#is impossible to remove it from geopolitics etc | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

somethingusefulfromflorida · 5 years ago

Text

Alternate History scenarios I want to see

I’m tired of the same two scenarios, the South wins the Civil War, Nazis win World War II. There’s no more blood to be pulled from those stones, they’re completely dry, completely played up. At best they’re just generic, at worst they’re conservative wish fulfillment. ¡No mas! For the love of God, just give us some scenarios we haven’t seen before, some scenarios that postulate a better world instead of a worse one.

If you have to do the Civil War, let Lincoln survive, let him oversee Reconstruction. Let the South remain under military occupation, get rid of the Compromise of 1877, get rid of Jim Crow laws, enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The Civil Rights movement would have occurred fifty or sixty years earlier.

What if Archduke Franz Ferdinand was never assassinated? Tensions were boiling over in the Balkans, something was bound to happen eventually, his death was just the final straw; if he survived though, the resulting war wouldn’t be nearly as catastrophic, instead being tantamount to a Third Balkan War between Austria and Serbia. Germany and Russia and France probably wouldn’t even get involved, it would be contained to the peninsula and be over by Christmas 1914. The resulting post-war world would be so different from our own it would be near impossible to imagine; no carving up the Middle East, no rise of authoritarianism in Russia and Italy and Germany and China, no Holocaust, no Cold War, no baby boom, etc.

1939, Albert Einstein never signs the Szilard Letter to President Roosevelt, so the Manhattan project never gets off the ground. The Nazis were not developing atom bombs, the American nuclear program was predicated on a lie (as most of our foreign policy decisions are). If we never develop the bomb, there’s no arms race, no Cold War, no crimes against humanity by the US against Japan, no looming threat of nuclear war at all times. Maybe the Soviets would have developed the bomb eventually, but the US wouldn’t be the first, and we wouldn’t be as aggressive over out stockpile as we were through the 20th century.

The arrest and trial of Adolf Hitler; what if the Western Front had reached Berlin before the East? What if we’d been able to capture him alive and try him at Nuremberg with the rest of the Reich? He doesn’t get the satisfaction of a quick ending, his crimes are aired to the world, his few remaining supporters finally see him as a man instead of a god. He’d be hanged, cremated, and disposed of in the Pegnitz River. The Western allies would have been in a stronger position and could probably have maintained control of a united Germany rather than letting the East fall under Russia’s sphere of influence. That’d be a scenario in and of itself; what if Germany was never divided? No Berlin Wall, a smaller Iron Curtain, no far-right parties in the Bundestag, etc.

Lee Harvey Oswald is arrested for trying to assassinate Major General Edwin Walker in April 1963. He never assassinates John F. Kennedy, who wins re-election in 1964. He passes the Civil Rights Act (though it might be harder in this timeline because he’s a northerner; Johnson was able to pass it because he convinced his fellow southerners to stop filibustering it), he oversees and deescalates Vietnam, eases relations with the Soviet Union and China, advancing geopolitics by five or even ten years.

The impeachment of Richard Nixon; he resigned because he had lost all support, even from his own party (something that would never happen today). If he had tried to fight the charges instead, he would have been removed from office and subsequently tried in criminal court. Gerald Ford was chosen as Vice President in part because he was seen as an honest politician at the time, in comparison to the outgoing Agnew who was embroiled in his own scandal; when Ford pardoned Nixon, his credibility tanked. If Nixon was found guilty by Congress, I don’t think Ford would have pardoned him (well, he probably still would have because Republicans are the party of corruption, but a man can dream, can’t he?) This would have finally set the concrete precedent that the president is not above the law, that they can and will face consequences for their actions.

The assassination of Ronald Reagan; what if John Hinckley Jr. had succeeded in killing Reagan in March 1981? Full offense to any and all conservative pieces of shit reading this, but the world would be an infinitely better place. No Reagan means no Iran-Contra Affair and no Reaganomics (no trickle down), which means no tax cuts for the super-wealthy and no trillion dollar monopolies. There would still be a middle class, we’d have higher wages and more benefits, we’d have universal healthcare like every single other developed nation on the planet! In 1980, George H.W. Bush called Reagan’s policies “voodoo economics” because he knew they wouldn’t work; he only got on board after he started cashing his checks. If he became president in ‘81 rather than ‘89, he wouldn’t have continued those policies (he was more concerned with the foreign than the domestic agenda). No Reagan means no AIDS crisis, or at least a substantially reduced one. No Reagan means no Mujahideen in Afghanistan, so no Taliban, no al-Qaeda, no 9/11, no endless War on Terror in the Middle East, no PATRIOT Act, no Orwellian police state. THIS is the biggest change I can imagine in the last 50 years.

What if Glasnost and Perestroika has succeeded in the Soviet Union? What if the USSR had democratized under Gorbachev’s reforms? The Russia that came out of the collapse was corrupt to the core trying to fill the sudden power vacuum, which is how Putin rose to the top. If Gorbachev’s reforms had succeeded, if the Soviet Union had modernized, if a true multi-party democracy had been established, the world would be a better place. The Iron Curtain would still have fallen because Gorbachev got rid of the Brezhnev Doctrine, meaning Eastern Europe would be free of Soviet influence sooner, the Caucuses and Central Asian republics would have more say in how the country was run, and authoritarianism would be on the decline in Russia.

Al Gore wins the 2000 election; if he had become president, we would never have gone to war with Iraq. Hell, we may even have avoided war with Afghanistan; the Taliban claimed they were willing to extradite Osama bin Laden if we could prove his involvement in 9/11, and I think Gore would have taken them up on the offer. Now there’s no saying they actually would have followed through with it, but it’s always better to try diplomacy first. Even if we DID end up going to war with Afghanistan, it would be shorter and less deadly; fewer civilian casualties, an actual exit strategy, and no power vacuum because we’d never topple their government just to secure oil and military contracts. No Iraq War means no Syrian Civil War, which means no ISIS.

If you’re going through the trouble of researching and writing an alternate history scenario, why one Earth would you would you just fart out the same story we’ve heard a million times before? Give us some obscure changes, something small, something niche that would have a domino effect on World History. Like, what if Austria had won the Austro-Prussian war, and the German Empire didn’t exist? What if the Norman conquest had been repelled by the Celts? What if Margaret Thatcher slipped on wet concrete and bashed her head in on the way to Number 10? There are so many better possibilities to write about than Confederates and Nazis!

#alternate history #alternate history scenario #world war 1 #world war 2 #the great war #us civil war #2000 election #soviet union #ussr #impeachment #assassination #fuck reagan #fuck ronald reagan #fuck republicans #fuck conservatives #authoritarianism #world peace

101 notes · View notes

f-nodragonart · 4 years ago

Text

Worldbuilding, briefly

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how I approach worldbuilding in my own work, and how worldbuilding appears in the media that I admire, and just want to share some thoughts

so, y’know how lot of writers admit that it feels like their characters end up writing themselves? hijacking the creators’ brains and acting out their own lives? I feel the same can be said for settings, if they’re given the chance to breathe freely

suffice to say, a setting should feel dynamic-- a living, changing thing that affects (and is affected by) characters/plot/etc., and has solid internal logic. I think the two central concepts which make for good worldbuilding, in this respect, are:

a sense of history

holistic integration with all other story elements

History

when a setting only exists in the present moment, it comes off flat and static-- merely a cardboard set-piece that could fall over at a gust of too-strong wind (or critical thought). settings need history to feel vibrant and alive, just as any individual character needs history to inform their actions and beliefs

essentially, good worldbuilding answers the question of, “How did we get here?”

in practice, having a sense of history helps a great deal in predicting and designing how a setting looks at the present. think of it like following branching pathways back to the source-- the main divergence(s) from real-life. as humans living on planet Earth in our particular sociocultural environments, whatever we create will automatically borrow from what we’re familiar with, so it helps to track down where we may be subconsciously starting at. once we find that initial divergence, it’s a simple matter of following logical stepping-stones from that source, up to the present point

thus, you can break the broad question of, “How did we get here?” down into smaller, more manageable chunks by carefully tracking along a path of history

some examples of what I’m talking about here:

need an explanation for the current geopolitical climate? trace back the basic history of all the countries in question, follow it back to basic sources (fighting over resources/territory, power/ideological struggles, etc.), to figure out why the geopolitical landscape looks as it does today. want to figure out how a particular culture came to their current beliefs/practices? look back to the history of their land-- what resources do they use, what ecological cycles impact them, how much cultural overlap do they have with their neighbors, and how does this impact what they most cherish in themselves and others? want to figure out how/why a creature exists in your world? map their evolutionary taxonomy and ecological relationships back to a point that connects to the other creatures on your planet-- where exactly did they “start” out and what pushed them to evolve the way the did?

most of these sub-questions will likely never be directly answered in your story, and you don’t even need to have detailed answers for most of them. but trust me when I say that YOU knowing the answers (even answers that you may consider broad and simple) will affect how you craft the present setting and its sense of history

of course, the level of divergence from real-life will impact how much reworking a given setting needs in order to feel self-sustaining and whole. a world where political history diverges from real-life only a few years previous is going to have different needs than a story whose very life-forms are built on different molecular structures than Earth life, for example. it can be intimidating in some cases, but if you’re willing to put in the work and research for it, you can make some pretty incredible discoveries

