VIDEO: Pfizer CEO Brags About Getting Briefed By the CIA, FBI On ‘The Spread Of Misinformation’ – Nwo Report

Comment by tonytran2015: Is it legal for CIA and FBI contact and communicate with a private pharmaceutical company on non-criminal matters? This looks like a power grab like when FBI’s J.B. Comey judged and exonerated H. Clinton.

https://nworeport.me/2021/11/11/video-pfizer-ceo-brags-about-getting-briefed-by-the-cia-fbi-on-the-spread-of-misinformation/

Why is the CIA involved with Pfizer?

Source:

Speaking to the globalist Atlantic Council in a virtual meeting, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla admitted that his corporation is “getting briefings from the CIA and FBI” on the “spread of misinformation” relating to COVID-19 vaccines.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla strangely admitted that the major pharmaceutical corporation is getting briefed on “the spread of misinformation” of COVID-19 vaccines from “the CIA and FBI” while speaking to the globalist Atlantic Council.

After explaining to the council that Pfizer was being “targeted” by “dark organizations,” Bourla said that they “were getting briefings from the CIA and FBI” about cyber attacks. “But also about the spread of misinformation,” he added.

Bourla then went on to say people who spread vaccine “misinformation” are “criminals.”

This comes as the Biden regime is considering extending their COVID-19 vaccine mandate to small businesses, as National File previously reported. (READ MORE: Pfizer Board Member Reveals New ‘AY.4’ COVID ‘Delta Plus’ Variant, Which Could Require Even More Vaccines)

“OSHA left open the possibility of expanding the requirement to smaller businesses,” reported the Associated Press. “It asked for public comment on whether employers with fewer than 100 employees could handle vaccination or testing programs.”

As America begins vaccinating children, former Republican presidential candidate and expert neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson called the COVID-19 injections “a giant experiment,” adding that vaccinating America’s kids “makes no sense whatsoever” due to the extremely low mortality rate when it comes to coronavirus infection among children.

Global Blueprint Exposed: The Takeover of All Genetic Material on Earth – © blogfactory

https://blogfactory.co.uk/2021/11/02/global-blueprint-exposed-the-takeover-of-all-genetic-material-on-earth/

By Patrick Wood Global Research, November 01, 2021Technocracy.news 24 October 2021 Introduction In 1992, the original UN Convention on Biological Diversity was conducted in parallel with the Agenda 21 Conference under the name of the UN Conference on Economic Development (UNCED). Both were held in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, and were sponsored by the United Nations Environmental […]

Global Blueprint Exposed: The Takeover of All Genetic Material on Earth

US lawmakers play with the idea of social media ID verification, following proposals from other countries – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/10/29/us-lawmakers-play-with-the-idea-of-social-media-id-verification-following-proposals-from-other-countries/

A draft discussion bill hints at future proposals.

Source: Tom Parker

Anonymity is often vital for those who want to speak truth to power and expose government wrongdoing. We only need to look to the US government’s treatment of National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to see how far governments will go to target those that don’t have the shield of anonymity when they reveal information that governments want to hide.

And in 2021 governments have renewed their efforts to end online anonymity by proposing and introducing new laws that force users to hand over their identity documents (IDs) to use social media and by framing online anonymity as something that needs to be eradicated.

While most of these government efforts to end online anonymity have been widely covered in the media, America’s recent proposals have managed to stay out of the spotlight.

But despite flying under the radar, these proposals do exist in a discussion draft that was introduced by Congressman John Curtis in May.

The discussion draft aims to “require a provider of a social media service to verify the identity of users of the service, and for other purposes” and prevent anyone from creating a social media account without verifying their identity.

Not only does this discussion draft intend to make ID verification mandatory for anyone who wants to create a social media account but it also wants to force social media companies to report users to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) whenever they suspect users have submitted fake IDs. Additionally, it contains a requirement for the FTC to submit these reports to the United States (US) Department of Justice (DOJ).

Social media companies that fail to comply with the terms outlined in this discussion draft will be targeted under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) which allows the FTC to define “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” impose additional requirements on companies to prevent these acts or practices, and introduce “significant civil penalties for rulebreakers.”

While the discussion draft does include an exception for social media providers that have annual revenues of less than $1 billion for three consecutive years, the large social media platforms where the vast majority of the more than three billion total social media users are registered will be forced to verify the real identity of their users under the discussion draft’s current requirements.

