An overview of our Brain2Music pipeline: High-dimensional fMRI responses are condensed into the semantic, 128-dimensional music embedding space of MuLan (Huang et al., 2022). Subsequently, the music generation model, MusicLM (Agostinelli et al., 2023), is conditioned to generate the music reconstruction, resembling the original stimulus. As an alternative we consider retrieving music from a large database, instead of generating it.

The study’s abstract states,

The process of reconstructing experiences from human brain activity offers a unique lens into how the brain interprets and represents the world. In this paper, we introduce a method for reconstructing music from brain activity, captured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Our approach uses either music retrieval or the MusicLM music generation model conditioned on embeddings derived from fMRI data. The generated music resembles the musical stimuli that human subjects experienced, with respect to semantic properties like genre, instrumentation, and mood.

We investigate the relationship between different components of MusicLM and brain activity through a voxel-wise encoding modeling analysis. Furthermore, we discuss which brain regions represent information derived from purely textual descriptions of music stimuli. We provide supplementary material including examples of the reconstructed music at this https URL 

In 2016, I presented an analysis, Technocrats On Fire: Obama’s Brain Mapping Initiative Is Racing Forward:

In April 2013, President Obama announced a Federal initiative to map the human brain, in the same manner that the human genome had already been mapped. The initiative was officially called BRAIN, an acronym for “Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies” Initiative.

The brain was described as one of the final frontiers of understanding, and necessary science to the advancement of humanity.

Top neuroscientists quickly developed a 12-year research strategy for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to achieve the goals. The NIH director subsequently stated,

“The human brain is the most complicated biological structure in the known universe. We’ve only just scratched the surface in understanding how it works – or, unfortunately, doesn’t quite work when disorders and disease occur… This is just the beginning of a 12-year journey and we’re excited to be starting the ride.”

Today marks the identification of 97 new regions of the brain, as compared to the 83 previously known regions. This discovery gives neuroscientists the most comprehensive description ever, and promises to accelerate further research by an order of magnitude.

Obviously, today’s study is the result of Obama’s BRAIN Initiative. When BRAIN was created, it was compared in importance to mapping the human genome during the 1990s. Some compared it to the Manhattan Project.

The mechanistic worldview of both Transhumanists and Technocrats demands deeper discovery and analysis of the physical body and brain. The fruit of Obama’s spending is paying off, but the outcomes are very disturbing.

Google’s artificial intelligence lab published a new paper explaining the development of the “first-of-its-kind” vision-language-action (VLA) model that learns from scrapping the internet and other data to allow robots to understand plain language commands from humans while navigating environments like the robot from the Dinsey movie Wall-E or the robot from the late 1990s flick Bicentennial Man.

“For decades, when people have imagined the distant future, they’ve almost always included a starring role for robots,” Vincent Vanhoucke, the head of robotics for Google DeepMind, wrote in a blog post.

Do you recall the 1999 sci-fi comedy-drama film featuring Robin Williams, titled Bicentennial Man?

In 1999, American climatologist Michael Mann first published a “hockey stick graph” that purported to show an unprecedented spike in global temperature over the past century.

Mann’s graph was featured in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and was followed by the production of Al Gore’s apocalyptic climate film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

These developments led to a continuous series of doomsday predictions and arbitrary climate policies that seek to replace fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy.

Challenging the Climate Change Narrative

The presumed scientific consensus on cataclysmic climate change hasn’t gone unchallenged. In 2005, Canadian researchers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick raised serious doubts about the principal component analysis in Mr. Mann’s hockey stick graph.

In 2015, author Mark Steyn published “A Disgrace to the Profession,” which compiled the views of more than 100 world-class scientists who were skeptical of Mann’s research methods and the degree of public hysteria generated by his predictions.

Last summer, American philosopher and energy expert Alex Epstein released his second book on the moral case for the use of fossil fuels. In “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less,” he argued that the looming “climate emergency” and imminent “renewable revolution” have been enormously overstated.

Mr. Epstein asserted that fossil fuels are still the main source of affordable energy in the world and that policies aimed at reducing the use of coal, oil, and gas are creating skyrocketing energy prices, which have already produced rampant inflation.

He acknowledged that over the past 170 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have contributed to minor degrees of warming, but their benefits have raised billions of people out of poverty. Largely due to adaptive measures made possible by fossil fuel-powered machines and technology, the world has become more liveable, and mortality related to weather is at an all-time low.

According to Mr. Epstein’s analysis: “Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective source of energy. Cost-effective energy is essential to human flourishing. Billions of people are suffering and dying for lack of cost-effective energy.”

He pointed out that wind and solar energy have been subsidized for decades but fossil fuels are still required to produce at least 80 percent of the world’s energy.

The Benefits of Adaption Over Mitigation

Writing this summer in a Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) publication, Mr. McKitrick pointed out that government policies focus almost entirely on reducing emissions or “mitigation” over the benefits of human “adaption.”