Holistic Integration

I’ll fully admit, Folding Ideas’ video on Ludonarrative Dissonance is what rly got me thinking abt this topic (and more deeply abt my own thoughts on stylistic/tonal consistency). his central idea about how we can approach story elements as separate or integrated rly clarified some of my vague opinions/feelings on certain media

essentially, worldbuilding shouldn’t be treated as separate from other story elements like plot and themes, if you want it to work holistically in your world. otherwise, your worldbuilding may start telling a different story from the plot/themes/etc. you’re consciously trying to craft. in fact, I’ll even argue that it’s impossible to treat worldbuilding separately, on a fundamental level

let me focus specifically on themes for a moment when I say, humans don’t create objectively. we don’t craft worlds or stories without automatically inserting our own beliefs and ideas into the settings. to say that a setting is free of theme in particular is highly arrogant, imo, and a sign that the creator likely thinks their own views are simply the “norm”. a magic system will reflect a creator’s views on souls and energy and existence; creature designs will reveal the aesthetic and types of animals a creator gravitates towards; various political systems will reflect a creator’s background and assumptions about the power/morality of said systems

in this way, I think it’s downright impossible to craft a world without themes in the first place. so it just makes sense to recognize and lean into that, while crafting the more deliberate themes of a story

but even if we do assume, for sake of argument, that worlds COULD be crafted objectively, I just don’t understand why they would? why/how a world functions the way it does will affect the ways characters move through that world, and how they experience their arcs and subsequent themes. like, it’s genuinely baffling for me to imagine crafting a story without every element organically weaving into and affecting one another, it just doesn’t feel like it would even work

because when an element of the story doesn’t exist in service of the other elements around it, that element becomes a useless distraction rather than an asset. folks complain all the time about useless characters-- people that take up precious screentime without moving any other element (plot, character arcs, tone, etc.) forward. yet the same can absolutely be said for settings-- settings which just exist as spaces to set characters while they experience a plot, separate from that given setting. when these settings don’t touch any other element of the story in any meaningful way (or vis-versa), they become distracting and useless, and ultimately destabilize/undermine the other elements

like, when we’re told a setting is rough and dangerous, but the characters that live there don’t act like it (no street smarts, no sense of caution towards their environment, no sense of where they are and how to get where they need to quickly--), it undermines the reliability of the characters’ personalities/arcs. when we’re told a setting is full of casual magic which affects everything, yet we’re shown a 1:1 picture of real life with no sign of how people using magic, how tech may integrate with magic, how magic affects aesthetic or history, it distracts from and undermines the fantasy/escapism. when we’re explicitly told that a story’s themes center around defying expectations/roles, yet the setting we’re supposed to root for only reinforces pre-defined roles and rules, it completely undermines any of the deliberate themes the creator intends. when we’re following a plot through various environments meant to showcase the variety of culture and aesthetic a world has cultivated, but we’re merely shown variations on a very similar theme, it’s distracting and boring

worldbuilding should not feel like a dissonant piece from other story elements. worldbuilding should harmonize with and enhance all other story elements, and those elements in turn should enhance the worldbuilding. while it absolutely is useful to tackle or talk about certain elements separately (I mean, I am taking a whole post to discuss worldbuilding, specifically), ultimately a good story is a whole whose parts can’t be fully removed from one another

Internal Logic

you may be wondering why I have yet to make any real mention of “logic” up to this point, since that’s how most folks analyze worldbuilding. hell, even I usually judge worlds based on how well they stick to their “internal logic”. but I think focusing on a vague sense of “logic” puts the cart before the horse, so to speak

if you don’t know the history of a particular setting, how can you track any cultural/political/etc. logic to its source? to say that logic “pre-establishes” certain rules is to admit that there is a sense of history there in the first place, thus specific events preceding the present text which explain why the present exists as it does. like, the big bang is a historical event that’s set up the logic of our entire universe, the same way a war sets up the political logic of a nation going forward. thus, history precedes logic

but before history can set precedents in worldbuilding, it’s really the other story elements which decide what history is important enough to establish in the first place. a story whose themes center around biological imperatives and ecology will need worldbuilding with a strong biological history; a story whose plot centers on political intrigue will need a world with a strong political history; a story with characters ranging across all different cultures will need to establish history for those cultures, etc. you aren’t obligated to establish the history of every single aspect of a setting, merely the parts that are actually relevant to the rest of the narrative in some way

this is how the internal logic of a story is established: by knowing exactly what history needs to be established to enhance the other story elements. logic should organically follow, once you have a strong grasp of history and holistic integration

-Mod Spiral

#worldbuilding #mod spiral #me: *holds worldbuilding/lore/specevo* I just think it's neat :)

5 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 4 years ago

Note

I have a question about your opinion as a historian about how to deal with problematic past. I am French, not American, so not quite as aware of what is happening right now in the US regarding statues as I probably should. My question is the following: many of the politicians who promoted (admittedly white) social equality in France, worked on reforming labor laws, etc, in the 19th / 20th century were certainly not anti-colonialist. How to deal with this "mixed legacy" today? Best wishes to you!

First off, I am honoured that you would ask me this question. Disclaimer, my work in French history is largely focused on the medieval era, rather than modern France, and while I have studied and traveled in France, and read and (adequately?) speak French, I am not French myself. So this should be viewed as the perspective of a friendly and reasonably well-informed outsider, but not somebody from France themselves, and therefore subject to possible errors or otherwise inaccurate statements. But this is my perception as I see it, so hopefully it will be helpful for you.

(By the way if you’re interested, my post on the American statue controversy and the “preserving history!” argument is here. I originally wrote it in 2017, when the subject of removing racist monuments first arose, and then took another look at it in light of recent events and was like “WELP”.)

There’s actually a whole lot to say about the current crisis of public history in a French context, so let me see if I can think where to start. First, my chief impression is that nobody really associates France with its historical empire, the same way everyone still has either a positive or negative impression of the British Empire and its real-world effects. The main international image of France (one carefully cultivated by France itself) is that of the French Revolution: storming the Bastille, guillotining aristocrats, Liberté, égalité, fraternité, a secular republic overcoming old constraints of a hidebound Catholic aristocracy and reinventing itself as a Modern Nation. Of course, less than a generation after the Revolution (and this has always amused/puzzled me) France swung straight back into autocratic expansionist empire under Napoleon, and its colonialism efforts continued vigorously alongside its European counterparts throughout the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century. France has never really reckoned with its colonialist legacy either, not least because of a tendency in French public life for a) strong centralization, and b) a national identity that doesn’t really allow for a hyphen. What I mean by that is that while you can be almost anything before “American,” ie. African-American, Latino-American, Jewish-American, Muslim-American, etc, you are (at least in my experience) expected to only be “French.” There is a strong nationalistic identity primarily fueled by language, values, and lifestyle, and the French view anyone who does not take part in it very dimly. That’s why we have the law banning the burka and arguments that it “inhibits” Muslim women from visually and/or emotionally assimilating into French culture. There is a very strong pressure for centralization and conformity, and that is not flexible.

Additionally, the aforementioned French lifestyle identity involves cafe culture, smoking, and drinking alcohol -- all things that, say, a devout Muslim is unlikely to take part in. The secularism of French political culture is another factor, along with the strict bureaucracy and interventionist government system. France narrowly dodged getting swept up in the right-wing populist craze when it elected Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen (and it’s my impression that the FN still remains relatively popular) but it also has a deep-grained xenophobia. I’m sure you remember “French Spiderman,” the 22-year-old man from Mali who climbed four stories of a building in Paris to rescue a toddler in 2018. He was immediately hailed as a hero and allowed to apply for French citizenship, but critics complained about him arriving in France illegally in the first place, and it happened alongside accelerated efforts to deny asylum seekers, clear out the Calais migrant camp, and otherwise maintain a hostile environment. The terror attacks in France, such as 2015 in Paris and the 2016 Bastille Day attack in Nice, have also stiffened public opinion against any kind of accommodation or consideration of non-French (and by implication, non-white) Frenchpeople. The Académie Française is obviously also a very strong linguistic force (arguably even more so than the English-only movement in America) that excludes people from “pure” French cultural status until they meet its criteria. There really is no French identity or civic pride without the French language, so that is also something to take into consideration.

France also has a strong anti-authority and labor rights movement that America does not have (at least the latter). When I was in France, the joke was about the “annual strike” of students and railway workers, which was happening while I was trying to study, and we saw that with the yellow jacket protests as well. Working-class France is used to making a stink when it feels that it’s being disrespected, and while I can’t comment in detail on how the racial element affects that, I know there has been tension and discontent from working-class, racial-minority neighborhoods in Paris about how they’ve been treated (and during the recent French police brutality protests, the police chief rejected any idea that the police were racist, despite similar deaths in custody of black men including another French Malian, Adama Traoré.) All of this adds up to an atmosphere in which race relations, and their impact on French history, is a very fraught subject in which discussions are likely to get heated (as discussions of race relations with Europeans and white people tend to get, but especially so). The French want to be French, and feel very strongly that everyone else in the country should be French as well, which can encompass a certain race-blindness, but not a cultural toleration. There’s French culture, the end, and there isn’t really an accommodation for hybrid or immigrant French cultures. Once again, this is again my impression and experience.

The blind spot of 19th-century French social reformers to colonialism is not unlike Cold War-era America positioning itself as the guarantor of “freedom and liberation” in the world, while horrendously oppressing its black citizens (which did come in for sustained international criticism at the time). Likewise with the American founding fathers including soaring rhetoric about the freedom and equality of all (white) men in the Constitution, while owning slaves. The efforts of (white) social reformers and political activists have refused to see black and brown people as human, and therefore worthy of meriting the same struggle for liberation, for... well, almost forever, and where those views did change, it had to come about as a process and was almost never there to start with. “Scientific” white supremacy was especially the rage in the nineteenth century, where racist and imperialist European intellectuals enjoyed a never-ending supply of “scientific” literature explaining how black, brown, and other men of color were naturally inferior to white men and they had a “duty” to civilize the helpless people of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and so on, who just couldn’t aspire to do it themselves. (This is where we get the odious “white man’s burden” phrase. How noble of them.) So the nineteenth-century social reformers were, in their minds, just doing what science told them to do; slavery abolitionists and other relief societies for black and brown people were often motivated by deeply racist “assimilationist” ideas about making these poor helpless people “fit” for white civilization, at which point racial prejudice would magically end. This might have been more “benevolent” than outright slave-owning racism, but it was no less damaging and paternalistic.