Alternative social media platforms will only be shielded from this requirement if their revenues stay below the annual $1 billion threshold and if the discussion draft becomes law, this limit could be encroached upon and lowered, as has happened many times before with other laws.

We obtained a copy of this social media ID discussion draft for you here.

This discussion draft is the latest of many attempts by local and federal US governments to erase online anonymity by forcing online service providers to verify the identity of their users. Some of the most notable attempts include:

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) (1996) which was signed into law on February 8, 1996 and prohibited the “the knowing transmission of obscene or indecent messages” to minors but allowed online service providers to protect themselves from prosecution by implementing age verification measures. The provisions related to age verification were ultimately struck down after the Supreme Court declared them an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) (1998) which was signed into law on October 21, 1998 and required website operators and content providers to prove that they had restricted children’s access to “harmful” content by requiring the use of a credit card, a debit card account, an “adult access code,” an “adult personal identification number, a “digital certificate that verifies age,” or “any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology.” However, it was blocked from taking effect by multiple courts which declared it unconstitutional on First Amendment groups. After more than a decade of ongoing legal challenges, the Supreme Court killed the law by refusing to hear further appeals.

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (1998) which was signed into law on October 21, 1998 and requires websites and online service providers to obtain “verifiable parental consent” if they’re “directed to children under 13” or they have “actual knowledge” that they collect personal information from children under 13.

Louisiana’s Online Age Verification Law (2015) which required publishers of material that’s deemed to be “harmful to minors on the Internet” to age-verify every internet user before providing access to the material. The law was permanently blocked by a federal judge in 2016 for violating the First Amendment.

While this discussion draft is likely to ultimately fail for First Amendment violations, many other countries that don’t have these same First Amendment protections are pushing similar proposals that would end online anonymity.

UK lawmakers recently bolstered their calls for a social media ID system in the wake of the murder of Member of Parliament (MP) David Amess, despite it being unknown whether the murder suspect had previously targeted Amess on social media.

In Australia, the federal government recently released an exposure draft for an Online Privacy Bill that would require citizens to verify their age by submitting official ID in order to create social media accounts, days after Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison called for social media platforms to be held responsible for anonymous users.

And in Canada, the proposed Senate Bill S-203, the “Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act,” would essentially mandate age-verification for all sites that host user-generated content by making these criminally liable whenever an underage user engages with sexual content on their service unless they implement “a prescribed age-verification method.”

If these governments succeed with their push to end online anonymity, protest and dissent are likely to be one of the first things they attempt to crush. Australia’s authoritarian response to citizens who protest or oppose the government’s COVID response shows just how far governments will go to target those who dissent on social media. And if social media accounts were forcibly linked to real ID, it would be even easier for governments to use these tactics against their critics.

In fact, Lin Junyue, one of the early theoretical designers of China’s all-encompassing social credit system which links real IDs to a wide range of online data, has actually touted the ease with which it allows governments to crush dissent as one of its main benefits.

“If you had the social credit system, there never would have been the yellow vests,” Lin Junyue said in an interview with European public service channel ARTE. “We would have detected that before they acted. One could have foreseen…these events would not have happened. It is one of the great advantages, the social credit system.”

Not only do these proposals to end online anonymity threaten citizens’ rights to protest and criticize the government but by forcing social media platforms to collect real IDs, they also create a huge privacy risk. Numerous vaccine passport systems which impose similar ID collection requirements have already exposed the personal data and IDs of millions of people. Forcing social media companies to collect real IDs would create an even larger honeypot that could be leaked or breached.

Even more concerning is that these attacks on online anonymity serve as a gateway to a dystopian digital ID system that would give governments even more control of people’s digital activities. COVID passports are already paving the way for such a system in the physical world by making access to certain premises and events contingent on showing a vaccine passport. Forcing users to associate their social media accounts with real ID would make it easy for governments to expand this control to the digital realm and dictate which websites and online services people are allowed to use.

Although the First Amendment will likely shield US citizens from this government encroachment, for now, the persistent push to end online anonymity shows that many Western lawmakers are more than happy to ignore these significant privacy and civil liberties concerns so that they can more easily control and monitor their citizen’s digital lives.