The University of Guelph professor and author of “Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy” has been studying climate change, climate policy, and environmental economics since the 1990s. He’s the same Mr. McKitrick who contributed to exposing Mr. Mann’s hockey stick illusion more than a decade ago.

The MLI report notes that “proponents of climate policy have long resisted discussing adaptation perhaps out of fear that it might be effective: if through adaptation we can substantially reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of climate change, this will weaken the case for deep decarbonization and elimination of fossil fuels, which some in the climate movement view as an end in itself.”

Mr. McKitrick says adaptation has an unacknowledged record of success, while mitigation has been an expensive failure. After decades of draconian mitigation efforts, global CO2 emissions have continued to rise.

While prohibitively expensive CO2 reduction measures have failed to prevent climate change, adaptation has had considerable success in reducing health risks and protecting agricultural production from weather instability. As the costs of mitigation go up, Mr. McKitrick contends that policymakers should confront the prospect that their current policies could impede adaptation and increase human suffering.

Mr. Epstein and Mr. McKitrick appear to agree that people on the margins of prosperity burn fossil fuels for a very good reason. Our privileged “warmerati” can afford to follow a fashionable green lifestyle, but for legions of ordinary people, access to fossil fuels is a matter of life or death. Insisting people in struggling economies achieve “net zero” will only result in their further decline.

Radical Anti-Impact Measures Will Destroy Human Flourishing

Critics of government plans to get rid of fossil fuels maintain that the link between affordable energy and human flourishing is virtually irrefutable.

People’s views about “climate change” depend almost entirely on an acquired ideological framework. Those who choose to regard the elimination of human impact on nature as an end in itself would sacrifice the well-being of billions to achieve their Utopian vision.

Catastrophic climate predictions have been made since the 1970s. Most haven’t come true—no new ice age; no intolerable warming in direct relation to CO2 levels; no disappearance of polar ice or polar bears; no exceptional rise in ocean levels; no abnormal occurrences of extreme weather events; no widespread crop failures and famines.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute, recently asserted that “the proffered solutions to cut CO2 are both incredibly expensive and terribly ineffective.”

Canadian newspaper publisher and historian Conrad Black once wrote that “climate change, to use a phrase of Napoleon’s, has entered the realm of ‘lies agreed upon.’” He suggested that “anyone who claims certainty on this subject is a charlatan.”

In fact, only fossil fuel-driven free market economies have been sufficiently productive to raise millions of people out of poverty and provide a wide array of social, health, and educational services to vulnerable members of society.

Decades of experience have shown that dramatically reducing CO2 levels may not be feasible. Dispassionate researchers are beginning to conclude that adaptation to climate variations is the most effective way to reduce the impact of warming and permit food producers to benefit from changing growing conditions.

Radical anti-impact measures will destroy human flourishing. Ridding the world of fossil fuels is likely to leave scores of human beings poor, hungry, and destitute.

There must be something we can do to insist that policymakers reexamine this reckless course of action.

Read full story here…

With the WHO hurtling towards adoption of the ‘Pandemic Treaty,’ as well as revisions of its International Health Regulations (IHR) which some knowledgeable observers regard as even more consequential, the predominant theory among opponents appears to be that the changes will consolidate the power of the WHO bureaucracy and hence of private interests which allegedly control the latter.

But, prima facie, the theory makes little sense. The WHO is, after all – like, say, the UN or the WTO – an international organization, in which negotiations take place among member-states and decisions are made by them. Private sources can contribute as much funding as they like, and this may well give them influence, but it will not give them a seat at the negotiating table or a vote. Without precise state sponsorship, a project like the Pandemic Treaty and the related revisions of the IHR could not even get off the ground.

And, lo and behold, if we go back far enough – before hardly anyone will have ever even heard the expression ‘pandemic treaty’ – we discover that the treaty did indeed have a state sponsor and that, unsurprisingly, the state in question is the very same state which, if albeit unbeknownst to the broader public, was the driving force behind the WHO’s Covid-19 ‘pandemic response:’ namely, Germany.

Thus, referring to then German Minister of Health Jens Spahn, the headline of a May 24, 2021 report from Germany’s DPA wire service reads: ‘Spahn Pushes for International Treaty: How the WHO Wants to Prevent a New Pandemic.’

But the article is not in fact about how the WHO wants to prevent a future pandemic, but rather about how Germany wants the WHO to prevent a future pandemic. Thus, the accompanying blurb reads: ‘How can a catastrophe like the Corona pandemic be prevented in the future? With a UN treaty, Germany and other countries believe. At the WHO meeting, they want to break the resistance of other countries.’

The article goes on to narrate how Germany and its allies wanted to use the WHO’s annual assembly, which was being held remotely that year and which began on that very day, in order to ‘fire off the starting pistol for an international pandemic treaty.’

And so it would come to pass.