If you’re interested in reading about French colonialism and postcolonialism from a Black French perspective, I recommend Frantz Fanon (who you may have already heard of) and his 1961 magnum opus The Wretched of the Earth/ Les Damnés de la Terre. (There is also his 1952 work, Black Skin, White Masks.) Fanon was born in Martinique, served in World War II, and was part of the struggle for Algerian liberation from France. He was a highly influential and controversial postcolonial theorist, not least for his belief that decolonialization would never be achieved without violence (which, to say the least, unnerved genteel white society). I feel as if France in general needs to have a process of deep soul-searching about its relationship to race and its own imperial history (French Indochina/Vietnam being another obvious example with recent geopolitical implications), because it’s happy to let Britain take the flak for its unexamined and triumphalist imperial nostalgia. (One may remark that of course France is happy to let Britain make a fool of itself and hope that nobody notices its similar sins....) This is, however, currently unlikely to happen on a broad scale for the social and historical reasons that I discussed above, so I really applaud you for taking the initiative in starting that conversation and reaching out for resources to help you in doing it. Hopefully it will help you put the legacy of these particular social reformers in context and offer you talking points both for what they did well and where their philosophy fell short.

If there does come a point of a heightened racial conversation and reckoning in France (and there have been Black Lives Matter protests there in the last few weeks, so it’s not impossible) I would be curious to see what it looks like. It’s arguably one of the Western countries that has least dealt with its racial issues while making itself into the standard-bearer for secular Western liberalism. France has also enthusiastically joined in the EU, whereas Britain has (rather notoriously....) separated from all that, which makes Britain look provincial and isolated while France can position itself as a global leader with a more internationalist outlook. Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel are currently leading the effort for the $500 billion coronavirus rescue package for the EU, which gives it a sense of statesmanship and stature. It will be interesting to see how that continues to change and develop vis-a-vis race, or if it does.

Thanks so much for such an interesting question, and I hope that helped!

#history #french history #black history #history of racism #anonymous #ask

15 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 6 years ago

Text

#1yrago An incredibly important paper on whether data can ever be "anonymized" and how we should handle release of large data-sets

Even the most stringent privacy rules have massive loopholes: they all allow for free distribution of "de-identified" or "anonymized" data that is deemed to be harmless because it has been subjected to some process.

But the reality of "re-identification" attacks tells a different story: again and again and again and again and again, datasets are released on the promise that they have been de-identified, only to be rapidly (and often trivially) re-identified, putting privacy, financial security, lives and even geopolitical stability at risk.

The problems of good anonymization are myriad: one is that re-identification risk increases over time: a database of taxi-trips, say, might be re-identifiable later when a database of user accounts, or home addresses, or specific voyages taken by one person, leaks. Releasing a database of logins and their corresponding real names might allow a database of logins without real names to be mass re-identified with little effort.

Anonymization suffers from the "wanting it badly is enough" problem: industry and regulators would benefit immensely if there was such a thing as reliable de-identification, and the fact that it would be useful to have this creates the certainty that it's possible to have this (see also: crypto backdoors, DRM, no-fly lists, etc).

Regulators, wary of being overly proscriptive, often use "industry best practices" as a benchmark for whether anonymization has taken place. But this only works if the public rewards companies that practice good anonymization, meaning that companies will compete with one another to find effective anonymization techniques. Since it's impossible for a prospective customer to evaluate which anonymization techniques work until after there has been a breach, markets don't reward companies that spend their resources perfecting anonymization, meaning that industries race to the bottom to effect the cheapest methods without regard to whether they work, and this becomes "best practice."

You can see this in other sectors: UK anti-money laundering rules require that banks identify their customers' home addresses using "industry best practices." Bank customers don't care if their bank is complicit in money-laundering, so they don't preferentially choose banks with good anti-money-laundering practices, which means that all the UK banks converged on using laserprinted, easily forged gas-bills as proof of address, despite the fact that these offer nothing in the fight against money-laundering. It's enough they they're cheap to process and can be waved around when a bank is caught in a money-laundering prosecution.

A Precautionary Approach to Big Data Privacy, a 2015 paper by Princeton computer scientists Arvind Narayanan (previously), Joanna Huey and Edward Felten (previously), is the best look at this subject I've yet read, and should be required reading.

The authors point out that the traditional -- and controversial security methodology of "penetrate and patch" (where bugs are identified after the product is rolled out and then fixed) -- is totally unsuited to the problem of data-anonymization. That's because once an "anonymized" database is distributed, it's impossible to patch the copies floating around in the wild (you can't recall the data and remove problematic identifiers), and partner organizations that you've given the data to have no incentive to "patch" it by taking away identifiers that they might be using or find useful in the future.

Instead of "ad-hoc" de-identification methods, the authors recommend a wonkish, exciting idea called "differential privacy," in which precise amounts of noise is added to the data-set before it is released, allowing the publisher to quantify exactly how likely a future re-identification attack is, balancing the benefits of release with the potential costs to the people implicated in it.

Differential privacy is hard to do right, though: famously Apple flubbed one of the first wide-use applications for it.

The authors set out a set of clear guidelines for how to turn their recommendations into policy, and give examples of how existing data-releases could integrate these principles.

We're living in a moment of unprecedented data-gathering and intentional release, but the entire policy framework for those releases is based on a kind of expedient shrug: "We're not sure if this'll work, but it needs doing, so..." This paper -- written in admirably clear, non-technical language -- establishes a sound policy/computer science basis for undertaking these activities, and not a moment too soon.https://boingboing.net/2018/02/01/high-dimensional-data.html

4 notes · View notes

tremendouspeachduck · 7 years ago

Text

Dumb pipeline conversation

We’re Energy Independent - Yeah! It’s now time to get out of the U.N.

If Canada wants oil to get to Mexico, then USA can benefit.

Canada will do it with or without our putting people back to work

Yes, there will be spills to clean up

Don't you just love logic?

Let's praise Pres. Trump for turning it around for us

Is energy independence important to you? It means low gas prices at the pump.

To be truly energy independent, the United States would need to produce enough energy to sustain the entirety of its population and industry. Such independence seemed like a far off goal not too long ago. However, innovations in sustainable energy and the recent shale gas boom have made the idea of an energy independent future seem more attainable.

As it seems more and more possible for the United States to achieve energy independence in the not-so-distant future, it’s important to remember that this process is complicated. Though it can be achieved in different ways to different effects, energy independence will require the US to radically re-envision the way it supplies and uses energy.

Energy independence also boasts possible geopolitical benefits. The United States imports most of its energy from countries where political tensions run high. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China and Russia are all huge exporters of energy, and this has put the United States in more than one awkward position over the years.

In addition to the amount of defense money spent protecting US oil interests abroad, relying on foreign oil has prevented the US and other countries from intervening in conflicts around the world. Europe’s lack of intervention when Russia annexed Crimea is just one example of energy stability influencing foreign policy decisions for the worse.

Energy independence could free the United States from fear of trade retaliation when making foreign policy decisions. This would make it easier for the US and other energy independent countries to boycott or otherwise intervene in unjust systems and governments. It would also give other oil producers more claim over their own energy.

as of 2018, October - the USA has become energy independent - Hurrray! Thank you Pres. Trump

What comes next? Before this resource is depleted, we must retire the notion of fossil fuels and move toward wind, solar, or hydro. I prefer hydro; it has the least bad side effects.

DEMS would eliminate nearly all fossil fuels from the electric grid and force everyone in the country to buy from power companies selling only renewable energy.

Without government subsidies, renewable energy costs significantly more than many forms of traditional energy generation.

Electricity prices are, on average, increasing by 50 percent faster in those states that have created renewable power mandates compared to those that have rejected these economically destructive policies. This is especially troubling news for working-class and lower-income Americans, who spend much larger shares of their income on energy than wealthier families.

Not only are DEMs proposing to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fossil fuel industry in the United States, even though America recently became a net-energy exporter, they are demanding this transition occur in just 10 years, from 2020 to 2030. This mandate would be virtually impossible to achieve because wind and solar energy sources still rely on back-up generation from fossil-fuel-powered energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

DEMs also propose “eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country,” as well as “eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water.” It’s not clear whether this would eventually mean the elimination of all gasoline-powered cars, but even if we assume private ownership of these vehicles would be permitted, the removal of affordable fossil fuels, including natural gas, from all industry would increase the cost of developing, manufacturing, and delivering all goods and services in the country. It would force companies to spend, at the very least, hundreds of billions of additional dollars more than they do now — expenses that would inevitably be passed along to consumers by raising taxes, printing money, and creating new publicly owned banks.

Please send an email to your Senator and to your House rep ASAP! You can cut/paste the VOTE NO message into your email. You may also phone the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 - plz be nice to the volunteer. Also send this message to Pres. Trump.

VOTE NO on Green Deal. The biggest reason I can think of - WE ALREADY have the Climate Change Law. Thanks to Pres. Trump

and YES on getting out of the UN.

Congressional Republicans want to defund the U.N., a 193-nation boondoggle for which the United States alone pays well over a quarter of the freight — about 22 percent of the regular operating budget, and close to 30 percent of the much larger peacekeeping budget (for which we get more scandal than peace).

At best, denying our annual $3 billion payment would accomplish nothing. Defunding measures are called for periodically, whenever the U.N. induces a congressional tantrum over one or another of its obscenities. Even as one lawmaker fumes about shutting off the spigot, another is already saying, “Well, we don’t need to defund everything — after all, the U.N. does a lot of good.”