‘Information terrorism’ is being conducted in Australia, according to new book that targets powerful Israeli lobby — RT Op-ed

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/538727-book-lyons-dateline-jerusalem/

‘Information terrorism’ is being conducted in Australia, according to new book that targets powerful Israeli lobby

Chris Sweeney
Chris Sweeney is an author and columnist who has written for newspapers such
as The Times, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Record, along with
several international-selling magazines. Follow him on Twitter @Writes_Sweeney
‘Information terrorism’ is being conducted in Australia, according to new book that targets powerful Israeli lobby

We all like to think that reporting is free from political
pressure. However, a new book claims that Australia’s media landscape
has been infiltrated by ‘the pro-Israel lobby’ and it may have infected
their whole system.

Australia is not where you would expect an information battle to be waged between Israel and Palestine. But a new book by one of Australia’s leading journalists, John Lyons, titled ‘Dateline Jerusalem: Journalism’s Toughest Assignment’, alleges that a veritable content massacre has occurred.

“The Israel lobby in Australia is the most powerful lobby in the world in terms of the impact it has within its own country,” are the words of a senior officer in the Israeli army, recounted in John Lyons’ book.

The
award-winning author has spent the last 40 years working in Australia’s
media for several of its biggest newspapers, including a spell as a
Middle East correspondent.

The shock of the revelations is how blatant they are; this is no subtle campaign to stifle pro-Palestinian coverage.

One
young journalist tells of a sub editor shouting at her in the newsroom
for using the P-word. He bellowed, as cited in the book: “Palestine does not exist. You have to remove it from the article. What kind of journalist are you, using the word Palestine?”

The
Sydney Morning Herald even opened an investigation in 2019 into their
crossword as on a particular day it contained the clue: “The Holy Land”.
The answer was Palestine. The newspaper’s editor then issued an apology, for the answer not being Israel.

The same publication also refused to print the final column
by their Jerusalem based correspondent, Ed O’Loughlin, as he concluded a
five-year posting in May 2008. At the time, that journalist commented: “There
has been an intensive lobbying effort to skew the Herald and The Age to
a pro Israeli position and I’ve had nothing but support until now.
That’s why I am surprised they pulled my final piece.”



Also on rt.com
How on earth did Britain allow the gender gestapo at Stonewall to set the agenda on trans issues?

In his book Lyons also writes
of a reporter, Hamish McDonald, who was handed a warning before
agreeing to join The Saturday Paper, part of mogul Morry Schwartz’s
stable. McDonald was set to become the world editor and was allegedly
told, “There’s one touchy subject – Morry is very sensitive about
stories about Israel. He would not like to see Israel under attack.”

Further
tales recounted Israeli diplomats and community leaders all applying
pressure to dictate the tone Australians are fed via their media.

The
most prominent group is the Melbourne based Australia/Israel &
Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), which one person in the book even
describes as “issuing fatwas” against opponents.

In response to the allegation, AIJAC released on Monday a backlash against Dateline Jerusalem and set the tone immediately by referring to the short book, as a ‘booklet’. They describe it as “a polemic rooted in a conspiracy theory” and go on to say there is no mention that “Israel made three credible offers of statehood to the Palestinians that were rejected – in 2000, 2001 and 2008”.

Another part of AIJAC’s takedown of the book is, “In
fact, there is no reference to any Palestinian terrorism anywhere in
the booklet” apart from a small mention of an article in an Adelaide
newspaper, along with its confirmation that it has never promoted the
“expansion of Israeli settlements”.

The AIJAC seems to be
trying to throw mud at the book and hope some of it sticks. They nitpick
over small editorial details and trash the ‘booklet’, and wade into
political arguments, not media ones.

The problem is the number of
journalists and editors quoted in the book, who supply concrete examples
of where they were either steered to present the pro-Israeli view or
ended up being forced out of the industry for not doing so.

The
default position that groups like the AIJAC use as collateral is they
are defending themselves against anti-Semitism, but that relates to an
inaccurate and conceited equivalency of Judaism and Zionism. One is a
religion, the other is a political ideology.



Also on rt.com
‘This is totalitarianism’: Doctor ejected from his US hospital for not being jabbed vows to keep fighting for medical freedom

While Australia appears to be the most blatant location for this
takeover of public messaging, it’s also happening in the UK. Over 500
scholars have signed a petition
addressed to the University of Glasgow after it labelled a
peer-reviewed article in its postgraduate magazine as “hate speech”.