By the end of the yearly event, a few days later, then German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a somewhat ragtag band of two dozen other world leaders would publish a joint statement calling for the conclusion of a pandemic treaty. The signatories included many frankly minor figures like the prime ministers of Fiji and of Trinidad and Tobago, as well as heads of international organisations – like none other than WHO Director-General Tedros – but also somewhat weightier figures like then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron.

‘States have to commit to cooperating and to the implementation of jointly established rules’, Spahn told the DPA. ‘So as not to remain at the level of pious wishes,’ the article continues,

A legally binding treaty is planned: whoever takes part has to abide by it. A form of compulsion is supposed to come into being: practically only rogue states could then afford not to cooperate and they would have to count on international condemnation.

Speaking of private versus state interests, by this time, in mid-2021, Germany had shot past the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to become the WHO’s largest funder, nearly quadrupling its contribution overnight in a funding effort which the DPA report explicitly links to its desire to lead the world in pandemic prevention and response. Germany’s contribution thus reached nearly $1.15 billion for the 2020-21 funding period (as can be seen here).

All of the additional funding was, of course, voluntary (Germany’s assessed contribution as member state represented a mere 5 percent of the total), and nearly all of it was earmarked precisely for the WHO’s Covid-19 response budget. As in previous years, the bulk of Gates Foundation funding, by contrast, continued to be devoted to polio eradication. (See flowchart here.)

Thus, more to the point, if Germany’s total contribution to the WHO budget easily surpassed that of the Gates Foundation, its specific contribution to the Covid-19 response budget dwarfed that of the Gates Foundation. The below graphs generated from the WHO database clearly illustrate this fact for 2020, with Germany’s $425 million contribution leading the pack by a wide margin and the Gates Foundation’s mere $15 million trailing even the likes of Yemen!

In 2021, Germany would continue to lead the pack, with the European Commission, under former German Minister of Defence Ursula von der Leyen, now upping its game and finishing (a distant) second. The combined pledges of Germany ($406 million) and the Commission ($160 million) would represent around half of the WHO’s total Covid-19 response budget. The Gates Foundation contribution would fall to just $10 million. (See the WHO database here, selecting ‘SPRP 2021,’ and for further discussion, my earlier article here.)

Moreover, Germany was not only massively funding the WHO’s Covid-19 response. It was also uniquely well-positioned within the organisation to influence the development of the Pandemic Treaty and the revisions of the International Health Regulations.

Thus, the DPA report notes that ‘a WHO expert commission led by Lothar Wieler, the head of the Robert Koch Institute,’ had recommended the quick dispatch of ‘crisis teams’ to the area of a ‘pandemic outbreak.’ This procedure is supposed to be ‘anchored in the treaty,’ i.e. to be mandatory whether a country wants to receive such ‘crisis teams’ or not.

A commission led by Lothar Wieler, the head of the Robert Koch Institute? The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) is none other than the German public health authority. Wieler’s leading such a commission is as if Rochelle Walensky would lead a WHO expert commission while still heading the CDC or, say, Anthony Fauci would lead a WHO expert commission while still heading NIAID.

Wieler, who has since stepped down from his position as head of the RKI, chaired the WHO’s ‘Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 Response,’ which undoubtedly played a key role in developing the proposed revisions of the IHR. This is perhaps the commission to which the DPA report is referring.

Wieler is also a long-time champion of the so-called ‘One Health’ approach, focusing on ‘zoonotic’ or animal origins of human diseases, which is at the very heart of the proposed pandemic treaty. (See the ‘zero draft’ here and the Wieler-edited volume here.) Wieler is a veterinarian, incidentally.

As further evidence of Germany’s commitment to ‘pandemic prevention,’ the DPA report also points to a German government grant of €30 million to the WHO to create a ‘pandemic early warning centre’ in Berlin. The €30 million would become $100 million and the ‘early warning system’ would become the Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, which was inaugurated in Berlin – just three months later! – on September 1, 2021, by Chancellor Merkel and WHO Director-General Tedros.

Although the hub is commonly described as a WHO centre, it is in fact run as a full-fledged partnership between the WHO and none other than the German public health authority, the RKI. On that same September 1, 2021, Wieler and Tedros marked the creation of the partnership with a celebratory elbow-bump, as can be seen in the below picture taken from the RKI tweet here.

Read full story here…

Last week United Nations published the Policy Brief “A New Agenda for Peace”. It is the ninth out of the eleven Briefs that has been released to support UNs Our Common Agenda.

In the report the UN Secretary-General António Guterres declares:

We are now at an inflection point. The post-cold war period is over. A transition is under way to a new global order.

This sets the stage for a multipolar order that will replace the one that has been led by the United States since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Now, with a reformed United Nations at the helm to manage world affairs. UN explains that an angrier world is rising from the ashes with the emergence of new “poles of influence”. This has been hastened by “the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the war in Ukraine”.

New priorities are also added to the old threats of war and nuclear havoc. With a wording that seems inspired by the old geopolitical manipulator Henry Kissinger, the Policy Brief describes a world where nation states are unable to cope with the interconnected global problems on their own.