“A lot of good,” by the way, is an exaggeration. Sure, some U.N. officials are just as well-meaning as any other preening progressive. But the institution stinks, even in its humanitarian aid work. As Heritage’s Brett D. Schaefer notes, citing a 2012 academic study on best and worst practices among aid agencies, U.N. agencies consistently rank “among the worst and least effective performers.”

More important, if $3 billion seems like chump change to you in an age of unfathomable $20 trillion national debt, that’s the way Turtle Bay’s grubby globalists see it, too. They continue to plot international tax schemes (on carbon emissions, financial transactions, etc.), as well as the lucrative skim from redistributionist rackets like the “Green Climate Fund” and the new “Sustainable Development Goals.” The real goal, naturally, is a sustainable fund for the U.N., relieving it of reliance on finicky donors.

The GOP Congress’s focus on the U.S. contribution is understandable. The American taxpayer’s U.N. tab far exceeds the combined $2.5 billion ponied up by the other four permanent Security Council members (China, Russia, Britain, and France). In fact, it exceeds the contributions of 185 countries combined (about three dozen of which pay under $30K in dues – far less than what their diplomats rack up in unpaid Manhattan parking tickets).

Yet the money is not the real problem, and cutting it off for a time won’t pack much political punch.

The Left loves the U.N. It will never seriously address the institution’s thoroughgoing anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism, anti-Semitism, anti-nationalism, anti-capitalism, and anti-rectitude. Instead the media-Democrat complex – with a big assist, starting in two weeks, from the most publicly active former president in American history – would portray an aspirational U.N. valiantly fighting to save the planet from war, poverty and CO2. Duly abominated for slashing funds, the GOP would take a political hit but achieve nothing: The U.N. would find other ways to raise the dough, and Republicans – after watering the defund effort down to feckless foot-stomping – would be goaded into paying any withheld dues, with interest, probably during the next lame-duck session.

The better move is: Just leave. Withdrawal from the U.N. would make transnational progressives go ballistic, but it would hearten millions – the kind of patriotic, self-determining citizens whose fury at statism’s transition into globalism catalyzed Trump’s candidacy (and, in Britain, spurred Brexit).

Put the politics aside, though. Leaving would be the right thing to do.

The U.N. is Ground Zero of the totalitarian Islamist-Leftist quest to eviscerate Western principles and individual liberty – and, while they’re at it, the Jewish state.

You think I’m exaggerating? The U.N. is the Islamist-Leftist vehicle for nullifying American constitutionalism – its guaranteed freedoms and the very premise that the People are sovereign. In just the last few years of Obama’s eager collaborations, the U.N. has produced resolutions that erode First Amendment liberties, calling on member states to outlaw negative criticism of Islam. It has overridden the Constitution’s protections against treaties that harm American interests, endorsing the Iran nuclear deal to give it the imprimatur of international law even though it is unsigned, unratified, and would not have had a prayer of attaining the required two-thirds supermajority Senate approval.

The U.N. is the Islamist-Leftist vehicle for nullifying American constitutionalism – its guaranteed freedoms and the very premise that the People are sovereign.

And more is on the way. The Obama administration signed a U.N. arms-trade treaty that would undermine Second Amendment rights — again, under the vaporous guise of “international law.” On Obama’s watch, the U.S. has also signed the U.N.’s onerous Paris climate agreement, which international bureaucrats tell us has “entered into force” despite — again — the lack of Senate approval required for ratification under our law.

Think no ratification means no problem? You’re not getting how the U.N.’s international-law game works.

Once American presidents sign agreements, globalists insist that we’re bound by them. How can that be, since a presidential signature is insufficient under the Constitution? Because in 1970, President Nixon signed another beauty, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Its Article 18 states that once a nation signs a treaty — or merely does something that could be interpreted as “express[ing] its consent to be bound by the treaty” — that nation is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.” You’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to hear that the Senate has never approved this treaty on treaties, either. No matter: The State Department (who else?) advises us that, notwithstanding the lack of ratification under our Constitution, “many” of the treaty’s provisions are binding as — you guessed it — “customary international law.”

American government participation in the U.N.’s shenanigans is stripping away our rights and our capacity to govern ourselves. Just as bad, it is sullying us.

Logically, it has to be that way. When not bowing before foreign despots, Obama practically genuflects at mentions of the “international community.” But the international community is awful. It consists of a few good countries swimming in a shark-infested sea. When good seeks consensus with evil, the result cannot be good — just as when you insist, as our government does, on being an impartial “honest broker” between Israel, our democratic ally, and the Palestinian terror state-in-waiting, that is a boon for the jihadists, not the democrats. When you pretend that all states are equal, that there is no difference between the good guys and the bad guys, that is always a coup for the bad guys.

And that’s what the U.N. is: a coup for the bad guys.

Think about it: We are voluntarily entered into an arrangement in which actions affecting American national security and prosperity are subject to the Security Council veto power of Vladimir Putin and the Communist Party of China – the principal patrons of the “Death to America” regime in Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of anti-American terrorism.

We are voluntarily underwriting an institution that — with Obama having formally boarded the anti-Israel train — is joining the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. The General Assembly, which is steered by the sharia-supremacist Organization of Islamic Cooperation, has just created a BDS database to target companies that do business with Israeli settlements in what the U.N. has declared is “Palestinian territory.”

WE NEED TO GET OUT of UN . . . NOW!

It would depend on the terms under which the U.S. left .If we completely withdrew all at once, our resources, our capital, our troops, and the UN’s right to even meet in the U.S., then either China or Russia would most likely maneuver to have the entity relocated for the publicity and influence.They would not be one iota as generous as the U.S. with resources or manpower. Within five years the U.N. would crumble much as the League of Nations did.Without the U.S. bankrolling the operation and actually doing the things it wants done, the U.N. would be even less than a paper tiger. It would be couple of paragraphs in a high school history book.

Any vengeance toward Israel or elsewhere could easily be handled with various independent coalitions.

Also, as a result from our recent election fiasco . . .

In each state, we must come together and demand clean elections.

#politics #energy #fossil fuels #united nations #pipeline

4 notes · View notes

divulgacion-alternativa · 4 years ago

Text

Ben Ful Links - February 22/2021

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

Benjamin Fulford. February 22, 2021

Massive March Campaign Planned Against Global Idiocracy

Source: benjaminfulford.net

------------------------------------------

Ben Ful Links - February 22/2021:

For example, the peer-reviewed scientific report sent to us by British and French intelligence says:

“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020, ‘For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.’”

(Science, Public Health Policy and the Law Volume 2:4 October 12,2020) https://jdfor2020.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/adf864_165a103206974fdbb14ada6bf8af1541.pdf

Here, for example, is a link to a scientific report admitting CRISPR is used in “Covid-19” vaccines. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7469881/

The Cabal’s state actors are now under increasing attack for their criminal activities. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis told puppet President Biden off last Wednesday after China Joe instructed him to shut down the state because of the fake Pandemic. Speaking to vaccine czar Dr. Anthony Faustus DeSantis asked, “How much do you stand to earn from these vaccines, Dr. Fauci?” He then added, “And, Joe, if you continue with this course of action, I will authorize the state National Guard to protect the movement of Floridians.” When Biden replied, “Address me as Mr. President or President Biden,” DeSantis replied “I will not, and you can go fuck yourself,” before hanging up. https://realrawnews.com/2021/02/gov-desantis-tells-biden-go-fuck-yourself/

The situation on the ground is now so dire that, in just one example, a new survey by the NYC Hospitality Alliance reveals that 92 percent of New York restaurants couldn’t afford to pay December rent. https://thenycalliance.org/information/december-2020-rent-report

Also even to corporate propaganda media is starting to revolt against their fake narratives. For example, in an appearance on MSNBC, White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt said the fact that Covid infection patterns were identical in no lockdown Florida and hyper-lockdown California was “a little bit beyond our explanation.” https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/watch-biden-adviser-struggles-explain-similar-covid-numbers-ca-fl-despite-opposite

The Cabal is now desperately dialing down the fake pandemic as reality becomes impossible for them to deny any longer. That is why they are reporting a huge drop in “Covid” cases and propaganda news articles are now saying the entire “pandemic” could be over by April. http://www.battleforworld.com/2020/08/01/covid-19-where-does-it-end/#CovidCasesDrop

https://www.statista.com/chart/22067/daily-new-cases-by-world-region/

Of course, we must never underestimate these criminals because they have literally thousands of years of experience in herding humans as if they were livestock. The attack on Texas -which involved deliberately shutting down their power grid in the middle of a cold snap- is one example. This came after Texas Congressman Ron Wright “died of Covid-19,” and as an election for his replacement looms, the corporate propaganda media is full of articles criticizing the Texas establishment for “mishandling,” its energy grid. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/17/texas-shows-that-when-you-cannot-govern-you-lie-lot/

Now, NSA sources are telling us the next thing the criminal regime is planning is food shortages. The NSA notes:

1) Small farms shutting down world-wide.

2) Over 1,000 ships off our coast with food as the FDA keeps them out at sea; allowing the food to rot,

3) China is outbidding everyone for food worldwide as their crops fail,

4) This NASA-created freeze is not allowing food shipments across the nations; USA, Europe, etc.

