CERN To Deploy Advanced A.I. To Protect Secret Network

Advertisements

‘Minority Report’ AI to collar suspects before they do the crime

'Minority Report’ AI to collar suspects before they do the crime

© Getty Images
In a storyline lifted straight from the Tom Cruise film ‘Minority Report,’ China is planning to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict future crimes and prevent them from happening.
Police are teaming up with technology companies to develop artificial intelligence which they say will help them identify and apprehend suspects before crimes are even committed, according to The Financial Times.
“If we use our smart systems and smart facilities well, we can know beforehand…who might be a terrorist, who might do something bad,” Li Meng, China’s vice minister of science and technology, said.
The Guangzhou-based facial recognition company Cloud Walk created a system that tracks data on people’s movements and behavior to assess their chances of committing a crime.
“For example, someone who buys a knife won’t raise suspicion,” a company spokesperson explained to Lei Feng Network. “But if the same person later buys a hammer and a bag, then this person’s suspicion rating will rise.”
Minister Li said crime prediction will become an important use for AI technology in the government sphere.
“Predicting crime will become an important function of the government,” Li said.
“If we use intelligent systems and intelligent facilities to know in advance who may be terrorists, who may be guilty of crime, it will make the police case more efficient, society becomes more harmonious.”
Earlier this month, Beijing announced plans to have a $59 billion artificial intelligence industry by 2025, Reuters reported.