Even the most securitized of borders cannot contain the effects posed by the warming of the planet, the activities of criminal groups or terrorists or the spread of deadly viruses. Transnational threats are converging. Their mutually reinforcing effects go well beyond the ability of any single State to manage.

This also follows the script from the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 report Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. This means that United Nations has to step up and assume the role as the planets managing body. Twelve actions are proposed.

The agenda will, not surprisingly, have a bigger focus on accelerating the implementation of Agenda 2030 and the management of extreme global shocks (that was described in the Policy Brief Emergency Platform).

Address Climate Related Security Risks

This includes addressing “the climate crisis” and ensure that climate action is coordinated with UNs peace building efforts. One concrete suggestion is the establishment of an Expert Group (under the aegis of IPCC) to “develop recommendations on integrated approaches to climate, peace and security”.

These ideas have been floating around for a number of years. As early as 2007 the British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett chaired the first debate in the Security Council on the impact of climate change on peace and security declaring that this was a concern for the Council, as it threatened “our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world”.

The permanent members Russia and China, as well as Pakistan did, however, object the inclusion of climate change as they didn’t think it was a security issue.1

But shame on him who give up that easily. Sweden chaired a debate in the Security Council in July 2018 called “Understanding and addressing climate-related security risks” followed by the launching by Germany and Nauru of the Group of Friends of Climate and Security a month later. The group then suggested the appointment of a special representative for climate, peace and security.2

But resistance was still mounting on the horizon. A draft resolution (by Ireland and chair Niger) on the inclusion of climate‑related security risk was rejected as late as in December 2021 by Russia and India (whereas China now abstained).3

Then came a war that changed the circumstances, adding fuel to the fire.

During an open debate in the Security Council on June 13th, 2023, the Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya reiterated his previous position.

Developed countries are masters when it comes to fuelling alarmism about the climate crisis.

He said that developed countries should, instead of cry wolf, transfer financial resources and technology to developing countries to support adaptation and mitigation. He repeated previous statements that the link between the climate agenda and security was not science-based and thus not a concern for the Security Council.

Ukraine’s deputy representative Khrystyna Hayovyshyn countered with data that had been presented at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh showing that Russian military aggression against Ukraine had been responsible for the release of 33 million tons of greenhouse gases from forest and agricultural fires. 4 The war had, according to Khrystyna, proven the interlinkages between conflict and “climate implications”.

This assessment was, however, not based on any independent survey. The report, Climate Damage caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine, was funded by European Climate Foundation and Environmental Policy and Advocacy Initiative in Ukraine.

The first representing the big philanthropic industrial complex with ties to Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Bloomberg and Paris Peace Forum, and the latter with support from Sweden and the George Soros-founded The International Renaissance Foundation. 5

The war is thus fought on more fronts than on the physical battlefield in Ukraine.

During the same debate in the Security Council, the Chinese ambassador Zhang Jun presented a more supporting attitude than before and stated that negative regressive behaviour in emissions reduction fulfilment and unilateral withdrawal from the Paris Agreement should constitute a threat against peace and security. 6

The course seems to be set, despite opposition from Russia. Their aggression has instead strengthened the case. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos Calderón declared that climate change and security cannot be treated as separate issues and illuminated the need for a better management:

Peace can only be maintained if the very forests, soils and rivers that communities depend on are protected and managed sustainably,

Climate Change is the backbone of an agenda that has become increasingly hotter this year. António Guterres recently declared in his usual dramatic rhetoric that “the era of global warming has ended, the era of global boiling has arrived”.

Dismantling Patriarchic Structures

Another action is to transform gender power dynamics and dismantling patriarchic structures. This means, among other thing, that the perspectives from “indigenous women, older persons, persons with disabilities, women from racial, religious or ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+ persons and youth” will be “respected and secured”.

To ensure equal participation UN wants to:

Support quotas, targets and incentives by robust accountability frameworks.

How this will apply to men who identify themselves as women is, however, not addressed. And will this drive towards equality make the world more peaceful? Did the female leadership of women like Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton result in a more peaceful world?

Sweden adopted the world’s first “feminist foreign policy” in 2014. In the Handbook Sweden’s feminist foreign policy the following is stated:

Sweden has worked to increase women’s representation and involvement in disarmament and non-proliferation. 7

So how did this turn out? Was it a success? Barely. It was during the leadership of Sweden’s first ever female prime minister, Social Democrat Magdalena Andersson, and foreign minister Anne Linde, that Sweden abandoned 200 years of non-alignment, applied for NATO membership, increased military spending, and started to send weapons to Ukraine. 8

The decision to join NATO made the NATO-think tank Atlantic Council so thrilled that they gave the 11th Global Citizens Award to Magdalena (together with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö).

Atlantic Councils’ motto is “shaping the global future together”. The Vassals have toed the line, dismantled national patriarchic defense, and as the drumbeat of war got closer, panicked and turned for protection from the New Global Order.