Furthermore, the NSA notes railroads are sitting idle so trucks must pick up the slack meaning shipping costs went from $1,000 per container to $10,000 per container from Seattle to Chicago. They note the same trouble in Japan as ports need constant upgrades due to shaking. To top things off, they say “Biden is shipping USA Grain Reserves to China again.” https://news.yahoo.com/world-pay-more-meat-food-050000496.html

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/amid-soaring-food-prices-kraft-heinz-conagra-brands-set-raise-prices

The cabal has also been tearing down power substations in the U.S. for years “so a 3-hour power outage becomes a 3-week power outage,” the sources note. They say what happened in Texas was “just a foretaste.” https://www.revolver.news/2021/02/texass-power-grid-disaster-is-only-the-beginning/

In addition to economic sabotage, the Cabal is now promoting multiple space missions to gather money. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9273375/Seven-minutes-terror-NASAs-Perseverance-land-Mars-TODAY.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/worldnews/14089099/russia-china-sign-historic-deal-build-first-moon-base/

Now let us look at a recent snapshot of some of the moronic policies the Cabal is trying to impose on the world. For one thing, they are still harping endlessly about Iran and its so-called “nuclear bomb.” Here for example is a Mossad linked Debka comment saying “the blank wall reached by President Joe Biden’s policy for re-engaging Iran in nuclear diplomacy is that his advisers could not get together on a strategy for stalling its progress towards a bomb.” This is the same BS they have been repeated endlessly for over 30 years. https://www.debka.com/are-bidens-moves-for-nuclear-diplomacy-with-iran-stuck-in-the-sand/

Of course, if you take a look at Iranian leaders wearing their sheep masks, you can tell Iran is also just a cabal colony playing their role in trying to get us all to kill each other in WWIII. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/white-house-signals-iran-its-ready-eu-sponsored-talks-major-nuke-deal-breakthrough

In Israel meanwhile, the sheeple there are now being given the mark of the beast vaccination certificates that allow them to go shopping, etc. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-re-opens-further-with-green-pass-for-vaccinated/ar-BB1dSlf1

And then we have German Chancellor Angela Hitler saying, “the pandemic is not over until all people in the world have been vaccinated.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-g7-merkel-idUSKBN2AJ1WG

Of course, any nations opposed to this are “rogue nations,” opposed to a “rules-based world order,” which is why NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, “China and Russia are trying to re-write the rules of the road to benefit their own interests.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-nato-idUSKBN2AJ24G

The Pentagon is on board with the plan to occupy Israel and so are the Russians. “Russia is the last island of freedom,” State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said recently adding, “Do you see what’s happening in the United States of America? The country is dying, everything has been canceled out.” https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/02/17/russia-is-the-worlds-last-island-of-freedom-parliament-speaker-says-a72995

Several targets have been outlined for the spring offensive against the cabal. In addition to Israel, any world leader pushing for Covid-19 vaccines has to be removed ASAP. These include Boris Johnson of the UK, Justin Castro of Canada, Angela Hitler of Germany, Joe CG Biden of the U.S. etc.

Removing Justin Castro in Canada is a high priority because it will allow Canadian troops to join their compatriots in states like Texas and Florida to fight against the Khazarian mafia strongholds like California and New York. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/14-5m-canadians-to-be-immunized-by-june-updated-vaccination-timeline-shows-1.5314048

Also, Google and Facebook were created with taxpayer money and then given to private individuals. They are now taking over power from elected governments and must be nationalized. “Freedom of speech is not something that anonymous moderators working for private companies should decide,” Deputy Polish Justice Minister Sebastian Kaleta said recently. “Instead, that is for the national body; duly elected officials,” he added. https://www.foxnews.com/world/poland-fights-big-tech-push-block-social-media-censorship?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-foxnews&utm_content=later-14580965&utm_medium=social&utm_source=instagram

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-admin-working-directly-big-tech-crush-vaccine-dissent

----------------------------------------------

youtube

0 notes

cryptswahili · 6 years ago

Text

CoinReport Experts on 10th anniversary of first bitcoin transaction

Bitcoin logo

January 12, 2019 marked the 10th anniversary of the very first bitcoin transaction. Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto sent 10 bitcoins to a U.S. software engineer named Hal Finney (who some believe may have been one and the same) on January 12, 2009.

A number of digital currency and blockchain industry experts have reflected on the last 10 years and on what the next decade possibly holds for blockchain technology as well as crypto-assets.

CoinReport would like to thank PR firm Wachsman for sharing with us the following expert commentary.

Brent Jaciow, Head of Blockchain Affairs at music data tracking platform Utopia Music: “Reflecting on the last ten years, by and large the greatest innovation to the world of crypto is the invention of the smart contract given it is what allows blockchain technologies to carry out many of the functions that make them such a versatile tool, such as DAO’s, autonomous actions, etc.

The real value of blockchain technologies is the ability to have an “ownerless” source of truth that all stakeholders can rely upon. The decentralization of authority combined with implicit trust in the data allows such real-world cases as fractionalizing ownership of assets, capital raising to fund innovation, and the securitization of assets which would have been previously impossible with current capital markets.

That being said, after a volatile 2018 there is no “magic bullet” which will allow the public to regain trust within the cryptocurrency space. Rather it will be the combination of increased regulation to provide enhanced safety to investors, technology advances that make it easier for the general public to use and invest in the asset class, as well as great adoption by larger institutions which will prove to be the tipping point to mass adoption.”

Jaciow said in a different comment, “Like all other “public” markets, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have seen their fair share of manias and panics. I think bitcoin’s highlight over the last decade is watching it grow from its humble beginnings as an obscure “idea” embraced by a small group of hardcore tech engineers to the massive force it is today that is so large, Fortune 500 corporations and governments alike are forced to understand and learn how to embrace the new technology.

In the short term, bitcoin and other top cryptocurrencies will likely face continued selling pressure as year end tax loss harvesting has investors selling what has lost money in order to offset potential capital gains. Into the new year, along with better design interfaces and greater ease of use, we will continue to see an ever larger acceptance and use of cryptocurrencies by the general population which will benefit the long term price appreciation of bitcoin.

Cryptocurrencies will be more widely accepted and used like fiat in future, but not necessarily with bitcoin as the main currency of choice. As the crypto space evolves and the technology improves, a front-runner in the stable coin sector will emerge and likely be used as a substitute given the reduced volatility relative to the current most liquid cryptocurrencies. This would seem to be the most natural progression as most developed economies move away from cash and further into electronic payment solutions. For example, Sweden is even seeking to move to a purely electronic system and do away with the burden of maintaining physical fiat currency.”

Nydia Zhang, Co-founder and Chairman of Social Alpha Foundation, a not-for-profit grant making platform supporting blockchain technology for social good: “Ten years on, the greatest innovation borne from Bitcoin has been the ability to revolutionize the manner in which people connect for commerce, governance, finance and industry without the need for a middleman. While this ability remains nascent, the effect will unfold as a shockwave in slow motion, transforming technology infrastructure as we know it. From cryptocurrency which has redefined how we define, quantify and exchange value, to trustless ledgers that bring databases into a realm of interoperability not possible before, Bitcoin and its technology has changed everything. Though 2018 was a crucible for crypto, it survived extinction and in 2019 will continue to grow stronger than ever; all the while, the blockchain technology below will continue quietly and powerfully powering the new internet.”

Frank Wagner, CEO and Co-founder of INVAO, a blockchain asset pool for investors based on automated trading and active portfolio management: “The world’s first bitcoin transaction marked a new epoch for the global monetary system. Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies have a myriad of uses and can solve real-world problems in many sectors, but finance has been one of the most notable industries affected. One particular innovation that stands out in the world of finance is the advent of security tokens. This development has been central to creating new and unprecedented avenues of wealth acquisition, while simultaneously attracting institutional investors to the space. Blockchain technology is being used to provide access to capital and create transparent and secure investment routes in new markets. While cryptocurrency prices have had a volatile year, most understand these fluctuations do not negate the positive impact it has had or the opportunities it has unlocked over the previous decade.”

Wagner said in a different comment, “The development of blockchain since its invention 10 years ago show how far-reaching the possibilities of this technology are. We are only just beginning to understand and harness the potential of this technology, which we believe will change how society functions, and will alter our everyday life in increasingly indispensable and sustainable ways.”

Nick Cowan, Managing Director and Founder of the Gibraltar Stock Exchange Group Limited: “The first ever bitcoin transaction, conducted ten years ago, was the genesis for two of the most dynamic innovations of a generation. The emergence of bitcoin as a method to transfer value inspired the creation of various other cryptocurrencies that now make up a busy ecosystem. With bitcoin’s rise in late 2017, a spotlight was shone on the wide range of alternative coins, as well as the underlying blockchain technology.

Cryptocurrencies were the first showcase example of blockchain technology at work, opening the door to new payment practices, while addressing many of the long-standing issues plaguing traditional finance, such as high transaction fees and settlement delays. However, the technology is now meshing with a wide range of industries to help accelerate typically protracted processes, enable higher levels of cross-sectoral efficiency, and improve all-round transparency and trust in projects.

The hype surrounding bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, peaking in late 2017, has mellowed. The focus has now shifted to sustainability and legitimate value propositions. Looking ahead, as wider society becomes more informed on the benefits of Distributed-Ledger-Technology (DLT), the bar will continue to rise for prospective blockchain projects and crypto platforms to increase adoption and build a vibrant community.”

Angel Versetti, CEO and Co-founder of Ambrosus: “The past ten years have seen exponential growth of innovation and research in the crypto and blockchain world, and, as a result, it’s still too early to say with certainty which innovation is the greatest. From my perspective, assuming that Bitcoin is day zero and today is 10 years later, Ethereum is the greatest innovation in the space. The idea of a decentralized computer, capable of executing any contract in a decentralised and censorship-free environment, has huge implications and potential use cases for a variety of social and economic purposes. While many contenders for Ethereum have arrived, no single project boasts the resilience and ecosystem strength of Ethereum. That’s why, for me at least, it’s the greatest innovation in the space. Its full potential is also far from being reached so there is still significant scope for it to grow and develop further.

Cryptocurrencies represent an entirely new asset class, which comprises a multitude of multifunctional digital assets with distinctly different benefits. Whether as an alternative means of storing value (Bitcoin), as fuel for a decentralised computer (Ethereum), as reward mechanisms for distributed storage (Ambrosus) or as a representation of real assets in digital form (DigixDAO), they remove significant amounts of friction from the global financial markets. Simultaneously, cryptocurrencies offer an opportunity to have a truly safe-haven asset class, which, while definitely not protected from manipulation, is at the very least not controlled by any one particular nation-state or entity, thereby giving them a unique position.