Source

Progressive Professor Urges White Male Students to Commit Suicide During Class

Noel_Ignatiev

The Jew Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev

By Ivan Fernando

“If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing. Slavery, genocides against aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the inquisition, the holocaust, white males are all to blame! You maintain your white male privilege only by oppressing, discriminating against and enslaving others!” Professor Noel Ignatiev, a tenured professor at Massachusetts College loudly proclaimed to his class last Monday, his final teaching day before retirement.
The good Professor’s sound and reasonable words resonate with every enlightened and progressive mind. They are indisputable and no one can debate them. They should not be controversial in the slightest, yet remarkably a few far-right extremists object to Prof. Ignatiev’s advice. The Professor however, reported receiving “a standing ovation” from his “largely white and middle class students.” Prof. Ignatiev’s critics say that openly calling for students, even if they are white males, to kill themselves was inappropriate and perhaps excessive. In this article, we will look at the other side of the issue.
Fortunately, I was able to arrange a telephone interview with the professor. I felt he deserved a chance to tell his side of the story. A side that our radical and racist far-right media refuse to report. The transcript of our dialogue follows below:
Ivan Fernando: I want to thank you for agreeing to this interview. It’s a pleasure to be able to talk to an esteemed academic of your calibre and impressive credentials.
Prof. Ignatiev: Thank you. I am happy to talk with you today.
Ivan Fernando: I understand that a few people objected to your advice to your white male students on your last day of teaching. Why do you think that is?
Prof. Ignatiev: I chalk it all up to white supremacist attitudes. The goal of destroying the white race is simply so desirable, it boggles the mind trying to understand how anyone could possibly object to it. Those who object to my advice, knowingly or perhaps unknowingly, are themselves white supremacists. They wish to go on oppressing and exploiting other races and maintaining their own privileged positions of power. That is the conscious and sometimes subconscious motivation of all of my critics. That is why they object to destroying the cancer of humanity known as the white race. That ugly disease, which dares to call itself a people and a culture.
Ivan Fernando: All whites, or just white males should commit suicide?
Prof. Ignatiev: Obviously, all whites need to be destroyed, but why not start with white males? They are behind most of history’s greatest atrocities. Besides, some of the brothers like to bang white women. Eventually white women can breed out, but my feeling is that if you are a white male, you should kill yourself now. If you are a thoughtful person, with a social consciousness who considers himself white, you will consider suicide. It’s the right thing to do. Let me read you an e-mail that I received today from a xenophobic white-supremacist.
“I’m not a racist, in fact I am an avowed anti-racist, I just think calling for all white males to kill themselves is extreme. When you say that every white person is bad or advocate violence against them, it sounds almost as though you are becoming a kind of racist yourself. You say it is good for everyone to be proud of their culture. Blacks, Mexicans and everyone else. Why should whites be the only exception? For the sake of argument, supposing whites have wronged many other races historically. Should we punish people today for their ancestor’s sins? Today minorities have affirmative action and generous social welfare programs to protect them. Can we really say that most whites are racist now or that the government is? Should Blacks who descend from Blacks who owned or sold slaves feel guilty and be punished for ancestral wrongs?”
Ivan Fernando: Wow. (laughter)
Prof. Ignatiev: I know, mind boggling. What an absurd and irrational line of reasoning. They just throw logic out the window entirely. It’s impossible to dialogue with these people. Notice the blind and irrational hatred behind every word! No one has committed violence, genocide and dispossession on the level of white males. The whole purpose of white male culture is to perpetuate their privileged status and continue their oppression of non-whites. Whites don’t have a culture like other races in which traditions and customs are preserved as an expression of a common identity. White culture is an entirely economic and social culture which is about shutting out other people deemed “non-white” as a means of preventing their social and economic advancement! In other words all of ‘white culture’ so-called, stems from hatred of the other, unlike other ethnicities which do have cultures. White people are a disease, they are parasites! They don’t deserve to live!
Ivan Fernando: Yes, Absolutely, could you give us some examples though for our readers, regarding the racist nature of white culture.
Prof. Ignatiev: Columbus Day, whites literally celebrate the genocide of non-whites, delighting in it. Thanksgiving Day. Whites honour the Pilgrims who gave Native Americans blankets deliberately infected with small pox to kill their babies. Yeah, it is about being thankful, thankful that whites butchered most Native Americans so they could steal their land and establish a racist society based on white male privilege! Christmas is also racist. Should I go on?
Ivan Fernando: Please do.
Prof. Ignatiev: The idea of celebrating the birth of a middle eastern Semite, yet portraying him as a Nordic white person in visual art is not only racist, but obscene and Anti-Semitic! Of course there is Santa Claus as well. Who is he? A bearded old white man! He lives at the North Pole, it doesn’t get whiter than that! Who works for Santa? Of course elves, diminutive, perhaps slightly brown people, with pointed ears who have been enslaved by a privileged white male. Christmas and white culture disgust me. I hate this time of year so much. I hate going outside and seeing Christmas trees or Christmas lights. They should be banned! A Christmas tree is just one notch above a burning cross in my opinion!
Ivan Fernando: What do you suggest that people do for the holidays. Especially, minority families who may feel pressured to celebrate Christmas, or other European racist holidays? Is there an alternative?
Prof Ignatiev: A great Black Professor in the 60’s came up with Kwanza, a way to celebrate African heritage. Hopefully a Mexican-American equivalent will soon be developed as another Christmas alternative.
Ivan Fernando: I am sorry, but we are starting to run low on time. Let me ask you, have you suffered any attacks personally, or received any threats for your advice to your students during your final class?
Prof. Ignatiev: (laughter) No. I haven’t. In fact all the responses I have received, except for a few e-mails have been positive. I feel vindicated. Perhaps we are finally coming to an awareness in this country that the cancer known as the white race must be obliterated. Especially in the form of white males. Obama is president, and I think there is an excellent chance that we will never have a white male president again. I think we are witnessing the breaking of the back of the white male power structure. We will still have residual white males that must be dealt with, but I am confident that we’ve won. Eventually, I would like to put white males in concentration camps and work them to death just like they’ve done to everyone else. When they are all dead we can throw a party and dance around their corpses!
Ivan Fernando: I certainly hope so. I hope you are right. If so it is the dawning of a new era of peace and progress. I apologize Professor, but we are out of time now. Thank you again, and it was a pleasure speaking with you.
Prof Ignatiev. The pleasure was mine. Thank you Ivan. I love Diversity Chronicle by the way, I recommended it to all my students. Keep up the good work!
Ivan Fernando: You are very kind Prof. Ignatiev. Thank you again and Good night.
Prof. Ignatiev: Good Night.
Copyright © 2013 Diversity Chronicle All Rights Reserved.

