-surveillance projects—LifeLog and TIA being only two of them—offered quantities of data that had previously been unthinkable to obtain and that could potentially hold the key to achieving the hypothesized “technological singularity.” The 2002 DARPA document even discusses DARPA’s effort to create a brain-machine interface that would feed human thoughts directly into machines to advance AI by keeping it constantly awash in freshly mined data.
One of the projects outlined by DARPA, the Cognitive Computing Initiative, sought to develop sophisticated artificial intelligence through the creation of an “enduring personalized cognitive assistant,” later termed the Perceptive Assistant that Learns, or PAL. PAL, from the very beginning was tied to LifeLog, which was originally intended to result in granting an AI “assistant” human-like decision-making and comprehension abilities by spinning masses of unstructured data into narrative format.
The would-be main researchers for the LifeLog project also reflect the program’s end goal of creating humanized AI. For instance, Howard Shrobe at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and his team at the time were set to be intimately involved in LifeLog. Shrobe had previously worked for DARPA on the “evolutionary design of complex software” before becoming associate director of the AI Lab at MIT and has devoted his lengthy career to building “cognitive-style AI.” In the years after LifeLog was cancelled, he again worked for DARPA as well as on intelligence community–related AI research projects. In addition, the AI Lab at MIT was intimately connected with the 1980s corporation and DARPA contractor called Thinking Machines, which was founded by and/or employed many of the lab’s luminaries—including Danny Hillis, Marvin Minsky, and Eric Lander—and sought to build AI supercomputers capable of human-like thought. All three of these individuals were later revealed to be close associates of and/or sponsored by the intelligence-linked pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who also generously donated to MIT as an institution and was a leading funder of and advocate for transhumanist-related scientific research.
Soon after the LifeLog program was shuttered, critics worried that, like TIA, it would continue under a different name. For example, Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told VICE at the time of LifeLog’s cancellation, “It would not surprise me to learn that the government continued to fund research that pushed this area forward without calling it LifeLog.”
Along with its critics, one of the would-be researchers working on LifeLog, MIT’s David Karger, was also certain that the DARPA project would continue in a repackaged form. He told Wired that “I am sure such research will continue to be funded under some other title . . . I can’t imagine DARPA ‘dropping out’ of a such a key research area.”
The answer to these speculations appears to lie with the company that launched the exact same day that LifeLog was shuttered by the Pentagon: Facebook.
Thiel Information Awareness
After considerable controversy and criticism, in late 2003, TIA was shut down and defunded by Congress, just months after it was launched. It was only later revealed that that TIA was never actually shut down, with its various programs having been covertly divided up among the web of military and intelligence agencies that make up the US national-security state. Some of it was privatized.
The same month that TIA was pressured to change its name after growing backlash, Peter Thiel incorporated Palantir, which was, incidentally, developing the core panopticon software that TIA had hoped to wield. Soon after Palantir’s incorporation in 2003, Richard Perle, a notorious neoconservative from the Reagan and Bush administrations and an architect of the Iraq War, called TIA’s Poindexter and said he wanted to introduce him to Thiel and his associate Alex Karp, now Palantir’s CEO. According to a report in New York magazine, Poindexter “was precisely the person” whom Thiel and Karp wanted to meet, mainly because “their new company was similar in ambition to what Poindexter had tried to create at the Pentagon,” that is, TIA. During that meeting, Thiel and Karp sought “to pick the brain of the man now widely viewed as the godfather of modern surveillance.”
Soon after Palantir’s incorporation, though the exact timing and details of the investment remain hidden from the public, the CIA’s In-Q-Tel became the company’s first backer, aside from Thiel himself, giving it an estimated $2 million. In-Q-Tel’s stake in Palantir would not be publicly reported until mid-2006.
The money was certainly useful. In addition, Alex Karp told the New York Times in October 2020, “the real value of the In-Q-Tel investment was that it gave Palantir access to the CIA analysts who were its intended clients.” A key figure in the making of In-Q-Tel investments during this period, including the investment in Palantir, was the CIA’s chief information officer, Alan Wade, who had been the intelligence community’s point man for Total Information Awareness. Wade had previously cofounded the post-9/11 Homeland Security software contractor Chiliad alongside Christine Maxwell, sister of Ghislaine Maxwell and daughter of Iran-Contra figure, intelligence operative, and media baron Robert Maxwell.