Firstly, I daresay there is not an ounce more trust in traditional financial institutions today as there was 10 years ago. We are on the brink of another major financial crisis and possibly a bigger geopolitical cataclysm, and thus the core value proposition of Bitcoin as a censorship-resistant and truly limited digital asset that is not subject to control is as relevant as ever. I believe that crypto and blockchain will continue to deliver on their core value and benefits, primarily because there has not been any loss of trust in blockchain and true cryptocurrencies by those members of the public who understand how this technology works.

The only disappointed people are the speculators who got into crypto at the wrong time and are now irritated by their losses. In some ways, it feels like crypto is the Caribbean in the 17th century, a market full of riches and opportunities, and that there have been a number of opportunists and outright pirates trying to take advantage. Now, these are being replaced by more organised groups that are perceived as more “legitimate”. While, on one hand, I don’t welcome the fact that many of the newest crypto and blockchain projects primarily driven by lawyers and investment bankers rather than by the cypherpunks and geeks who originated the technology; on the other, this will bring about more public participation in blockchain in the coming 12 months.”

Versetti said in a different comment, “Due to trying to take the market share away from one of the most important tools of power – money – central banks and governments all over the world tried to kill Bitcoin, albeit unsuccessfully. Having failed to kill bitcoin, they have decided to become its champions and proponents. Not only has this established Bitcoin as a unique financial phenomenon and a new asset and a social construct, but it also showed the resilience and power of the underlying technology, blockchain, spurring countless transformative innovations using distributed ledgers, ranging far beyond the financial sector, with use cases such as identity management, data ownership, decentralised autonomous organisations and the digital commons – all underpinned by the same promise of resilient technology where trust is established by all the participants jointly updating the ledger, but with no particular party being able to take control.

Despite the resilience of the blockchain, Bitcoin itself is purely a social construct, which means that its intrinsic value is only based on what the general consensus about its value is, i.e. what the global society – via marketplaces/exchanges – value the Bitcoin at. Seeing as things are right now, with institutional investors flocking in and a lot of early Bitcoin adopters having an opportunity to build their fortunes and become the elites of tomorrow, there is a fairly big chance they will push Bitcoin to become a must-have asset for any sort of portfolio or a financial institution. However, maybe not, maybe the push of Bitcoin Cash with their narrative of being the true Bitcoin and ownership of key bitcoin domains and handles of social media will make Bitcoin Cash overtake Bitcoin, or maybe – God forbid – some centralised cryptocurrencies like Ripple will become the new standard. I hope the latter does not happen though, as hopefully people will become more educated about what blockchain is and how it should work, and people will be making the choice for freedom from censorship and control.”

Fran Strajnar, CEO of Brave New Coin: “Those who have been involved in digital currency since the early days have seen the cyclical rise and fall of bitcoin. I believe that bitcoin’s supply curve will continue to follow the boom-bust cycle, but expect all-time highs following block-halving by 2020. As an asset class, bitcoin’s value has witnessed outstanding upward momentum – with the value far above now what it was in the early days following its inception.

The systematic problems that have contributed to the rise of blockchain and its mainstream adoption have summoned many bright minds to get involved in the industry, which is why I believe that blockchain will scale and is here to stay. When we least expect it, the first ‘Killer Decentralized App’ will be born – it is only a matter of time. And while nobody has a crystal ball to foresee what will happen to this innovative industry, what we do know is that we now have a fourth superclass, which has already been proven useful in transmitting value quickly, safely, and globally.”

Kee Jeffreys, Co-founder and Tech Lead of Loki: “I think the most interesting thing to look at over the last 10 years is bitcoin’s market dominance. Between bitcoin’s inception and late 2016, it consistently encapsulated almost the whole of the crypto market (about 80% to 90%). However, during the peak of the ICO craze, we saw bitcoin dominance drop to its lowest point at about 30%. I think what we are seeing now is a rebirth cycle for bitcoin. With market contraction and many ICOs failing to deliver on promises, investors are more likely to move back to the perceived stability of bitcoin.

Much of the 2017 rise in crypto prices correlated with speculative investment. Many were excited because they could see that the key issue blockchain seeks to solve is generating trust among untrusted parties. However, mainstream adoption of blockchain technology is still struggling – even the most used DApps don’t have user volumes we would expect of small, traditional applications. This is largely due to the lack of convenience for end users. If users have to sign up to an exchange, purchase BTC, exchange that BTC to ETH, and then work out how to use a smart contract in order to use a platform – they may be dissuaded by the inconvenience.

In the future, I think we are going to see a lot of applications like Brave browser, which provides an internet browser with Basic Attention Token (BAT) integration. The key here is that the users don’t need to understand cryptocurrency to use the service, but if they want to interact with additional features they can be easily accessed within the application. This type of integration can be closely modeled on a “freemium model,” where the small percentage of interested crypto users can fund the development of decentralised applications to the benefit of all users.“

Vlad Dramaliev, Head of Digital Marketing of æternity: “Bitcoin has proven that it is one of the most exciting technological experiments of our time. It established the foundations of an entire industry that is currently engaged in extensive R&D in the fields of cryptography, data security, privacy, and self-sovereignty. Perhaps most importantly, Bitcoin has presented an alternative system of global governance, based on tangible economic incentives and decentralization.

By creating a censorship-resistant alternative to money, it has reignited discussions on the nature of money and money creation. It has presented an alternative to an unsustainable global financial system built on debt and inequality. In 10 years, Bitcoin will still be the dominant cryptocurrency, the gold standard in the crypto-world. It will enjoy a much more widespread adoption, and its technological features and user-friendliness will have been greatly improved.”

Jehan Chu, Co-founder of Social Alpha Foundation: “Bitcoin is currently at a great level to enter the market as the price has been stabilizing and with institutional heavyweights like Fidelity, Nasdaq, and Starbucks getting into crypto, we can expect mainstream investment awareness in 2019. Ironically, Bitcoin volatility is near all-time lows, at around 1.5%, which is not that far off from gold.

I do think that bitcoin will be used widely as a store of value, though currently the technology isn’t developed enough to be used as a payment system. Upcoming projects like Connext, Lightning and others are coming close to solving these problems and making bitcoin useful for everyday use.”

Gabriele Giancola, Co-founder and CEO of qiibee, the Swiss loyalty token protocol which helps brands around the world run their loyalty programs on the blockchain: “These days, everyone seems to be talking about bitcoin and its future. While bitcoin has seen monumental growth in popularity since the publication of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008, it has experienced dramatic peaks and troughs since its inception, with the cryptocurrency market as a whole rising more than 1,200% last year alone, and the cryptocurrency market cap amounting to over $230bn.

All eyes will be on the approval of a bitcoin ETF by the SEC in the new year, which would arguably be transformative for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, since it would boost overall investor interest and provide stability to the crypto market. If the ETF was to be approved, institutional investors are likely to cash in on the new product, given that it is relatively safer than directly investing in bitcoin.

The question of custody and regulatory oversight, as well as whether there are solutions to fundamental technological issues, including scalability and processing time, will be decisive in whether bitcoin and cryptocurrencies see mainstream adoption in future, and will no doubt impact their market prices as well.”

Shiv Malik, Head of Strategy and Communications at Streamr: “Though it’s been a turbulent evolution, Bitcoin’s mark on this world is already profound. Without knowing it, Satoshi Nakamoto and the rest of the cypherpunks kick-started an entire multi-billion dollar industry which we now call blockchain. Their distributed ledger, a novel form of recording millions of transactions between individuals without the need for banks, is the most notable accounting revolution since the Venetians’ formalised double entry bookkeeping in the late 1400s.

But a number of clouds now hang over Bitcoin’s original vision — chiefly the speculation around whether it can make it as a general service for payments. If Bitcoin fundamentally stays as it is, electricity will never be cheap enough for the network to process sufficient transactions to reach any significant scale. The mission statement, “be your own bank” will probably have to be downgraded to “be your own safe deposit box.”

But Bitcoin now has many children – altcoins and digital tokens of all sorts – and they will eventually serve as the basis not just for money, and money transfer but for accessing all sorts of vital digital services in the future. The crypto revolution – open source, and decentralised – is here to stay.”

Cristian Gil, Co-founder of trading firm GSR: “The space is evolving at such a rapid pace that it is difficult to make predictions even two years out. That said, we believe that within a decade, digital assets will have become an integral part of our everyday lives. We will continue to see the proliferation of the internet of things (IoT), and the ability to transfer value seamlessly across various mediums. Whether bitcoin itself is used in the pipes for these systems or not, when history books are written about this period of time, bitcoin will have earned the first page mention.”

Daniel Peled, President of Orbs: “It’s impossible to look at the progress of the entire blockchain industry without recognizing the foundational role that bitcoin played. Every business use case, every major step forward on the infrastructure front is ultimately a credit to the initial starting point of bitcoin. Bitcoin proved that there is an application for blockchain and that it has real and tangible value. Because of this central role, it’s difficult to to see any reality where the technology continues to progress and expand in importance while bitcoin doesn’t enjoy the benefits of this rise. Even though the industry has expanded far beyond producing a digital currency, bitcoin was still the use case that established the legitimacy and potential of the entire blockchain enterprise.”

Eiland Glover, CEO and Co-founder of Kowala: “Ten years later we’re still talking about Bitcoin and its impact. Why? Because it’s one of – if not the most – exciting developments in financial technology in the last 20 years. However, even though the Bitcoin network is still an incredible and disruptive way to remove middlemen from transactions in the global financial system, its limitations have certainly become more apparent with age. Its price volatility, coined with its slow transaction speed, means that it is now mostly referred to less as a currency used as a payment method and more as a store of value, a sort of digital gold.