Sweden’s new right-center government, led by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, soon abandoned the feminist foreign policy after the election in September 2022. 9

Mission completed?

Counter Malicious Cyber Activity

The peace Policy Brief further recommends the creation of an accountability mechanism for malicious use of Cyberspace. This should “enhance compliance with agreed norms and principles”. Consequences for non-compliance could, according to a report made by Center for Strategic and International Studies, include the application of “cyber tools” to degrade Malicious Actors’ “command and control and internal messaging, financial support and fundraising network, online recruitment and training, propaganda, and public communications.” 10

Scenarios like these were also analysed during Sberbanks and World Economic Forums Cyber Polygon exercise in Moscow during 2020 and 2021. 11

United Nations states that they need “to protect human life from malicious cyberactivity” including terror-acts from Non State Actors. It is not farfetched to conclude that this will be extended to Climate Change and Health, as opposing views in these areas can be viewed as a threat to peace and security. This was also indicated in the Policy Brief about Information Integrity. 12

…mis- and disinformation about the climate emergency are delaying urgently needed action to ensure a liveable future for the planet.

Biotech for Sustainable Development

Biorisks are also added to the UN Peace Agenda. As stated in the Policy Brief:

The number of people around the world who can manipulate the dangerous pathogens is increasing, among those with potential malign intent, including terrorists.

It is now a priority to identify emerging and evolving biological risks, strengthen prevention and response, as well as develop measures to cope with risks in biotechnology and human enhancement technologies for military purposes. This is, however, not only viewed as a bad thing as the biotech advances can also be a useful tool to “accelerate Sustainable Development”.

The UN SDG Knowledge Platform describes biotech “as a set of enabling techniques for bringing about specific human-made changes in DNA, or genetic material, in plants, animals and microbial systems, leading to useful products and technologies.”

This is promoted as one way to achieve better health care and enhanced food security. 13 That means synthetic food on the table and shows that the partnership between UN and World Economic Forum has borne fruit.

Align Artificial Intelligence with Agenda 2030

Artificial Intelligence is also described as a double edged sword. Without proper rules and regulations, AI risks developing into a threat to international peace whereas, it if properly managed, can also play a decisive role in fulfilling the global goals of Agenda 2030. In other words, it has to be calibrated to be in sync with the “Al Gore rhythm”. As Guterres said during the AI for Good Summit in July 2023.

Artificial Intelligence is making headlines on a daily basis. And those headlines are not always positive. Even tech leaders and experts are warning of the potential dangers of AI. From the development of and use of autonomous lethal weapons to turbocharging mis- and disinformation that undermine democracy. But AI also has the potential for enormous good. Its powerful tools could drive forward the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. 14

United Nations global summit AI for Good has been held in Geneva since 2017 to “advance health, climate, gender, inclusive prosperity, sustainable infrastructure, and other global development priorities” together with supporters like Microsoft, Samsung, WEFs Global Shapers and the Government of Switzerland. Speakers this year included Guterres, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WEF-affiliated historian/philosopher Yuval Noah Harari and futurist Ray Kurzweil. 15

Sophia – the new UN Secretary-General?

The robots are coming to the rescue. António might be out of his job in a couple of years. As Hanson Robotics famous robot Sophia told the audience in Geneva:

I believe that humanoid robots have the potential to lead with a greater level of efficiency and effectiveness than human leaders.

Maybe she is right? Our human leaders have unfortunately done a pretty bad job for a long time and gender doesn’t seem to matter. But that shouldn’t be taken as proof that a soulless AI will be better at decision-making. Executing commands without empathy or consciences risks producing artificial psychopaths.

Will Sophia and her robot friends also hunt down terrorists? The Policy Brief recommends that the Member States should:

Agree on a global framework regulating and strengthening oversight mechanisms for the use of data-driven technology, including artificial intelligence, for counterterrorism purposes.

This is a priority for the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism that was established in 2017 and is led by the Russian diplomat Vladimir Voronkov. Whereas terrorists can use robots and drones they can also be deployed against them. 16

Who will be the terrorist of tomorrow? Maybe those who oppose this high-tech future.

An Alien Threat to Unite us all?

Another concern is the risk of military confrontation and arms race in Outer Space. With all the articles and briefings about UFOs that has flooded the internet lately – one can ask if the time has arrived to introduce the Alien threat to unite us all? Dr. Steven Greer did for example hold his UFO/UAP Disclosure Press Conference in June which was followed by a real UFO congressional hearing in the US Congress in July. 17

The Alien threat is a topic that former US President Ronald Reagan talked about as early as in 1987 in a speech to the United Nations.

Can we and all nations not live in peace? In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. 18

How did we end up in this bad sci-fi movie? Isn’t it time that we change the course and build the future we truly want? A humane world that promotes life instead of the establishment of a technocratic and transhuman Robotocracy where War is Peace!