After the In-Q-Tel investment, the CIA would be Palantir’s only client until 2008. During that period, Palantir’s two top engineers—Aki Jain and Stephen Cohen—traveled to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, every two weeks. Jain recalls making at least two hundred trips to CIA headquarters between 2005 and 2009. During those regular visits, CIA analysts “would test [Palantir’s software] out and offer feedback, and then Cohen and Jain would fly back to California to tweak it.” As with In-Q-Tel’s decision to invest in Palantir, the CIA’s chief information officer during this time remained one of TIA’s architects. Alan Wade played a key role in many of these meetings and subsequently in the “tweaking” of Palantir’s products.
Today, Palantir’s products are used for mass surveillance, predictive policing, and other disconcerting policies of the US national-security state. A telling example is Palantir’s sizable involvement in the new Health and Human Services–run wastewater surveillance program that is quietly spreading across the United States. As noted in a previous Unlimited Hangout report, that system is the resurrection of a TIA program called Biosurveillance. It is feeding all its data into the Palantir-managed and secretive HHS Protect data platform. The decision to turn controversial DARPA-led programs into a private ventures, however, was not limited to Thiel’s Palantir.
The Rise of Facebook
The shuttering of TIA at DARPA had an impact on several related programs, which were also dismantled in the wake of public outrage over DARPA’s post-9/11 programs. One of these programs was LifeLog. As news of the program spread through the media, many of the same vocal critics who had attacked TIA went after LifeLog with similar zeal, with Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists telling Wired at the time that “LifeLog has the potential to become something like ‘TIA cubed.’” LifeLog being viewed as something that would prove even worse than the recently cancelled TIA had a clear effect on DARPA, which had just seen both TIA and another related program cancelled after considerable backlash from the public and the press.
The firestorm of criticism of LifeLog took its program manager, Doug Gage, by surprise, and Gage has continued to assert that the program’s critics “completely mischaracterized” the goals and ambitions of the project. Despite Gage’s protests and those of LifeLog’s would-be researchers and other supporters, the project was publicly nixed on February 4, 2004. DARPA never provided an explanation for its quiet move to shutter LifeLog, with a spokesperson stating only that it was related to “a change in priorities” for the agency. On DARPA director Tony Tether’s decision to kill LifeLog, Gage later told VICE, “I think he had been burnt so badly with TIA that he didn’t want to deal with any further controversy with LifeLog. The death of LifeLog was collateral damage tied to the death of TIA.”
Fortuitously for those supporting the goals and ambitions of LifeLog, a company that turned out to be its private-sector analogue was born on the same day that LifeLog’s cancellation was announced. On February 4, 2004, what is now the world’s largest social network, Facebook, launched its website and quickly rose to the top of the social media roost, leaving other social media companies of the era in the dust.
A few months into Facebook’s launch, in June 2004, Facebook cofounders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz brought Sean Parker onto Facebook’s executive team. Parker, previously known for cofounding Napster, later connected Facebook with its first outside investor, Peter Thiel. As discussed, Thiel, at that time, in coordination with the CIA, was actively trying to resurrect controversial DARPA programs that had been dismantled the previous year. Notably, Sean Parker, who became Facebook’s first president, also had a history with the CIA, which recruited him at the age of sixteen soon after he had been busted by the FBI for hacking corporate and military databases. Thanks to Parker, in September 2004, Thiel formally acquired $500,000 worth of Facebook shares and was added its board. Parker maintained close ties to Facebook as well as to Thiel, with Parker being hired as a managing partner of Thiel’s Founders Fund in 2006.