The frenetic value of bitcoin has led to the rapid development of “stablecoins” – cryptocurrencies built to retain a stable value. Though some have attempted to solve the Bitcoin network’s current volatility problems via features that increase centralization, like maintaining certain prices by working with banks, others continue to adhere to Satoshi’s ideological focus on decentralization, and we’re already seeing a revival of Bitcoin-centric principles in the stablecoin space. Over the next ten years, I predict that bitcoin as a currency will continue to thrive, and will also bring with it those stablecoin projects that adhere to its similar asset-less, decentralized, miner-friendly principles.”

Ken Lang, CTO of Cosimo Ventures and early ndau collective member: “On the tenth anniversary of bitcoin, we reflect on how far the space has come. Bitcoin was a groundbreaking innovation, and it’s caused us to learn lessons about how, why, and in what contexts people use digital currencies as a unit of account, a means of exchange, and a store of value. The rise in popularity of bitcoin – and consequently, other tokens – has also taught us about the shortcomings of particular digital currencies for particular purposes. It’s led to trends that try to solve for the governance and volatility problems with bitcoin and ethereum – e.g. stablecoins – that show that the industry is maturing and attempting to solve its own problems over time.

After ten years of rapid development and adoption, we believe that the next step for this industry will be to interrogate what the best solutions to these shortcomings will be, and that means designing digital currencies that incorporate the best elements of bitcoin along with innovative economic ideas that can help protect against the excessive volatility that puts investors at risk, and casts the industry in a negative light.”

Marshall Hayer, CEO of Metal: “I have been involved in crypto for nine years now, when I first discovered Bitcoin my curiosity was piqued, I didn’t see how people could transact with it. Over the past 10 years, the cryptocurrency ecosystem has seen many ups and downs (both in price and in industry maturation), and while I don’t see that stabilizing by the end of this year, I truly believe that this technology is the way of the economic future.

The introduction of Stablecoins are a huge innovation and will play a critical role in blockchain, especially now. However, one task that has yet to be fully accomplished is ensuring the general public is sufficiently educated on how to utilize this technology — which is desperately needed. We have spent the last 10 years improving upon the existing software, and we need to dedicate the next 10 years educating the world how to use it.

I believe in the vision for a decentralized web, and I am very excited to be a part of this ecosystem, bringing crypto to the mainstream. Looking to the next decade, I believe we will be living in a crypto-integrated, world — and I am very humbled to be a part of the vision.”

Max Kordek, Lisk Co-Founder and Lightcurve CEO: “The publishing of the Bitcoin white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto a decade ago kickstarted a new era of technological innovation and global disruption that is continuing to this day. Through community consensus, Bitcoin’s protocol has evolved through the years and has remained the standard for the cryptocurrency market and Bitcoin purists.

However, the whitepaper is also responsible for the emergence of the underlying blockchain technology. Back then, the technology was simply a concept, a potential vehicle for technological innovation and inspiration. Ten years later, we have a robust global community forging the path ahead, carrying the technology forward.

Blockchain industry has propelled Satoshi’s initial vision to new heights. It has been responsible for so many landmark technological developments that expand on the initial protocol, catching the attention of elite educational institutions, financial institutions, and government bodies. It has fuelled debate among leading economists and inspired the creation of an EU-wide partnership.

Reflecting on the 10th anniversary of the Bitcoin white paper, and the subsequent blockchain movement, we can see that the foundations have been laid for a sustained phase of technological development. Right now the technology is maturing, but the next ten years will reveal the real fruits of the wider blockchain community’s labour.

Satoshi Nakamoto has inspired hundreds of dedicated teams around the world to build on his vision for a future powered by blockchain, a future in which individuals are empowered to bring real change to the world.”

Patrick Mrozowski, Founder of Crumbs: “10 years ago, Satoshi brought forth an idea that completely changed the world as we know it. I fully believe in a decentralized future, and am thrilled to be someone so entwined in the space. We are at the edge of adopting a fully decentralized ecosystem, and now is the time to bring the general public into the fray. Perhaps the best thing about cryptocurrency is the control it gives to individuals over their personal finances. No longer do we have to depend on (or trust) big banks who don’t always put individual needs above their own. The true beauty of crypto lies in its ability to give power back to individuals who have been habitually neglected by traditional financial institutions — no matter demographic, socioeconomic status, or credit history, you have the ability to participate in the economic future. The next 10 years will bring more decentralization, better technology, but most importantly — financial power to the people.”

Image credit – Sirius (CC BY 3.0)

Source

[Telegram Channel | Original Article ]

#cryptocurrency

0 notes

giftofshewbread · 7 years ago

Text

Is the US in Bible Prophecy?

: By Pete Garcia Published on:October 18, 2017

There has been much discussion as of late on whether or not the United States is found in Bible prophecy. How does the world’s most powerful, Christian, and Israel-friendly nation not warrant a mention as a key player in the last days? If the US is in Bible prophecy, what role does she play? If she is not, then why not? What happens to her vast natural resources, advanced technology, military arsenal, and able-bodied citizens? Considering these questions, there are biblically sound and astute teachers on both sides of the issue who either believe that the US is Mystery Babylon, or that we are not in the picture at all.

Those in the camp of us being Babylon (mystery or otherwise), seem to make good points for that case (see here). Probably the strongest reason why we could be is that the Jew’s are told to come out of her. As of 2017, the largest concentration of Jewish people outside of Israel is in the United States. While at the same time, there are practically no Jews in what was traditional Babylon (Iraq) thanks to the likes of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other militant Islamic groups. So how could they come out of her (Babylon), if they are not in there, to begin with?

Those in the camp who believe we are not in the prophetic picture at all (see here) believe so for a variety of reasons. The most obvious reason for saying the US is not in Bible prophecy is that there is no explicit mention of any nation (in the geopolitical sense) that matches our description in the prophetic texts concerning the last days. While a number of doomsday scenarios could pose an existential threat to the United States, none (in my opinion) threaten to so suddenly upend the traditional global order as the Rapture of the Church. The threat has been gravely underestimated in books like the “Left Behind” series and other popular eschatological material.

Underestimated not because of the percentage of how many American’s are raptured up, but by what immediately follows.

Assessment

Speculation abounds as to what the percentage will be for those believers who will be caught up. Some think as low as one percent while others think as high as twenty-five percent. The percentage then has become sort of a measuring stick by which we could determine whether or not the US survives the Rapture event and go on to play a major role in the 70th Week of Daniel. I tend to think around ten percent of the US population will be raptured, but even then that means around thirty million Americans (by current population standards) would instantaneously disappear. But regardless, the how is less important than the why in regards to our potential role in the Tribulation.

What is of utmost importance is realizing that once the Rapture does occur, the restraining ministry of the Holy Spirit is also removed (2 Thess. 2:6-8).

This does not mean that the Holy Spirit disappears from the earth altogether. The Holy Spirit is omnipresent and cannot, not be everywhere. The Holy Spirit was on the earth prior to the day of Pentecost and He will be here after the Rapture event. What it means is that the mystery of iniquity (or lawlessness) that is active in the world today, is at the same time actively being hindered by God’s power through His people. We are salt and light to a world that will quickly be engulfed in darkness once the Rapture occurs. But after the Rapture, lawlessness will no longer be hindered. Lawlessness will go unchecked and the world will quickly move in one accord under the direction of Satan who will rapidly form that final world system.

Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.” Luke 4:5-7

The idea that the world first experiences the Rapture then sees the unleashing of the four horsemen matches perfectly with what Paul is shown concerning the order of events. The man of sin cannot be revealed until we (the body of Christ) is removed. This is why we see John record the Revelation in the manner which he does (Rev. 1:19):

The vision-the things John has seen

The seven letters to the seven churches-the things which are in John’s day until now

The heavenly throne room and subsequent events-the things after this (after the churches)

Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, “Come and see.” And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer. Revelation 6:1-2

The first horse out of the gate is the man of sin riding the white horse. He seemingly takes advantage of a crisis already in progress. How long the crisis lasts between the Rapture and his arrival is unknown. We know that the actual 70th Week does not start at the Rapture, but with a covenant that is signed between Israel and the nations (Dan. 9:27) which he will ultimately violate halfway through. The man of sin will then become the son of perdition once Satan physically possesses him at the midway point. At present time, it is impossible for us to know who this man will be. We only know what the Bible says about him. However, his arrival likely comes at a point of great turmoil. So if the world’s agenda is currently being hindered by God the Holy Spirit through the body of Christ on the earth, what does our removal then signify?

A total lack of restraint. Unchecked restraint will result in turmoil and conflict and crisis.

It should mean that the floodgates of hell are opened and there will be a short period of chaos immediately following the removal of the body of Christ (the Church) from the earth. This will force the power structures of the former world-order (pre-rapture) to realign themselves post-rapture. The old saying is that nature abhors a vacuum, and will fill itself with anything to avoid a vacuum. If the church’s removal provides this vacuum, you can guarantee that something will fill this void. This is where I believe the spirit of antichrist becomes the strong delusion that sweeps over the world.

Logically what comes with turmoil and change, is conflict. If we look back at World War 1 or World War 2, we see that the geopolitical realities changed significantly before and after each of these events. After the Rapture will be no different. The world will be forced to realign itself. IF the US is not impacted at all by the Rapture, then the current power structure (or the world order) will not need to change. But we do see great change coming because the next horse unleashed is the rider on the red horse.

When He opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, “Come and see.” Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword. Rev. 6:3-4

As I’ve stated in a previous brief’s, that any belief system outside of true, orthodox Christianity, is from Satan. While the varying religions and worldviews may have different angles, forms of worship, terminology, etc., they are all varying corruptions of the truth. The reality then is that there is only one God, who is expressed in three Persons, who are all of the same divine essence and being, co-equal in power, and willingly submitting to each other to eternally be in one accord, according to Scripture. Anything that deviates from that is from Satan.