Source

But Never Forget

poster1903(2)[1]

Are the Russians tired of hacking their way into people’s computer? :) :) Russian cybersecurity company releases free antivirus software globally

Ähnliches Foto
MOSCOW, July 26 (Xinhua) — Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab Tuesday launched its free version of antivirus software Kaspersky Free to “secure the whole world” amid celebration of its 20th anniversary.
“We believe that everyone has the right to be free of cybersecurity fears,” Eugene Kaspersky, chairman and CEO of Kaspersky lab, wrote on their website.
In announcing the software via a blog post, the company founder said they have been working on this release for a good year and a half, and the software would roll out globally across the next few months.
Kaspersky Free was immediately available in the United States, Canada, and several Asia Pacific countries on the heels of being piloted last year in the Russia-Ukraine-Belarus region, in China and also in the Nordic countries.
The company said this free software will “positively affect the quality of protection of all users,” since an increase of installations would bring more numbers to big-data bases for better machine learning.
According to the company’s website, over 400 million users are protected by its technologies and they help 270,000 corporate clients protect what matters most to them.

Source

Legal migration: Council agrees mandate on new rules to make the EU attractive for highly qualified workers

Comm EU Flag
On 26 July, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) agreed on a mandate for negotiations on a draft directive covering entry and residence conditions for highly qualified  workers coming from third countries (blue card directive). Based on this mandate, the Council presidency will start negotiations with the European Parliament.
“The purpose of the Blue Card is to attract highly qualified workers to Europe. The number of specialists and economic transformers in the world is limited and the competition for them is strong. Making them choose Europe will strengthen our competitiveness and contribute to economic growth”, said Andres Anvelt, minister of interior of Estonia, which currently holds the Council presidency. “A common European residence and work permit that will facilitate and make conditions more flexible is necessary if we want to compete with the American green card or the Canadian point system”,  minister Anvelt added.
The reform of the blue card directive aims at making it more attractive for highly qualified workers from third countries to come to work in the EU. It will also aim to improve their mobility between jobs in different member states. It would replace the existing blue card directive, harmonising further conditions of entry and residence and improving the situation of highly qualified workers by the following means:
  • providing more inclusive admission criteria, including by reducing the salary threshold that member states can set for the admission of third-country nationals and establishing that member states may apply a lower minimum salary rule also to recent graduates, as well as by reducing the minimum length of the work contract to six months
  • making the procedures faster, in particular by introducing the possibility to apply simplified procedures for recognised employers
  • establishing that member states may allow EU blue card holders to engage in parallel in self-employed activities or professional activities other than their main activity
  • facilitating intra-EU mobility, including by reducing the minimum period of legal residence in the first member state
  • extending its scope to include non-EU family members of EU citizens and in certain cases, also beneficiaries of international protection
The European Commission presented the proposal for a new blue card directive in June 2016 as part of the EU’s efforts to develop a comprehensive migration policy, including in the area of legal migration.