Thiel and Facebook cofounder Mosokvitz became involved outside of the social network long after Facebook’s rise to prominence, with Thiel’s Founder Fund becoming a significant investor in Moskovitz’s company Asana in 2012. Thiel’s longstanding symbiotic relationship with Facebook cofounders extends to his company Palantir, as the data that Facebook users make public invariably winds up in Palantir’s databases and helps drive the surveillance engine Palantir runs for a handful of US police departments, the military, and the intelligence community. In the case of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, Palantir was also involved in utilizing Facebook data to benefit the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign.
Today, as recent arrests such as that of Daniel Baker have indicated, Facebook data is slated to help power the coming “war on domestic terror,” given that information shared on the platform is being used in “precrime” capture of US citizens, domestically. In light of this, it is worth dwelling on the point that Thiel’s exertions to resurrect the main aspects of TIA as his own private company coincided with his becoming the first outside investor in what was essentially the analogue of another DARPA program deeply intertwined with TIA.
Facebook, a Front
Because of the coincidence that Facebook launched the same day that LifeLog was shut down, there has been recent speculation that Zuckerberg began and launched the project with Moskovitz, Saverin, and others through some sort of behind-the-scenes coordination with DARPA or another organ of the national-security state. While there is no direct evidence for this precise claim, the early involvement of Parker and Thiel in the project, particularly given the timing of Thiel’s other activities, reveals that the national-security state was involved in Facebook’s rise. It is debatable whether Facebook was intended from its inception to be a LifeLog analogue or if it happened to be the social media project that fit the bill after its launch. The latter seems more likely, especially considering that Thiel also invested in another early social media platform, Friendster.
An important point linking Facebook and LifeLog is the subsequent identification of Facebook with LifeLog by the latter’s DARPA architect himself. In 2015, Gage told VICE that “Facebook is the real face of pseudo-LifeLog at this point.” He tellingly added, “We have ended up providing the same kind of detailed personal information to advertisers and data brokers and without arousing the kind of opposition that LifeLog provoked.”
Users of Facebook and other large social media platforms have so far been content to allow these platforms to sell their private data so long as they publicly operate as private enterprises. Backlash only really emerged when such activities were publicly tied to the US government, and especially the US military, even though Facebook and other tech giants routinely share their users’ data with the national-security state. In practice, there is little difference between the public and private entities.
Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, notably warned in 2019 that Facebook is just as untrustworthy as US intelligence, stating that “Facebook’s internal purpose, whether they state it publicly or not, is to compile perfect records of private lives to the maximum extent of their capability, and then exploit that for their own corporate enrichment. And damn the consequences.”
Snowden also stated in the same interview that “the more Google knows about you, the more Facebook knows about you, the more they are able . . . to create permanent records of private lives, the more influence and power they have over us.” This underscores how both Facebook and intelligence-linked Google have accomplished much of what LifeLog had aimed to do, but on a much larger scale than what DARPA had originally envisioned.
The reality is that most of the large Silicon Valley companies of today have been closely linked to the US national-security state establishment since their inception. Notable examples aside from Facebook and Palantir include Google and Oracle. Today these companies are more openly collaborating with the military-intelligence agencies that guided their development and/or provided early funding, as they are used to provide the data needed to fuel the newly announced war on domestic terror and its accompanying algorithms.
It is hardly a coincidence that someone like Peter Thiel, who built Palantir with the CIA and helped ensure Facebook’s rise, is also heavily involved in Big Data AI-driven “predictive policing” approaches to surveillance and law enforcement, both through Palantir and through his other investments. TIA, LifeLog, and related government and private programs and institutions launched after 9/11, were always intended to be used against the American public in a war against dissent. This was noted by their critics in 2003-4 and by those who have examined the origins of the “homeland security” pivot in the US and its connection to past CIA “counterterror” programs in Vietnam and Latin America.
Ultimately, the illusion of Facebook and related companies as being independent of the US national-security state has prevented a recognition of the reality of social media platforms and their long-intended, yet covert uses, which we are beginning to see move into the open following the events of January 6. Now, with billions of people conditioned to use Facebook and social media as part of their daily lives, the question becomes: If that illusion were to be irrevocably shattered today, would it make a difference to Facebook’s users? Or has the populace become so conditioned to surrendering their private data in exchange for dopamine-fueled social-validation loops that it no longer matters who ends up holding that data?
