https://www.globalresearch.ca/artificial-intelligence-more-us-coercive-diplomacy/5824838
Artificial Intelligence: More US Coercive Diplomacy
We already see 20% – 50% productivity growth from AI.
And we are still just 7 months after release of ChatGPT!
To develop, no country can be without AI.
Earlier this year, Mark Austin, the vice president of data science at AT&T, noticed that some of the company’s developers had started using the ChatGPT chatbot at work.
When the developers got stuck, they asked ChatGPT to explain, fix or hone their code.It seemed to be a game-changer, Mr. Austin said.
But since ChatGPT is a publicly available tool, he wondered if it was secure for businesses to use.So in January, AT&T tried a product from Microsoft called Azure OpenAI Services that lets businesses build their own A.I.-powered chatbots. AT&T used it to create a proprietary A.I. assistant, Ask AT&T, which helps its developers automate their coding process.
AT&T’s customer service representatives also began using the chatbot to help summarize their calls, among other tasks.“Once they realize what it can do, they love it,” Mr. Austin said. Forms that once took hours to complete needed only two minutes with Ask AT&T so employees could focus on more complicated tasks, he said, and developers who used the chatbot increased their productivity by 20 to 50 percent. See this.
Without AI, as I have said earlier, a country will become Stone Age.
The US controls all the big AI models – other countries like India mostly build on US models.
The US controls the big data centers needed to run those models.
The US controls the advanced chips needed to build those big data centers.
This gives the US enormous opportunities for coercive diplomacy against ANY country which doesn’t jump when the US says “jump”.
We already see that start of US coercive diplomacy in AI and chips.
China was well underway with its AI model Wu-Dao 2.0 until the US sanctioned the advanced chips which China needs to build high-power data centers and develop its AI to an advanced state.
The US is also sanctioning China from buying the machinery needed to build its own advanced chips. And the US is of course also banning China from using US owned data centers to run its AI models.
China can still make “AI”, but only on a small scale for limited purposes. So we already have a whole chain of US coercive diplomacy working against China and – of course – Russia as well.
This is very important for the rest of the world, because with China out of the way (so to speak), the US creates a global monopoly for itself in AI and advanced computing.
Does your country trade “too much” with China? Do you trade with Russia or Iran at all? Do you not allow the US to send an “NGO” to criticize your government? Are you taking steps against US-backed “color revolution”? Do you not eagerly enough follow US orders?
Then the US may declare that your country is “a risk”.
Countries deemed a “risk” by the US may suddenly be restricted from the latest AI models – and even from using the most advanced US-owned data centers. And because the US has eliminated China from advanced AI and computing, your country cannot go elsewhere for your AI computing – you are controlled by the US.
This can have serious consequences for you. Already in two years, AI may be needed to manage your agriculture. Your companies will depend on AI for customer service, finance, and product development. Your government will depend on AI for tax collection, administration, and public services. And your military will depend on AI for intelligence and operations. This will all be ultimately controlled by the US.
You may think that your country is safe. After all, you are not at war with the US, are you?
But then look to what the US does to South Africa. What has South Africa ever done to the US?
Oh… that’s right. South Africa allowed Russia and China to participate in a naval exercise. How bad! South Africa is a member of BRICS too.
Such are the “crimes” of South Africa against the US. And South Africa is already being punished by the US for those “crimes”.
Because, incidentally South Africa depends on nuclear powerplants originally built by US companies, and South Africa needs US spare parts to keep running. And even without any official sanctions, the US “just stopped” giving export licenses for the sale of spare parts for South Africa’s nuclear power plants. There was no official American explanation for the embargo of US spare parts for nuclear power to South Africa – but it just “happened” to be at the same time at the US diplomacy heavily criticizes South Africa for its relations with China and Russia.
The result of this US coercion is that South African lives and the South African economy is being destroyed by black-outs in electricity supply from the nuclear power plants which the US has banned US companies from servicing.
Now, fortunately there are other countries which are clever in nuclear technology, so South Africa might find a solution with Russia about this. But AI is different. With China and Russia out of the way in AI, there will be none other than the US controlling AI.
Relying on US-controlled AI, your country can easily come into a predicament with US AI-restrictions over the next few years.
And it may be just as costly for your country – or even worse – than cuts in your electricity supply.
....
https://www.globalresearch.ca/author-limits-growth-promotes-genocide-86-world-population/5818133
Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” Author Promotes Genocide of 86% of the World’s Population
Dennis Meadows, one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth, is a member of the World Economic Forum.
Dennis Meadows, one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth, is an honorary member of the Club of Rome and a member of the World Economic Forum. If you thought his ideology had softened and become less anti-human since the publishing of his book, you’d be wrong.Here’s a 2017 video of Meadows musing over his hopes that the coming inevitable genocide of 86% of the world population could be accomplished peacefully under a “benevolent” dictatorship. He said:
“We could [ ] have eight or nine billion, probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart … and [people have] a low standard of living … But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience.”