Source

Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War

By Antony C. Black, July 19 2017

Overview of Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor’s Book

Of the many myths that befog the modern political mind, none is so corrupting of the understanding or so incongruent with historical fact as the notion that the wealthy and the powerful do not conspire.
They do.
They conspire continually, habitually, effectively, diabolically and on a scale that beggars the imagination. To deny this conspiracy fact is to deny both overwhelming empirical evidence and elementary reason.
Nevertheless, for the astute observer of the ‘Great Game’ of politics, it is an unending source of wonderment to stumble across ever more astounding examples of the monstrous machinations of which wealthy and powerful elites are capable. Indeed, it is precisely here that authors Docherty and Macgregor enter the fray and threaten to take our breath away entirely.
Thus, the official, canonized history of the origins of the First World War, so they tell us, is one long, unmitigated lie from start to finish. Even more to the conspiratorial point is the authors’ thesis that – and to paraphrase a later Churchill who figures prominently in this earlier story – never were so many murdered, so needlessly, for the ambitions and profit of so few.
In demolishing the many shibboleths surrounding the origins of the ‘Great War’ (including ‘German responsibility’, ‘British peace efforts‘, ‘Belgian neutrality’ and the ‘inevitability’ of the war), Docherty and Macgregor point the finger at what they argue is the real source of the conflict: a more or less secret cabal of British imperialists whose entire political existence for a decade and a half was dedicated to the fashioning of a European war in aid of destroying the British Empire’s newly emerging commercial, industrial and military competitor, Germany.
In short, far from “sleepwalking into a global tragedy, the unsuspecting world”, Docherty and Macgregor contend, “was ambushed by a secret cabal of warmongers” originating not in Berlin, but “in London”.
I must confess at this juncture to a certain bias in granting credence to such a striking thesis, this if only on general principle alone. After all, one straight look at present day political reality is to look square into the maw of Orwell’s nightmare. Moreover, three decades of independent journalism have led me to conclude not only that virtually nothing of what is presented as ‘news’ is remotely true, but that the conventional writing and presentation of history itself is as phoney as a three dollar bill. Still, one does demand a credible argument or two. Let’s look at a few of those contained in ‘Hidden History’.

The Players

Before launching pell-mell into the argumentative labyrinth it is apropos that we first sketch the central cast of characters of this grim story.

Cecil Rhodes (Source: Wikipedia)

In the beginning there was Cecil Rhodes, the prime minister of Cape Colony but who, the authors remind us, was “in reality a land-grabbing opportunist” whose fortune had been underwritten in equal parts “by brutal native suppression and the global mining interests of the House of Rothschild”. Rhodes had, apparently, long talked of setting up a secret ‘Jesuit-like society’ in aid of furthering the global ambitions of the British Empire. In February of 1891 he did just that enlisting the services of his close associates, William Stead, a prominent journalist, and Lord Esher, a close advisor to the British Monarchy.
Two others were soon drawn into the inner circle of the clandestine group: Lord Nathaniel (Natty) Rothschild of the famous British and European banking dynasty, and Alfred Milner, a brilliant academic and colonial administrator who would quickly become the organizing genius and iron-willed master of ceremonies of the group.
These central four would later be joined by: Lord Northcliffe, the owner of ‘The Times’, who would complement Stead in propagandizing and softening up the British public for war with Germany; Arthur Balfour and Herbert Asquith, two future British Prime Ministers who would provide the needed parliamentary influence; Lords Salisbury and Rosebery who brought an additional wealth of political connections to the table; and Lord Edward Grey, he to whom, in the final analysis as British Foreign Secretary in 1914, it would fall to hammer the final nail in the coffin of European peace.
Of particular importance was the addition of Prince Edward (soon to be King Edward VII) who, despite his playboy image, was, in fact, an astute political operative whose frequent international social forays provided the perfect cover for helping to forge the, often secret, military and political alliances between Russia, France, Britain, and Belgium.
This core Praetorian Guard then extended its tentacles to all reaches of the British (and eventually, international) power hierarchy by vigorously recruiting its ‘Association of Helpers’, the myriad of lower down bureaucrats, bankers, military officers, academics, journalists, and senior civil servants, many, as it turns out, hailing from Balliol and All Souls Colleges, Oxford.
And, too, the legendary Churchill, liberally inflated with his own bombast and well lubricated with Rothschild money, would rise to take his anointed place amongst the war-hungry secret elect.

Early Adventures

The first foray of this elite cabal played out in South Africa with the deliberate fomentation of the (2nd) Boer War (1899 – 1902). Gold had been discovered in the Transvaal region in 1886 and British imperialists were determined to grab it. After a number of failed machinations by Rhodes himself to topple the Boers, the secret elite was dealt an ace when Alfred Milner was appointed high commissioner for South Africa. Seizing the moment, Milner, without passing Go, proceeded straight to war and, in his infamous scorched earth policies and adamant demands for unconditional surrender, demonstrated the general martial philosophy that would later be deployed against Germany.