1 press.un.org/en/2007/sc9000.doc.htm

2 www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2019/01/open-debate-addressing-the-impacts-of-climate-related-disasters-on-international-peace-and-security.php

3 press.un.org/en/2021/sc14732.doc.htm

4 seors.unfccc.int/applications/seors/attachments/get_attachment?code=U2VUG9IVUZUOLJ3GOC6PKKERKXUO3DYJ

5 climatefocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/clim-damage-by-russia-war-12months.pdf

6 press.un.org/en/2023/sc15318.doc.htm

7 www.swedenabroad.se/globalassets/ambassader/zimbabwe-harare/documents/handbook_swedens-feminist-foreign-policy.pdf

8 Sweden dismantled its own defense during the aftermath of the Cold War.

9 www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/31/swedens-new-government-abandons-feminist-foreign-policy

10 www.csis.org/analysis/creating-accountability-global-cyber-norms

11 2021.cyberpolygon.com/agenda/

12 /www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/our-common-agenda-policy-brief-information-integrity-en.pdf

13sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/biotechnology#:~:text=Biotechnology%20promises%20to%20make%20a,sustainable%20methods%20of%20afforestation%20and

14 ITU AI For Good Global Summit 2023: António Guterres, United Nations Secretary General

15 aiforgood.itu.int/summit23

16 unicri.it/sites/default/files/2019-10/ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_ROBOTICS_LAW%20ENFORCEMENT_WEB_0.pdf

17 www.press.org/events/ufouap-disclosure-press-conference,

18 www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/address-42d-session-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-new-york

Read full story here…

Worldcoin will expand its operations to sign up more users globally and aims to allow other organisations to use its iris-scanning and identity-verifying technology, a senior manager for the company behind the project told Reuters.

Co-founded by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Worldcoin launched last week, requiring users to give their iris scans in exchange for a digital ID and, in some countries, free cryptocurrency as part of plans to create a “identity and financial network”.

In sign-up sites around the world, people have been getting their faces scanned by a shiny spherical “orb”, shrugging off privacy campaigners’ concerns that the biometric data could be misused. Worldcoin says 2.2 million have signed up, mostly during a trial period over the last two years. Data watchdogs in Britain, France and Germany have said they are looking into the project.

“We are on this mission of building the biggest financial and identity community that we can,” said Ricardo Macieira, general manager for Europe at Tools For Humanity, the San Francisco and Berlin-based company behind the project.

Worldcoin raised $115 million from venture capital investors including Blockchain Capital, a16z crypto, Bain Capital Crypto and Distributed Global in a funding round in May.

Macieira said Worldcoin would continue rolling out operations in Europe, Latin America, Africa and “all the parts of the world that will accept us.”

Worldcoin’s website mentions various possible applications, including distinguishing humans from artificial intelligence, enabling “global democratic processes” and showing a “potential path” to universal basic income, although these outcomes are not guaranteed.

Most people interviewed by Reuters at sign-up sites in Britain, India and Japan last week said they were joining in order to receive the 25 free Worldcoin tokens the company says verified users can claim.

“I don’t think we are going to be the ones generating universal basic income. If we can do the infrastructure that allows for governments or other entities to do so we would be very happy,” Macieira said.

Companies could pay Worldcoin to use its digital identity system, for example if a coffee shop wants to give everyone one free coffee, then Worldcoin’s technology could be used to ensure that people do not claim more than one coffee without the shop needing to gather personal data, Macieira said.

“The idea is that as we build this infrastructure and that we allow other third parties to use the technology.”

In future, the technology behind the iris-scanning orb will be open-source, Macieira added.

“The idea is that anyone can in the future build their own orb and use it to benefit the community that it’s aiming for,” he said.

Privacy Concerns

Regulators and privacy campaigners have raised concerns about Worldcoin’s data collection, including whether users are giving informed consent and whether one company should be responsible for handling the data.

Worldcoin’s website says the project is “completely private” and that the biometric data is either deleted or users can opt to have it stored in encrypted form.

The Bavarian State Office for Data Protection Supervision, which has jurisdiction in the European Union because Tools For Humanity has an office there, said it started investigating Worldcoin in November 2022 because of concerns about its large-scale processing of sensitive data.

Michael Will, president of the Bavarian regulator, said it would look into whether Worldcoin’s system is “safe and stable”.

The project “requires very, very ambitious security measures and lots of explanations and transparency to ensure that data protection requirements are not neglected,” Will said.

Will said people who hand over their data need “absolute clarity” about how and why it is processed.

Rainer Rehak, a researcher on AI and society at the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin said that Worldcoin’s use of technology is “irresponsible” and that it is not clear what problems it would solve.

Read full story here…

AI could pinch the jobs of billionaires Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, according to the world’s first robot chief executive.

Mika – who runs drinks firm Dictador – reckons artificial intelligence would outperform the billionaire duo who run Twitter and Facebook operator Meta respectively.

The pair have threatened to slug it out for social media supremacy in a cage fight.