As will become apparent at the end of this article, it is no coincidence that Meadows’ words echo the words in the 1995 Global Biodiversity Assessment first presented at the United Nations climate change conference COP1 which stated:
An ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people … In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialised world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion.
Global Biodiversity Assessment, UNEP, 1995, pg. 773
What the advocates of this ideology seem to omit mentioning is that, according to Worldometer, the population of the world is currently over 8 billion which doesn’t stack up with their fear-mongering predictions. There’s a good reason they avoid real-world scenarios because their models are a sleight of hand, they manipulate the data.
While many are now familiar with the manipulation of predictive modelling by Neil Ferguson during the covid-19 crisis, a network of powerful Malthusians have used the same tactics for the better part of the last century to sell and impose their agenda.
Malthusians are the disciples of Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834). Malthus promoted the mathematical thesis that population levels will always tend towards geometric growth, while agricultural resources will tend to arithmetic growth resulting in relatively forecastable “crisis points.” Malthus believed that social engineers representing the British Empire must use these “crisis points” to scientifically manage the “human herd.” Malthus believed that nature bestowed upon the ruling class certain tools that would allow them to accomplish this important task – namely war, famine and disease.
Established in 1968, the Club of Rome quickly set up branches across the Western world with members whom all agreed that society’s best form of governance was a scientific dictatorship.
It is a globalist non-governmental organisation (“NGO”) that convenes meetings between heads of state, members of royal families, business leaders, international financiers, academic scholars, laboratory scientists, and administrators of global governance institutions, such as the United Nations (“UN”), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”). Modelled after the “Round Table” structure of the Bilderberg Group, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (“RIIA”), and the Council on Foreign Relations (“CFR”), the Club of Rome facilitates meetings where delegates plan the global economy through public-private stewardship of the world’s natural and human resources in accordance with the Malthusian ecology of sustainable development.
In 1972, the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth published the results of computer-simulated forecasts calculated by a team of statisticians recruited from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”). It was the culmination of a two-year study undertaken by the MIT team under the nominal heading of Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows. The Limits to Growth is arguably the most influential book about “sustainability.” It became the bible and blueprint of the new anti-humanist movement that birthed today’s Green New Deal agenda.
The Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth is not only Malthusian in principle, but a survey of its bibliography reveals that it is also backed by extensive citations from an array of Malthusian-eugenicists and affiliated institutions that have been dedicated to population control.
A 2012 article celebrating the book’s 40th anniversary stated: “It is worth revisiting Limits [to Growth] today because, more than any other book, it introduced the concept of anthropocentric [human caused] climate change to a mass audience.” It’s worth revisiting Limits to Growth for other reasons as well.
One reason is that The Limits to Growth was the first of its kind to fuse global temperature with economic variables like population growth, resource loss, and the under-defined category of “pollution.” By utilising linear equations to extrapolate trends into the future, Meadows and his co-authors, one of whom was his wife, had set the stage for two major fallacies:
- The fabric of physical space-time shaping the discoverable universe is intrinsically non-linear and thus not expressible by any form of linear equations regardless of the computing power involved. Human creative mentation is most explicitly non-linear as it is tied to non-formalisable states of existence like inspiration, love of truth, dignity, and beauty which no binary system can approximate. The Club of Rome programmers ignored these facts and assumed the universe was as binary as their software.
- The data sets themselves could easily be skewed and re-framed according to the controllers of the computer programmers who aspired to shape government policy. We have already seen how this technique was used to drive fallacious results of future scenarios under the hand of Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson and the same technique has been applied in ecological modelling as well.
Another reason to revisit The Limits to Growth is to highlight the influence it had and still has on supranational organisations. For decades, New Age guru Barbara Marx Hubbard – who called for one-fourth of the human population to be culled to usher in a New World Order – championed transhumanism and Malthusian sustainable development, which is the crux of The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Hubbard’s Malthusian overpopulation theories were partly inspired by The Limits to Growth. In fact, in Hubbard’s Book of Co-Creation, there are multiple passages which warn of Malthusian “limits to growth” that could lead to ecological catastrophes. She also met personally with Club of Rome co-founder, Aurelio Peccei who prompted the World Economic Forum to adopt the Malthusian tenets of The Limits to Growth at the World Economic Forum’s Third Annual Meeting in 1973.
Last, but not least, we have Club of Rome member and author of Limits to Growth, who manipulated his predictive modelling, hoping that a dictatorship will slowly and “peacefully” cull 86% of the world’s population.
No one should be celebrating The Limits to Growth or the agenda it’s promoting because it’s promoting your demise.
....
https://brownstone.org/articles/people-are-questioning-its-about-time/
People Are Questioning? It’s About Time
During the luncheon following a recent family funeral, people reminisced about my Uncle Bob, whom I never met. Bob, trained to translate Russian, was shot out of the sky while flying at 20,000 feet in a 17-person Air Force plane over Soviet Armenia on September 2, 1958. He was not yet 23.