The university’s politics department has also reportedly demanded the
right to vet a talk on Israeli/Palestinian politics after a Danish
professor was booked to deliver a presentation, before extra conditions
were placed on him following pressure from the Jewish student body.

Shutting
out either side of the debate is unacceptable, but judging by the
mounting evidence and accounts, there is only ever a pro Israeli agenda
being applied. As in their battle for statehood, the Palestinians are
far less powerful and influential in media warfare.

The scenario
continually seems to be of the Israeli lobby complaining they are being
unfairly represented, which is very possibly true on some occasions,
but it seems a tall order to believe it’s always the case. There never
seems to be a Palestinian lobby being exposed.

Lyon’s book revelation that Australia is in the eye of the storm is pretty worrying.To
most observers, the land down under didn’t have much of a part to play,
so their media may have been viewed as balanced or benign. Now it seems
the exact opposite is true.

Another damning fact is all the
people speaking in the book are attacking the media, an industry they
are part of, so it’s even more credible as it’s not a self-preservation
society.

Being spoon-fed manipulated messaging is something we all
need to guard against. The biggest lesson is, if the Israeli lobby can
assume stealth control of the agenda out of the way in Australia, where
else have they done the same?

Matrix? Misdirection? Cringe? Zuckerberg’s presentation of future life in ‘metaverse’ sparks fear, loathing, marvel and mockery — RT USA News

Comment by tonytran2015: The cancer of unchecked monopolying corporate fascism has Metastasized.

https://www.rt.com/usa/538774-zuckerberg-facebook-metaverse-future/

Mark Zuckerberg’s ambitious vision of developing a virtual
“metaverse” – and renaming the parent of Facebook, Instagram and
WhatsApp “Meta” to match it – has everyone scratching their heads and
wondering what it all means.
Zuckerberg announced the rebranding on Thursday, during the company’s hour-long Connect 2021 virtual event, describing it as “the next evolution of social connection.” Though the technologies to make the “metaverse” happen are still in development and may be years off, the name change is effective immediately.



Also on rt.com
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg announces company is rebranding as ‘Meta’

Meta won’t erase Facebook – or Instagram or WhatsApp – but denote
the parent company in charge of all three, much as Alphabet is the
company that owns Google and YouTube, for example.

There seemed to be some confusion on that account online, however, as people who have been targeting Zuckerberg as an enemy of “our democracy” immediately jumped to the conclusion it was an attempt to hide or change the subject.

“I don’t know if Zuckerberg knows but changing your name doesn’t help avoid legal culpability,” tweeted Zephyr Teachout, a progressive Democrat from New York, adding that Meta was “a perfectly fine name for one of the dozen social networks that will be leftover after the break up.”

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) said it reminded her of “a
cancer to democracy metastasizing into a global surveillance and
propaganda machine for boosting authoritarian regimes and destroying
civil society… for profit!”

Dan Pfeiffer, former Obama aide and current board member of Good Information Inc, called Zuckerberg’s ideas “embarrassingly stupid” with no one at Facebook daring to tell him so.

Others
made fun of the rebrand, and for a while ‘feta’ was trending with memes
involving Zuckerberg and the famous Greek cheese. The fast-food chain
Wendy’s joked they would change their name to ‘Meat.’

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted out a dictionary definition of the term in English, saying that “meta” means “referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.”

His
company later added the only META they will recognize is their Machine
[Learning], Ethics, Transparency and Accountability team.

Once you get past the memes and mockery, however, Zuckerberg’s presentation revealed an ambitious plan for what he called “embodied internet,”
a combination of virtual and augmented reality that will be experienced
through motion sensors, smart glasses and technologies that have yet to
be invented.

RT

One of the company technicians he spoke with mentioned that the project will require “a dozen major tech breakthroughs” over the coming years. They were already working on things like “photorealistic avatars,” showing a concept video that looks like a deepfakers’ dream come true.

RT

This also quickly drew comparisons to the Matrix, a virtual world from the 1999 sci-fi dystopia.

Others found the notion of a virtual reality fine by itself, but lamented that Facebook is the “wrong company” to run it. Fast Company called it “a vast platform for misinformation and disinformation,” citing as proof the conspiracy theories such as “Russian meddling” in US elections and the claim the January 6 “insurrection” was planned there by “domestic terrorists.”