A map of the British Empire as it was in 1898, prior to the Second Boer War (1899-1902). (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Following the defeat of the Boers, Milner & Co. (Rhodes had died during the ‘peace negotiations’) quickly penetrated the main organs of British imperial governance including the Foreign, Colonial, and War Offices. Arthur Balfour went one better by establishing, in 1902, the Committee for Imperial Defence (CID). The latter proved especially significant in helping to almost completely bypass the British Cabinet in the years, months and days leading up to August, 1914. Indeed, Balfour would prove to be one of only two permanent members of this all-important imperial institution; the other being Lord Fredrick Roberts, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and close friend of Milner. It was Roberts who would later appoint two tragically incompetent hangers-on, Sir John French and Douglas Haig, to their First World War posts overseeing the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers.
The year 1902 also saw the establishment of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty. Britain had long feared for its Far East empire at the hands of Russia and sought to bolster Japan as a counterweight. The alliance bore fruit in the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese conflict in which Russia was dealt a decisive defeat. Always with the long-term goal in mind, however, i.e. war with Germany, Milner et al adroitly switched bait and immediately began wooing Czar Nicholas II resulting in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. In the same period (1904) Britain – with the crucial assistance of Edward VII –  broke its near thousand-year enmity towards France and signed the Entente Cordial with its former rival.
During this same time frame (1905) a more or less secret agreement was made with King Leopold II allowing Belgium to annex the Congo Free State. This was, for all intents and purposes, an alliance between Britain and Belgium; one which was, over the next decade, to be continually deepened with numerous (mostly secret, meaning withheld from the British Parliament) bilateral military agreements and ‘memorandums of understanding’, and which unequivocally put paid to any notion of Belgium being some sort of ‘neutral’ party in the upcoming conflict with Germany.
The core alliance was now complete, i.e. Britain, Russia, France and Belgium, and all that was needed was to secure the fealty and obeisance of the British colonies. In aid of the latter Milner convoked The Imperial Press Conference of 1909 which brought together some 60 newspaper owners, journalists and writers from across the Empire who hobnobbed with another 600 or so British journalists, politicians and military figures in a grand orgy of war-mongering propaganda. The martial message was then duly delivered to the unwitting colonial multitudes. The success of the Conference could be seen most visibly in Canada where, despite the extreme divisiveness of the issue, the nation would eventually send more than 640,000 of its soldiers to the killing fields of Europe, this all on behalf of a tiny handful of British imperialists.

The Moroccan ‘Crisis’

Docherty and Macgregor duly remind us that renowned historian Barbara Tuchman, in her Pulitzer-Prize winning book, ‘The Guns of August’, “made it very clear that Britain was committed to war by 1911 at the latest.” Indeed, preparations for war had proceeded apace since at least 1906.
Still, 1911 marked a turning point when the secret elite first made bold in attempting to ignite war with Germany. The pretext was Morocco. Now, truth to tell, Britain had no direct colonial interests in Morocco, but France and Germany did. By this time the cabal in London – with Edward Grey as Foreign Minister – had inducted a key French minister, Theophile Declasse, into their confidences and were able to engineer what was essentially a false flag operation in Fez. France then followed this up with an army of occupation. Germany posted a minimalist response by sending a small gunboat to Agadir whence the entire British press – reflecting Britain’s ‘deep state’ interests – went into high hysteria condemning German ‘threats to British sea-lanes’ etc. The fuse to war was only snuffed out in the final hour when France’s (recently elected) socialist Premier, Joseph Caillaux, initiated peace talks with the Kaiser. War with Germany would have to wait.
In the meantime, Britain, under the direction of its secret mandarins – i.e. almost entirely beyond Parliamentary review or approval – continued their preparations for war. To this end, for example, Churchill, who by 1911 had been appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, redeployed the British Atlantic fleet from Gibraltar to the North Sea and the Mediterranean fleet to Gibraltar. Simultaneously, the French fleet was moved from the Atlantic to cover Britain’s absence in the Mediterranean. These maneuvers were all strategically aimed at Germany’ North Sea navy. The pieces on the global chessboard were being positioned.