For over a decade after the shootdown, Bob was classified as MIA. There were unconfirmed rumors that Armenians on the ground had seen a few of his plane’s crew parachuting from the burning, nosediving C-130. Six bodies were promptly sent home. Neither Bob’s nor the ten others’ were.
My family made many efforts to learn of Bob’s status after he was shot down. My grandmother—Bob’s mother—was given an audience with JFK during the 1960 Presidential campaign. A photo of that meeting was prominently displayed in her small, steep hillside rowhouse in Shamokin, Pennsylvania, a coal mining town. But The Cold War precluded any serious diplomatic pressure or disclosure.
When Boris Yeltsin became Soviet President in 1991, he declassified and shared records of the incident in which my uncle was killed, as well as records for 16 other spy plane shootdowns over Soviet airspace spanning from 1953-1971. I have an envelope with 8 x 10 inch black and white photos of the impact of the MiG-launched missile hitting Bob’s crew’s plane at 3:07 in the afternoon, as well as translated transcripts of the MiG pilots’ dialogue. I also received photos of his shattered aircraft smoldering on the barren, rocky ground and of dismembered, uniformed limbs there. Eventually, a book was published about Bob’s flight and others like it. In 1994, US News and World Report ran a cover story on these flights. So did ABC’s 20/20.
In 2011, an Air Force official showed up at my father’s New Jersey door and handed him his brother’s high school ring. A resident of the village where the plane crashed found the ring, presumably on Bob’s hand, and kept it for over fifty years before handing it over to authorities who, in turn, passed it to my father.
During the repast, family elders said they had, when Bob was in the Air Force, suspected that he’d been flying spy missions. Of course, the military didn’t admit this, either before or after the shootdown. The official line was that his plane had inadvertently flown off course, “perhaps lured by some Soviet beacon.”
But during a 1997 memorial service for my uncle’s crew at NSA Headquarters, I met former airmen who had done missions like, and during the same period, as my uncle. Some had even flown with him; the crews were, to some extent, interchangeable. They laughed off the mistake/beacon excuse. They said they knew exactly where they were at all times. They were ordered to deliberately enter Soviet airspace to see how alert the Russians were, to photograph Soviet facilities and to eavesdrop on Russian radio communications.
The Soviets were alert enough to shoot down seventeen planes. And sleepy enough not to shoot down multiple planes that crossed borders during other missions, such that the guys on those flights could come home, live to advanced ages and tell me that my uncle was good to have on your side in bar fights.
At the end of the discussion about the family’s uncertainty about the dangerous nature of Bob’s work, one of my cousins said, “Well, people didn’t question things back then. Now everyone questions everything.”
I’ve actively disagreed with many people at many times regarding pandemic policies. But on this occasion, I opted not to. The luncheon was winding down and, out of respect for the immediate family of the person just buried, and because I would have been seen as bringing up a new topic, I uncharacteristically laid down my arms and didn’t call out that false premise as it pertained to the Scamdemic.
Given the past 40 months, the notion that people today question everything couldn’t be more wrong. Americans not only failed to question the government and media regarding “Covid “mitigation,” they angrily demanded that others also obey edicts that made no sense. There was so much that didn’t withstand even the most basic scrutiny.
Many Americans have spent much of the past three years in a state of full-on Coronavirus groupthink and compliance. Instead, those who feared SARS-CoV-2 should have asked themselves such simple questions as:
What’s “novel” about this virus?
When in human history have healthy people been quarantined?
How will locking down and closing schools, parks, and gyms make a virus vanish?
How many hospitals are being overrun by Covid patients?
Don’t the videos of those Chinese guys dying in the streets seem fake?
If masks work, why do mask wearers insist that others use them?
If masks work, why lock down anything?
Who do I know who’s been killed by this virus?
Weren’t they already very old and/or sick?
How many people die on any given day?
What percentage of those infected with “the virus” survive?
If many people test positive but show no symptoms, how reliable are the Covid tests?
Won’t lockdowns and school closures cause tremendous harm?
Isn’t it odd that this crisis is happening during an election year?
And later:
Why has the two-week “Shelter in Place” order turned into many months of closures?
Why don’t reporters ask Fauci or other bureaucrats any hard questions?
Why doesn’t the media interview those who oppose lockdowns, masks and “vaxxes?”
Why do the most locked down, masked up states have the highest Covid death rates?
Why did American public schools stay closed for 18 months when kids were at no risk?
Why should those with a 99.9 percent infection survival rate inject experimental substances?
How do we know that the scarcely-tested Covid vaxxes won’t cause long-term harm?
If the shots work, why do injectees care if other people don’t inject?
Why are so many vaxxed people getting sick and dying?
These questions, and others, should have occurred to anyone who could tie his own shoes. Although latter day Americans see themselves as much more sophisticated than their 1950s counterparts, most 2020-22 Americans weren’t insightful enough to ask questions that even malt shop-going bobby-soxers and Wally Cleaver would have asked. Gee, Beave…
By buying into Coronamania, those who thought of themselves as astute
and worldly-wise exhibited severe deficits of judgment and of
self-awareness.
No comments:
Post a Comment