In fact, if one was to write a film script about the worst of all outcomes for the human race and planet, Schwab’s ‘Great Reset’ dream would perfectly fill the bill.
Everything that moves and breathes is to be sanitised, anaesthetized and digitalised proclaims the WEF White Paper of October 2020. This is the way to turn the world ‘Green’ according to Schwab and his team of technocratic trolls.
Well, most of us will turn green just by reading this WEF master-plan for humanity “Resetting the Future of Work Agenda in a post Covid World” so there’s really no need to bother with its implementation, is there?
The inventory of fake green hooey to be found within the pages of this paper goes back to the Club of Rome (founded 1968) coming up with the idea that for the elite to maintain their grip on world affairs, some scary story threatening the end of life on Earth was needed.
So the idea of Global Warming was hatched to fit this need.
It also had the advantage of being a money spinner via the invention of ‘carbon taxes’ and deployment of a whole new fake green infrastructure under the title ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’.
Yes, a truly inspiring control package was put together – just waiting for a suitable moment to be rolled-out across the world.
Well, it just happened that something called Covid came along (sheer coincidence) to kick the whole show off at the beginning of 2020.
Aside from Global Warming, launched some twenty years earlier, the new show is proving to be quite a spectacle! There’s something for everybody in the tragi-comedy drama called ‘Covid-19’.
Fake news, fake views and fake truths – all conjoining to make a quite breathtaking virtual reality saga starring some previously little-known bit part actors, who leapt at the chance to take leading roles in bringing to life the technocratic Great Reset dynasty promised by the World Economic Forum.
A dynasty requiring the implementation of highly tuned Al-Gore-rhythms so as to edit out the communications of all who don’t do Al’s Global Warming thing.
Not just that, but EMF’ing all and sundry as a covert way of vastly reducing the global population, is also a vital part of the mix.
The only thing is, those doctors, scientists and engineers still able to think, saw immediately that they were being asked to believe that the world had gone flat again – like it was pre Copernicus and Galileo. And that 2+1=4. And that cell phone microwave radiation, now running at tens of thousands of times that of natural background radiation – doesn’t change anything and won’t do anyone any harm.
No, of course not, why should it – we must have had a delusional moment ever entertaining such an idea.
As we peer at the newspaper headlines each morning, we become aware of a very well-coordinated story line being monotonously repeated day after day, with almost no variation wherever you happen to be in the world – but especially so in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.
These headlines are continuously telling us to to believe in a surreal agenda that – of course – stars ‘Covid’ and comprises a whole series of absolute contradictions, invented, no doubt, for the purpose of causing mass distraction and confusion of the readership – while relentlessly pressing the fear button to ensure obeisance from a semi-paralysed public.
But what is this we see emerging out of the gloom at this eleventh hour? Could it be a new hero is rising up out of the chaos to put our minds at rest? Could it possibly be one Klaus Schwab – ‘visionary extraordinaire’ and inspired saviour of humanity?
Apparently The Green New Deal sees 5G as the solution to getting a global centralised ‘smart grid’ up and running so as to enable us to be ‘watched’ 24/7. This, one assumes, is to help us get that warm feeling of “you are never alone.”
That warm feeling will be accentuated by the fact that 5G, like its 3/4G predecessors, is a microwave weapon that cooks us from the inside out and serves us up rare, medium or well done, according to its output.
“Well done!” is the response that Schwab and his royal team are no doubt expecting us to proclaim while loudly applauding the roll-out of the Agenda 2030 – Zero Carbon – Smart City – Fourth Industrial Revolution – Transhumanist Singularity – Green New Deal – New World Order – ‘Great Reset’ blueprint for a full-on fascist future.
Well sorry, Mein Herr, but I’ve got a strange feeling that you might have got this all a bit wrong. Your megalomania has been recognised for what it is. Most of us have accordingly decided to show you two fingers and the way to the door.
Your departure should not be delayed a day longer than necessary. Don’t worry, we have made it easier for you to take your leave by ensuring the exit door has these words writ large upon it: ‘THE GREAT REJECT’.