Plaque marking a bank as a member (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
In France the leftist peacenik Caillaux was, in 1913, replaced as Premier with one of the British elites very own ‘helpers’ in the person of Raymond Poincare, a right-wing, rabid Germanophobe. Poincare quickly acted to remove his anti-war ambassador to Russia, George Louis, and substitute him with the revanchist Declasse. Meanwhile in America the secret cabal, acting largely through the Pilgrims Society and through the Houses of Morgan and Rockefeller, machinated to have an unknown but pliable democrat, Woodrow Wilson, elected over the publicly-controlled central bank advocate, President Taft. It was from this lofty perch that the Anglo-American ‘deep state’ launched the US Federal Reserve System, a private central bank dedicated from the get-go to funding the war against Germany.

The Balkan Sting

The simple tale repeated ad nauseam regarding the circumstances surrounding the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, so Docherty and Macgregor tell us, contains as little veracity as, say, the official version of the assassination of JFK two generations later. Indeed, the structural similarities between the two – from the virtual total stand-down of security through to the clear evidence of state complicity (in this case, starting in Serbia, but leading straight to London) – are remarkable. Suffice to say that there was a domino-like chain of events that then ensued – it’s just that the events weren’t driven by base human instincts and ineluctable forces beyond all human control as is commonly proffered, but rather by calculating minds and conspiratorial design.
Thus, immediately following the assassination, there was widespread international support for Austria-Hungary which was widely perceived as the aggrieved party. Nevertheless, the usual suspects, having helped stage the murder in the first place, were able to deftly turn the propaganda tables against both Austria and Germany by means of an ingenious ruse. Having secretly obtained the contents of the ‘Note’, which contained Austria’s (reasonable under the circumstances) demands for Serbian contrition, the secret cabal were able to gain direct input into the crafting of the ‘Serbian Reply’. The ‘reply’, of course, was designed to be unacceptable to Austria. Simultaneously, France’s President, Poincare, decamped to Moscow to assure the Czar and his generals that, should Germany act to uphold its alliance responsibilities towards Austria, France would back Russia in launching a full scale European war. France, naturally, knew that England – or rather its elite imperial clique – was similarly committed to war. It was during this opportune moment, in fact, when Grey and Churchill connived to purchase the Anglo-Persian Oil Company so securing the necessary oil supplies for the British navy.
All the while Kaiser Wilhelm and Chancellor Bethmann were conspicuous in being the only statesmen genuinely seeking peace. Their subsequent vilification by hordes of appropriately housebroken historians thus rings with the same Orwellian tone as the present-day establishment demonization of nations and individuals resisting the American Imperium.