“I believe that metaverse is the next chapter for the internet,” Zuckerberg argued, saying it would deliver the ultimate promise of technology, “to be together with anyone… teleport anywhere… create and experience anything.”

A future where with just a pair of glasses you’ll be able to step beyond the physical world.

Matrix? Misdirection? Cringe? Zuckerberg’s presentation of future life in ‘metaverse’ sparks fear, loathing, marvel and mockery

Since founding Facebook in 2004,
Zuckerberg has managed to monetize social relationships and create a
massive media empire. Thursday’s presentation suggests something far
more ambitious: a vision of humanity’s future beyond the constraints of
physics, even as the political forces he has himself supported continue to paint a target on his back.



Also on rt.com
Zuckerberg’s rebranding of Facebook to ‘Meta’ won’t call off the attack dogs: Our Democracy demands total submission

Facebook has ruined human social interaction and now Zuckerberg’s ‘metaverse’ wants to destroy whatever’s left — RT Op-ed | MCViewPoint

https://mcviewpoint.com/2021/10/24/facebook-has-ruined-human-social-interaction-and-now-zuckerbergs-metaverse-wants-to-destroy-whatevers-left-rt-op-ed/

Literally faced with the dilemma ‘Who’re you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’ metaverse users will have the vision in those ‘lying eyes’ corrected with a few tweaks to their Oculus headset.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/DARPA-facebook-metaverse-zuckerberg-privacy-trap/

Helen Buyniski

is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter

Having bulldozed most real-life relationships already, Mark Zuckerberg is now moving to strip away what’s left of our expectations of privacy by dragging us kicking and screaming into an online padded cell called the ‘metaverse’.

The emergence of all-too-perfect whistleblower Frances Haugen, backed by a bevy of PR valkyries declaring Facebook a profit-seeking hive of hate, might suggest to some that the social network’s goose is cooked. But while the government and censor-happy NGOs delusionally battle over how best to carve up Facebook’s carcass, CEO Mark Zuckerberg is busy leveling up, leaving the wreck of real-life social interaction behind while he crafts a new virtual holding pen for the millions daily glued to Facebook and Instagram.

Under fire politically for putting profits before users’ welfare – an attribute that describes every corporation in existence – Facebook’s m.o. has been clear since the platform’s early days. The platform exists to slurp up as much data as physically (and metaphysically) possible before the user realizes he’s being used and stops logging in. Now that there’s no longer any doubt about that in the public eye, Zuckerberg is free to go full Manifest Destiny, reaching into users’ minds in search of ever more data to pimp out.

They trust me, the dumb f**ks,” Zuckerberg acknowledged confiding in a friend back in the platform’s early days, when Facebook was still busy wrenching social norms in the direction of full disclosure. But after more than 15 years of data leaks and other ‘accidental’ info spills, users no longer have any expectation of privacy. This places them in an ideal frame of mind to join the Facebook CEO’s metaverse. After all, if you’re going to pilot a virtual version of yourself around a virtual world, wouldn’t you want to tell the software as much about you as possible? Just to get the avatar right, of course.

Facebook has all but reduced online socializing to a choice of five reaction emojis, actively discouraging the expression of meaningful sentiment. Anything that forces the reader to think for more than a few seconds, let alone type out a response, reduces the potential of a “like” or reaction GIF. Users are thus encouraged to fill their timelines with as many banalities as possible. In the metaverse, the user won’t even have the option to display a complex emotional state – their avatar will presumably come with a fixed set of expressions, and the more time spent jacked into the system, the less likely the user will be able to actually feel emotions they can’t display online. Imagine forgetting what it’s like to feel nostalgic for pre-Facebook social interaction – you can bet the metaverse won’t offer that option.

The metaverse will also deal the killing blow to logic and reason, already dangling by a thread after Facebook taught users to outsource their critical thinking to dodgy ‘fact-checkers’. This insidious process began in earnest following the 2016 election and has left users unable to judge new information for themselves. Rather than teach critical thinking – or at least a healthy suspicion of whatever they read on the internet – Facebook and its partners in crime promised an angry Deep State that they’d protect Our Democracy™ itself by walling off controversial ideas. Multiple studies conducted since then have shown users actually becoming more trustworthy of fake news that fact-checkers haven’t gotten around to labeling. Oops!