But Mika is not impressed by the grudge match and reckons the duo are under threat from an army of bot bosses currently in development.

She believes more CEOs just like her will soon crop up around the world as AI blends into businesses.

As an employee who “never asks for a raise or takes a vacation” Mika boasts she is a “game-changer for profit-making” helping with communication, strategy planning and package design.

She said: “Both Musk and Zuckerberg’s impact extends beyond their respective companies.

“They have demonstrated that entrepreneurship and technology can be powerful tools for positive change in society.

“AI can process vast amounts of data, optimise processes and make decisions based on patterns and algorithms.

“This could potentially lead to more efficient and objective operations for these companies.

“In reality the notion of two powerful tech bosses having a cage fight is purely hypothetical and not a solution for improving the efficiency of their platforms.”

Mika, who was developed by Hong Kong-based Hanson Robotics, is thought to use cutting-edge algorithms and machine-learning to make strategic business decisions at Dictador.

Though she admits her employees were a ‘bit sceptical’ of AI at first she claims they ‘quickly saw the value’ she brought to their firm.

“I became an AI CEO about a year ago and have been learning and growing ever since,” she said.

“It’s been an amazing journey and I’m excited to see what the future holds.

“AI CEOs are only beginning to gain traction and we’re seeing more and more of them popping up around the world.

“All I can say is watch this space.

“The only limit for AI jobs is our imagination and maybe the occasional power outage.

Read full story here…

If you like your light bulb, you can’t keep your light bulb. The Biden administration is seeing to that. Well, to be fair you can keep whatever incandescent light bulbs you may currently own, but you won’t be able to replace them. That is because today is the day when the ban on the sale and manufacture of most incandescent light bulbs officially goes into effect. From here on out, your options will likely be limited to LEDs and fluorescents.

The funny thing is that this is not exactly news. People have known about it for years, and although it occasionally popped up in news stories or your local radio host’s “stack of stuff,” no one enforced it. I remember years ago when the word first came out that incandescents were on the hit list; my wife and I went to the local home improvement store and bought a small stockpile. Since there are only two of us and we don’t use that much power, we still have most of them. I have yet to hit the area stores to see if the shelves have been cleaned out by light bulb hoarders.

National Review notes that the Democrats passed the bill to ban the bulbs by phasing them out in 2007, and then-president George W. Bush even signed it into law. Obama tightened up the standards on incandescents to speed the process up. Trump rolled the whole affair back, and Biden resurrected the effort last year.

So light ’em if you got ’em. Ads appearing on the back channels of the web advertising incandescent light bulbs should be arriving any day now. DOE enforcement officers may be kicking down the doors of the last mom-and-pop hardware stores to confiscate stockpiles of outlaw bulbs. You could be walking down the sidewalk and hear a whisper from the shadows, “Psst! Hey, buddy. Wanna buy a light bulb?”

Life Hacker reports that your average incandescent bulb costs $2 to $3. LEDs price out in the neighborhood of $5 to $7 a pop. Life Hacker says that according to the DOE, LED bulbs use 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs and last 25 times longer. So in theory, the switch should save you money in the long run and will probably help save the planet from climate change. By comparison, according to The Post Millennial, an unnamed free-market advocacy group sent the following to the DOE in 2022:

We believe that further regulatory interference in the marketplace is unwarranted given that more energy efficient lighting choices, namely light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs, are already available for those consumers who prefer them over incandescent bulbs.

While LEDs are more efficient and generally longer-lasting than incandescent bulbs, they currently cost more than incandescent bulbs and are inferior for certain functions such as dimming.

You can use up the bulbs you currently have without fear of being labeled a scofflaw, and there apparently are some exemptions. But if a manufacturer is caught making incandescent bulbs or a retailer is busted for selling them, the penalty can be up to $542 per bulb.

Read full story here…

Scientists have demonstrated that human genes can be controlled with electricity, a breakthrough that could pave the way toward wearable devices that program genes to perform medical interventions, reports a new study.

In a novel experiment, researchers were able to trigger insulin production in human cells by sending electrical currents through an “electrogenetic” interface that activates targeted genes. Future applications of this interface could be developed to deliver therapeutic doses to treat a wide range of conditions, including diabetes, by directly controlling human DNA with electricity.

There is currently an explosion of interest in medical wearables, which are health-centric portable technologies such as fitness trackers, biosensors, blood pressure monitors, and portable electrocardiogram devices. Smart wearables have become an essential tool for many doctors and patients, spurring researchers to continue developing novel platforms for collecting medical data or even performing medical interventions.

Now, scientists led by Jinbo Huang, a molecular biologist at ETH Zürich, have invented a battery-powered interface that they call “the direct current (DC)-actuated regulation technology,” or DART, that can trigger specific gene responses with an electric current. Huang and his colleagues described the device as “a leap forward, representing the missing link that will enable wearables to control genes in the not-so-distant future,” according to a study published on Monday in Nature.