Grey Hits It Home

Having contrived to fan the flames of a local Balkan fire into a general European inferno, British Foreign Minister Grey and Prime Minister Asquith subsequently deployed every dirty trick in the diplomatic playbook to vitiate any possibility of peace and, instead, to guarantee war.
On July 9th, for instance, the German ambassador to London, Prince Lichnowsky, was repeatedly reassured by Grey that Britain had entered no secret negotiations that would play into war. This, of course, was an outright lie. On July 10, Grey then deceived Parliament into believing that Britain had not the slightest concern that events in Sarajevo might lead to a continental war. Meanwhile, the Austrian Prime Minister, Berchtold, was similarly deceived by all three Entente governments that their reaction to the ‘Note’ would not go beyond a diplomatic protest. However, by the 3rd week of July all of these self-same governments did an about-face and declared a complete rejection of Austria’s response.
On July 20, as already noted, the French Prime Minister, Poincare, went to St. Petersburg to reaffirm their two nations’ respective martial agreements. On July 25, Lichnowsky arrived unannounced at the British Foreign office with a desperate plea from the German government imploring Grey to use his influence to halt Russian mobilization. Incredibly, no one was available to receive him. Russia had, in any case, secretly begun mobilization of its armed forces on July 23, while, on July 26, Churchill quietly mobilized the British fleet at Spithead.
None of the foregoing, of course, was subject to democratic oversight. As Docherty and Macgregor put it,
“As far as the [British] public was concerned, nothing untoward was happening. It was just another summer weekend.”
On July 28th, Austria, despite not being in a position to invade for another fortnight, declared war on Serbia. Meanwhile, the British Foreign Office began to circulate rumours that German preparations for war were more advanced than those of France and Russia even though the exact opposite was, in fact, the case. Matters were quickly racing beyond Wilhelm’s control.
On the 29th, Lichnowsky again begged Grey to prevent a Russian mobilization on Germany’s borders. Grey’s response was to write four dispatches to Berlin which post-war analysis proved were, in truth, never sent. The dispatches turned out to be merely part-and-parcel of the elaborate charade to make it look as if Britain (and, specifically, he, Grey) was doing all it could in the effort to avert war. Also on the evening of the 29th did Grey, Asquith, Churchill, and Richard Haldane meet to discuss what Asquith called the ‘coming war’. Docherty & Macgregor once again here emphasize that these four men were virtually the only people in Britain privy to the impending calamity, i.e. not the other Cabinet members, not the members of Parliament, and certainly not the British citizenry. But then, they were its architects.
On the 30th, the Kaiser wired Czar Nicholas a heartfelt appeal to negotiate the prevention of hostilities. Indeed, Nicholas was so moved by Wilhelm’s plea that he decided to send his personal emissary, General Tatishchev, to Berlin to broker a peace. Unfortunately, Tatishchev never made it to Berlin, having been arrested and detained that very night by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sazonov, who, as ‘Hidden History’ cogently evinces, had long been an asset of the secret cabal in London. Under sustained pressure from senior members of his military Nicholas finally relented and on the afternoon of the 30th ordered general mobilization.
The official announcement of Russian mobilization effectively closed all doors to peace. The Germans, realizing that they had been set up, and also realizing that they were about to be attacked on two fronts – from the west by France, and from the east by Russia – finally, on Aug. 1, ordered their own mobilization; tellingly, the last of the continental powers to do so. Here, however, Germany made a crucial tactical error: it elected to follow up its mobilization with a formal, honour-bound declaration of war on France. By doing so it fell deeper into the trap laid by Grey & Co. who had, all along, machinated to do everything possible to guarantee war without, however, being seen to have officially caused the war.
Still, Grey had one last card to play in order to convince both a war-leery Cabinet and House of Commons to abandon their common sense and plunge headlong into a full-scale pan-European war. For just as the myth of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ would, in a later era, serve to advance American imperial aggression, so here did the myth of poor, benighted little ‘neutral Belgium’ carry the banner for British imperialism.