The platform’s rogue’s gallery of ‘fact-checkers’ include the Atlantic Council (a warmongering think tank sponsored by the likes of NATO and Lockheed Martin), Snopes (run by a prostitute-loving cretin and his overweight cat), and Lead Stories (a group of embittered CNN employees determined to crush conservative viewpoints). They will be the gatekeepers of Zuckerberg’s metaverse, where their opinions, presented as facts, will become even more effective at crowding out reality.

Literally faced with the dilemma ‘Who’re you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’ metaverse users will have the vision in those ‘lying eyes’ corrected with a few tweaks to their Oculus headset. One need only think of the entire avenues of discussion that have been cut off since 2016 by newsfeed censorship and deplatforming alone to get a chill thinking of how easily ideas (and the people behind them) can be memory-holed in Zuckerberg’s digital playground.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Pfizer has power to ‘silence’ governments and ‘maximize profits’, consumer group alleges – ABC News

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-20/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-contracts/100553958

That was the key criticism made by Public Citizen, a consumer rights group, which published a report containing leaked Pfizer contracts with the
United States, United Kingdom, European Commission, Albania, Brazil,
Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic and Peru…

Google’s Wokeness Is A National Security Threat – Banned Hipster

https://bannedhipster.home.blog/2021/10/16/googles-wokeness-is-a-national-security-threat/

Remember this from 2018?After a dozen employees quit in protest, Google has reportedly decided not to renew its contract for military drone initiative Project Maven

Google’s relationship with the Department of Defence triggered a civil war inside the company and cast doubt on Google’s commitment to its old motto: “Don’t be evil.”

As part of an effort called Project Maven, Google provides the Pentagon with artificial intelligence technology that speeds up the process of analysing video images. Google’s participation in the program, which critics contend could help increase the accuracy of drone-missile strikes, sparked controversy both inside and outside of Google.

As was said at the time, you’ve never heard a single criticism from these Silicon Valley Leftists about Google working with China. Or Israel, for that matter. That would get shut down immediately. What has happened is that the Silicon Valley culture has become anti-American. They do not see themselves as Americans – and many of them are not, in fact, American. The whites at Google share the same hatred of traditional America as Jews; they share the class bigotry of the rest of the Professional Managerial class, and their religion – as Yarvin memorably described it, Progressive Idealism – is virulently anti-Christian. LGBT is the new Priest class of the PI religion, as Jews were to the Boomer Liberalism of their parent’s generation. In the same way these PI’s would attack Christians for being anti-LGBT, but never Muslims for being anti-LGBT, the point obviously isn’t anything specifically to do with LGBT, it is an attack on the American people, most of whom are Christian at least culturally. Google is a major, major supporter of mass immigration. We also know that Google actively censors non-Leftist viewpoints. Google worked closely with the Obama administration to stage coups and “Color Revolutions” in Arab countries targeted by Israel. Google is inherently a political company, and it is an extension of the Democratic party. The Pentagon is seen by these people as still a part of “Red America,” thus they stage these strikes about working with them. Now we have the public resignation of DoD’s Chief Software Officer, complaining that the United States has already lost the “AI War” to China, that various DoD computer security is “kindergarden level” and specifically calls out Google for their 2018 refusal to work with DoD. Pentagon Official Says He Resigned Because US Cybersecurity Is No Match for China

Chaillan also told the FT that US national security was being compromised by Google’s refusal to work with the Pentagon on AI.

Google stopped working with the Pentagon in 2018 after 12 employees quit over a project where Google helped the Pentagon make software that could improve the accuracy of drone strikes.

In China, Chaillan said, private cyber and AI companies were at Beijing’s beck and call.

Larry Romanoff’s article, How Does China Evaluate and Choose its Leaders? Understanding China’s University System, details a system China uses that could not be more different than America’s.

When you meet some who has entered the civil service in China’s central government, you can rest assured you are speaking to a person who is not only exceptionally well educated and astonishingly knowledgeable on a broad range of national issues, but is in the top 0.1% of a pool of 1.5 billion people. China’s government officials are all highly-educated and trained engineers, economists, sociologists, scientists, often at a Ph.D. level. We should here consider that the Chinese generally score about 10% higher on standard IQ tests than do Caucasian Westerners. When we couple this with the Chinese process of weeding out all but the top 0.1% from consideration, and add further the prospect of doing the weeding from a pool of 1.5 billion people, you might expect the individuals in China’s Central Government to be rather better qualified than those of most other countries. And they are.