In other words, it could have just as easily been Hinduism or Shintoism that was violently rampaging across the Middle East and Europe as it is Islam. Any view that is not true biblical Christianity, is fiercely (when confronted) opposed to the truth because of what it reveals about its corrupted nature. Without the Holy Spirit to keep the world at bay, the world will tear itself apart trying to establish a new dominant religious position.

When He opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come and see.” So I looked, and behold, a black horse, and he who sat on it had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine. Rev. 6:5-6

When peace is taken from the earth, what naturally follows is economic disparity and starvation. The rich and powerful have the means to keep their wealth and sustenance, while the rest do not. With starvation comes death and pestilence.

When He opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, “Come and see.” So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth. Rev. 6:7-8

The world population is currently at 7.5 billion people. While we can’t know the percentage of those taken up at the Rapture of the Church, we can know (roughly) how many perish during the first four Seal judgments. A fourth of that is around 1.875B people. This is an unprecedented number and aside from the Noahic flood, we don’t have anything else that can really compare to a number that large perishing in such a short period of time. That number alone will force major geopolitical alignments that will bring about the final world system headed by the Antichrist.

Conclusion

I think that the biblically reasonable answer to the question of whether the United States is in Bible prophecy is that we are, but not in the way we hoped or expected. Although we are not Mystery Babylon, we will be essential to its creation. Every gentile power that has come about ultimately befriends and then betrays either the nation of Israel (and Judah) or the Jewish people. The nations will have to answer for this as well (Matt. 25:31-46). After the Rapture, the US will cease to look or be anything of like what it is today. I expect the US to become exceedingly anti-Semitic much the same way Europe rapidly became anti-Semitic in the early 20th century.

The Jews will have to flee the United States back to Israel just as they did Europe between WWI and WWII. This is because the antichrist spirit will feed that supernatural hatred to a people who have been given over to a strong delusion. Satan’s intent then is to gather the Jews into one place so to set a snare for destruction (Matt. 24:15-21, 2 Thess. 2:3-4). If Satan can destroy Israel, Jerusalem, the temple, and kill the Jews, then God’s prophetic word will fail thus nullifying God’s plan for Satan. At least, that is his plan it seems.

Likewise, if the US ceases to be the world superpower, some other nation(s) will rise up to fill that void such as the revived Roman Empire. What’s left of the US will be incorporated into that final world system. Without the constraints of the Judeo-Christian constitution, the US will dissolve relatively quickly. It would seem that either some catastrophic event occurs before Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38-39), or after the Rapture, the US sees no intrinsic need to come to the aid of Israel. Either way, we are not willing to come to her aid.

The antichrist and the false prophet simply do not have enough time left to build the world forces it needs to dominate the planet in only seven years. They will have to rely on taking from what’s left of the major world powers through some advanced digital system (AI perhaps) to impose its iron-fisted will over the entire planet. Granted, even that time will be very brief as the forces from the east will eventually rise up to challenge his (antichrist’s) authority (Rev. 16:12).

Unfortunately, the US will be amongst the nations who finally assemble at the Valley of Megiddo and try to challenge the physical return of Jesus to the earth (Zech. 12:3). They nations armies are quickly and effortlessly destroyed as Jesus brings His armies from heaven to watch Him single-handedly destroy the world’s system (Dan. 2:44-45). Unlike earthly empires and kingdoms, Jesus does not have any weaknesses. He is the infinite source of all wealth, all power, and does not rely on consensus to conduct His will, because He and the Father, and the Spirit are One in purpose. To this, Revelation 19:15-16 states-

Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Even so, Maranatha!

0 notes

worldnewsforall2017 · 7 years ago

Link

Follow-up to Judicial Watch Deep State Panel

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) empowered the deep state. The OGP is primarily funded by Omidyar (Civil Society) and Soros (Open Society – CS and OS are the same thing, and there's a ton of overlap in what they fund.) The OGP has grown rapidly since its inception in 2011 and has 70 member countries. Each country has a National Plan, co-governed and implemented by CS and external stakeholders (in theory, the public – most of whom have never heard of the OGP. Hmmm….)

The OGPs multilateral partners include the World Bank, Bank of Asia, InterAmerica Development Bank, the UN and USAid.

The OGP allows globalists to infiltrate governments from the inside. One of the first things they address in a National Plan is FOIA processes, so they can control the flow of information. Another primary focus is the Extractives Initiative (EITI,) whereby they gain control of resources. www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/eiti/FACA/upload/CommunicationsPlanVer15.pdf They are in every agency, controlling procurement, contracting, and digital infrastructure. .

After thousands of research hours, it's impossible to see the OGP as anything other than a transition tool to one-world governance.

Here's an interesting 2011 Dept. of State Background Briefing on the OGP. The "two Senior Administration officials" were literally HIDDEN from view and referred to only as "Senior Administration Official One" and "Senior Administration Official Two." Why so much secrecy? One attendee wondered the same thing:

"QUESTION: (Inaudible) why – has it struck anyone as odd to a briefing about open government and transparency on background? Why is that necessary?

MODERATOR: There will be another briefing at – are you doing another briefing afterwards that’s on the record? I think you are. No? No. I think not.

QUESTION: Just so you understand this, we have to explain why officials are speaking anonymously. And if anyone is going to write – at least I do, and I think others do as well. But to write a story talking about U.S. officials anonymously plugging an Obama initiative for open government just – it makes – I’m sorry. It just makes —

MODERATOR: Because the event is happening tomorrow. The President will be on the record with his counterparts tomorrow. This is a preview, and it’s a preview by senior Administration officials below the level of the President. So the President will speak on the record tomorrow, but this is a preview.

QUESTION: But how does that advance the very goals you’re discussing, which are transparency and accountability. The two people who have spoken to us are not identified, so there’s no transparency about who they are. And because they speak under a cloak of anonymity, there is no particular accountability of what they’ve said. I mean, I cannot believe that you – this didn’t occur to anybody, and I don’t think the fact that the President’s going to announce it tomorrow is a very persuasive argument for not disclosing who you are." www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/eiti/FACA/upload/CommunicationsPlanVer15.pdf

Hopefully, that astute attendee is alive and well. If you read the full DoS OGP Briefing, you'll notice they focus on "the public" as "stakeholders." In reality, the stakeholders are corporations/investors who use the OGP to drive policy, regulations and/or legislation. This gives them a "leg up" on their competition, mitigates their risk, and increases their profits and control. Definitely NOT a free market system.

The OGP is also a useful framework for understanding the geopolitical landscape. Putin refuses to join the OGP. Same with Assad. Same with Maduro. Same with Erdogan. Orban withdrew Hungary from the OGP last December – in part because he did not want to release all government data to CS. Now, Hungary is being accosted for clamping down on NGOs that spew CS/OS rhetoric and a Soros-funded university. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Another example: The globalists wanted Ukraine's democratically-elected president, Yanukovych, (who Manafort advised – a position that conceivably makes him a globalist target, along with Presidents Trump and Putin) to join NATO, the EU and to cease friendly relations with Russia. They activated a a plethora of Soros/Omidyar-funded NGO's that manipulated Ukrainian citizens to rise against Yanukovych. Russia offered to aid Ukraine, and, concerned that Yanukovych might accept, the globalists brought in USAid (Omidyar-funded) and replaced Yanukovych with one of their own. They are trying the same thing in Venezuela.

Why is NO ONE talking about the OGP? My biggest fear is that it's an effort to make us think "all is okay" if Soros, DWS, the Clintons, etc. are removed from the equation. That is NOT the case. Even now, there's state, local and federal pending legislation that's very beneficial to their goals. We need to be on top of that and let our "representatives" know they WILL be voted out of office if they don't start representing US. BTW, the same people behind all of the above also "own" our elections – www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6od9g5 /why_trumps_election_integrity_commission_is/. )

President Trump has "tabled" the OGP assessment process which suggests he's aware of its inherent problems. Shining a light on the OGP and its "little brothers," The Council of State Governments and The National League of Cities, helps to determine "who's who." For example, Judicial Watch recently published an article about College Park, MD City Council allowing non-citizens to vote. Relevant? See for yourself. www.collegeparkmd.gov/search.php?as_filetype=pdf&q=council+of+state+governments&Submit=Search&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.collegeparkmd.gov

Between the NGOs, the media, and a network that spans the globe, these people have a machine. We are being WAY too complacent. If you've read this far, THANK YOU! People like you will reverse the trajectory of our country.

#world news

0 notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 7 years ago

Text

An incredibly important paper on whether data can ever be "anonymized" and how we should handle release of large data-sets

A Precautionary Approach to Big Data Privacy, a 2015 paper by Princeton computer scientists Arvind Narayanan (previously, Joanna Huey and Edward Felten (previoulsy), is the best look at this subject I've yet read, and should be required reading.

Differential privacy is hard to do right, though: famously Apple flubbed one of the first wide-use applications for it.

The authors set out a set of clear guidelines for how to turn their recommendations into policy, and give examples of how existing data-releases could integrate these principles.

https://boingboing.net/2018/02/01/high-dimensional-data.html

17 notes · View notes

worldnewsforall2017 · 7 years ago

Link

Follow-up to Judicial Watch Deep State Panel

The OGPs multilateral partners include the World Bank, Bank of Asia, InterAmerica Development Bank, the UN and USAid.

After thousands of research hours, it's impossible to see the OGP as anything other than a transition tool to one-world governance.

"QUESTION: (Inaudible) why – has it struck anyone as odd to a briefing about open government and transparency on background? Why is that necessary?

MODERATOR: There will be another briefing at – are you doing another briefing afterwards that’s on the record? I think you are. No? No. I think not.

#world news

0 notes