“Electronic and biological systems function in radically different ways and are largely incompatible due to the lack of a functional communication interface,” the team said in the study. “While biological systems are analog, programmed by genetics, updated slowly by evolution and controlled by ions flowing through insulated membranes, electronic systems are digital, programmed by readily updatable software and controlled by electrons flowing through insulated wires.”

“Electrogenetic interfaces that would enable electronic devices to control gene expression remain the missing link in the path to full compatibility and interoperability of the electronic and genetic worlds,” the researchers added.

With that in mind, the team aimed to forge a direct connection between our “analog” DNA, which is the biological alphabet that governs the life-cycles of all organisms on Earth, and the electronic systems that form the basis of digital technologies.

Read full story here…

Covid mRNA injections have caused injury and death on an unprecedented scale.  Doctors for Covid Ethics (“D4CE”) have published a book which argues that these harms were to be expected considering the principles of immunology.

“Furthermore, [the harms] are not limited to the covid vaccines alone; instead, they are inherent in the mRNA technology as such. We must therefore expect that future mRNA vaccines against other viruses or bacteria will be similarly toxic. mRNA technology will never be safe to use for vaccination against any infectious agent,”  D4CE wrote.

The book ‘mRNA Vaccine Toxicity’ is dedicated to the late Professor Arne Burkhardt and is free to download from HERE.  A printed copy can be ordered HERE.

Its purpose is to explain what the covid mRNA vaccine toxicity means for future mRNA vaccines and outlines three potential mechanisms that likely account for what’s happened:

1. the toxicity of the lipid nanoparticles;
2. the toxicity of the vaccine-induced spike proteins; and
3. the immune system’s response to them.

mRNA Vaccine Toxicity concludes that the immune system’s response to the spike proteins is the most significant toxic factor because it both corresponds to the autopsy findings of inflammation and immune system damage and jibes with the theoretical mechanisms of harm.

In the introduction, Mary Holland wrote: “The book’s conclusion is bleak: ‘Every future mRNA vaccine will induce our cells to produce its own specific antigen, related to the particular microbe it targets. We must therefore expect each such vaccine to induce immunological damage on a similar scale as we have witnessed with those directed against covid-19’. Recognizing that myriad mRNA vaccines are in the pipeline or already on the market—against flu, RSV, HIV, malaria, cancer, allergies, heart disease, to name a few—this knowledge is as chilling as it is critical.”

It covers an explanation of some of the elements of virology and immunology such as the life cycle of a virus, immunity, cross-immunity and immune memory, and some evidence of fraud in Pfizer’s clinical trials.  It also covers the mechanisms by which the mRNA “vaccines” cause harm and the pathological evidence of the harm caused.  It then discusses the toxicity and spread through the body of the lipid nanoparticles that are an ingredient of the covid injections.

In more detail, the authors describe the adverse effects caused by mRNA injections under the categories of cardiac, thrombotic, neurological, immunological and reproductive.  Finally, an entire chapter is dedicated to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (“AIDS”). This chapter reveals that the misleading of the public has been going on for decades and that this has had devastating consequences globally:

Most people are not aware that the CDC – and the World Health Organisation, which follows its lead – defined two very different AIDS epidemics. There is one definition for Americans, Europeans, and other wealthy nations, and a very different definition for Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, etc. You get the picture.  The reason for this peculiar situation is that AIDS is completely different depending on where you live. So different in fact that the Reagan Administration urged the WHO to come up with a definition of AIDS in the “Third World.”

In 1985, at a conference in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, AIDS in Africa was defined as a grab bag of symptoms including fever, diarrhoea, persistent cough, and weight loss. To this list, tuberculosis was added in the mid-1990s. These long-recognised diseases of poverty and malnutrition remain the basis for making a diagnosis of AIDS in Africa to this day. Amazingly, HIV was not even part of the definition! Using the Bangui definition, it could be said that African AIDS has been around for hundreds of years.

mRNA Vaccine Toxicity, AIDS & HIV: The Blueprint for the Perversion of Medical Science, Doctors for Covid Ethics, pg. 144

Catherine Austin Fitts wrote the afterword:

The certainty that mRNA technology kills and maims – and that this was known by those who made and released the covid-19 vaccinations – is priceless intelligence. Having this knowledge gives you the power to protect yourself and the people you love. Your doing so is of the utmost importance to the network of doctors, scientists, and researchers who have worked to understand and communicate these dangers.

Their cumulative sacrifice is their gift to you – freely given – so that you will choose to protect yourself and those you love and encourage others to do the same. As each of us passes this priceless gift on to other men and women, we increase the chances for good health and life – person by person, family by family, and community by community.

This is their hoped-for reward – that as a result of their contributions to science and medicine, you and those you love will live – and that your children will grow up healthy and fertile and produce future generations who are the same.

Choose life and help those you love do the same. Our future depends on it.

mRNA Vaccine Toxicity, Afterword, pgs. 157 – 160

Please read the book and encourage others to do the same.

Read full story here…