Aside from serious scientific universities such as MIT or Stanford, America’s most elite universities, such as Harvard and Yale, are saddled with Affirmative Action, Jewish nepotism, anti-White and anti-Asian hidden quotas, and an education that is specifically anti-American. The “Wokeness” at the schools educate the new elites to hate America and Americans, and anti-whiteness and anti-Americanism is built into the programs. It’s been noted that China’s leadership is full of engineers and scientists, while America’s leadership is full of lawyers. China’s leadership class is Chinese themselves and pro-China. America’s leadership class is increasingly not American and increasingly openly anti-American.

In China, Chaillan said, private cyber and AI companies were at Beijing’s beck and call.

China is aiming to becoming the leading AI superpower by 2030, and a March report from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence said the US was “not prepared to defend the United States in the coming artificial intelligence (AI) era.”

Chaillan said it didn’t matter whether the US spent three times as much as China on defense because it was being allocated to the wrong areas, the FT reported.

Who, ultimately, are the Chinese engineers at Google loyal to? The Indians? The Pakistanis? It’s fairly obvious where the loyalties of Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergei Brin lie. This is what we mean when we talk about a Zionist-occupied government.At the very core are dedicated Zionists, and around that periphery are increasingly non-Americans, and all are ideologically anti-American. Similarly, the Soviet Union was controlled by a coalition of Jews and minority ethnic non-Russians, such as the Georgian Stalin. We have the exact same ruling class here in America.

The group says it hopes included in Google’s new AI policy will be the promise to never use consumer data in military operations or for mass surveillance, as well as a pledge never to develop military AI applications.

Of course, this is absurd. Google is nothing but mass surveillance. Google has, in fact, assisted China in setting up their censorship and surveillance infrastructure. Google has no issue with working with totalitarian regimes, what Google has a problem with is America and Americans. Google and other companies like Facebook should be nationalized. Regulation and anti-trust is not enough. The rest of America needs to begin the process of isolating and containing the Silicon Valley Leftist cultural plague. We do not have to be ruled by a cadre of purple-haired, facially pierced, non-binary “activists” that hate us and want us dead.

Contrast this with the Western system where politicians most often have no useful education and no relevant training or experience, and in fact political leadership of any Western nation has no credential requirements whatever, certainly not in education, experience or intelligence.

One of Canada’s recent Prime Ministers, Stephen Harper, had only a minor undergraduate degree and his only job was working in a corporate mail room when he joined the rump of a political party, became the party leader and eventually the Prime Minister. His successor, Justin Trudeau, was a school teacher whose father had been Canada’s Prime Minister many years prior, and whose only credential appeared to be a talent for working the political system. In Canada’s province of Alberta, a recent Premier was a former television news reporter, renowned more for being an habitual drunk than for intelligence or governing ability. US President George Bush was renowned for boasting that he never read any books, being nearly as painfully unintelligent as Ronald Reagan whose only credential was having been a C-class movie actor.

None of these men had a CV sufficient to qualify as a manager of a 7-11 and none demonstrated signs of either intelligence or governing ability, yet a ludicrous and absurd political system permitted them to become the CEO of nations and provinces.

An examination of the backgrounds and credentials of politicians in any Western nation will reveal mostly a collection of politically-ambitious misfits strikingly lacking in redeeming qualities. It is not a surprise that Western politicians are ranked lower than prostitutes, used-car salesmen and snakes in terms of both morality and trustworthiness. In one recent US public poll, the politicians of both houses of the entire US Congress were rated as less popular than cockroaches and lice. (1) It is accepted as a truism that all Western politicians will, after being elected, freely abandon the commitments made to the people immediately prior to being elected, political duplicity and cunning accepted as normal in all Western societies. This is so true that one US commentator recently remarked that “Of course, all politicians need to lie, but the Clintons do it with such ease that it’s troubling”. Such a thing is unheard of in China. Outright lying to the people would be fatal, but in the West dishonesty in politicians is accepted without a murmur.

America has already lost to China. What America needs to do is draw inward and deal with the parasite class that has caused so much damage in the last few decades. A country whose military is obsessed with transgenderism is not a serious country. A country who takes moral cues from pierced non-binary glorified web designers is not a serious country. Google had signaled its anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-white attitudes through their infamous “doodle” since the very beginning of the company. It’s a globalism for everyone except for Americans.