The Speech That Sealed The Fate of Millions

On the 2nd of August, 1914 Prime Minister Asquith convened a special Cabinet meeting to discuss the (manufactured) crisis. Though the Cabinet was in no mood to countenance British involvement in a continental war, they soon found themselves pressured and hedged about by revelations of a ‘web of [military and political] obligations, which they had been assured were not obligations, [and] had been spun around them as they slept’. Moreover, Grey crucially kept from them the fact that the German ambassador, Lichnowsky, had, only the day before (Aug. 1), specifically offered to guarantee Belgian neutrality. Indeed, Grey’s deception might never have come to light but for the fact that Chancellor Bethmann exposed the offer in the Reichstag on Aug. 4th.
With the Cabinet sufficiently brow-beaten, confounded – and deceived, i.e. Asquith, without Cabinet approval or knowledge, had already issued orders for the mobilization of the Army and Navy –  it now only remained to hoodwink Parliament. And so, on Aug. 3rd, Sir Edward Grey took to the pulpit and began what was to be an epic panegyric to the follies of peace and the virtues of war. Here too the audience was not particularly receptive, but the sermon soon gathered force.
Having first set the tone by announcing that peace in Europe ‘cannot be preserved’, Grey then moved on to a stunning series of lies and misrepresentations concerning the intricate and long-formulated military agreements between England, France, Russia and Belgium. According to Grey, they didn’t exist. But what of the dense skein of diplomatic agreements? There were no such agreements, there were no such entanglements. Parliament was ‘free’ to vote its conscience, to exercise its democratic mandate. Just as long, of course, as it didn’t vote for peace.
All of the foregoing was, in any case, mere preamble to the centerpiece ploy of Grey’s speech: Belgian neutrality. That the latter was an out-and-out sham was only surpassed in duplicity by Grey’s concealment, not only from Cabinet but now from Parliament, of Germany’s offer to guarantee exactly the point under contention, i.e. Belgian neutrality. Instead, Grey produced, for dramatic affect, an emotional telegram from the King of Belgium to King George pleading for assistance. The timing couldn’t have been more perfect if it had it been deliberately designed for the occasion. Which, of course, it was. Also pre-planned were the post-sermon affirmations in favour of war by the various opposition party leaders. They had all been vetted and brought onside by Churchill prior to the day’s session. Only Ramsay MacDonald, head of the Labour Party, swam against the well-orchestrated tide of ‘inevitability’ that was the constant and unerring motif of Grey’s martial peroration.
The day’s session ended without debate; Asquith had not allowed any to occur, though he had been pressured by the Speaker of the House to reconvene later that evening. In between Grey sealed the deal, i.e. war, by firing off an ultimatum to Germany demanding that it not invade Belgium even though he, Grey, knew that such an invasion had already begun. As Docherty and MacGregor phrase it, this was a “masterstroke”. War could not now be avoided. And though the night session witnessed a vigorous and substantive debate which largely demolished Grey’s stance, it was all for nought. At the appointed moment Arthur Balfour, “former Conservative Prime Minister and a member of the Secret Elite’s inner circle, rose menacingly. He had had enough.” Using the full weight of his magisterial authority he condemned, ridiculed and dismissed the naysayers’ anti-war arguments as, the ‘very dregs and lees of the debate’. With the Commons thus emotionally bullied into silence, so ended the last chance for peace in Europe.

Plus Ca Change

What strikes one again and again whilst reading ‘Hidden History’ is the ring of truth that resonates from every page, from every revelation. That such a tiny, elite group of individuals, completely beyond democratic control, could determine the fate – and deaths – of millions should shock us. It should, but it doesn’t really. It doesn’t because we see the same phenomenon occurring now, repeatedly, before our very eyes. Indeed, the current state of ‘permanent war’ is, more or less, the unconscious condition of modernity itself.
Docherty & Macgregor have made a fine contribution here. They have gone beyond what David Irving so aptly labelled as the ‘court historians’, i.e. those historians essentially prostituted to elite / establishment consensus, and given us a glimpse of what it really means to write history. And if there is any lesson – or rather counter lesson – we can take from it, it is that we are doomed to repeat history only so long as we listen to those dedicated to obscuring and inverting it. In short, to those who lie to us.

Title: Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War
Authors: Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor
Publisher: Mainstream Publishing; Reprint edition (September 1, 2014)
ISBN-10: 1780576307
ISBN-13: 978-1780576305
Click here to order.
Featured image from Amazon

Source

Musk, Zuckerberg locked in public feud over future of AI

LOS ANGELES, July 26 (Xinhua) — Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk Tuesday tweeted that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s knowledge of the artificial intelligence (AI) is limited. The two tech giants have been locked in a public feud over AI.
“His (Mark Zuckerberg’s) understanding of the subject is limited,” Musk wrote on his twitter Monday after Zuckerberg blasted his warning against AI.
Musk has repeatedly expressed his concern about the potential danger of AI, regarding the technology as a threat to the human race in the future.
On July 15, when Musk attended the National Governors Association 2017 Summer Meeting held in the U.S. state of Rhode Island, he stressed AI may pose a “fundamental risk to the existence of civilization” and called again for proactive regulation of the controversial technology by the government.
However, Zuckerberg has a different view on this issue.
On Monday, while taking questions during a Facebook Live broadcast, Zuckerberg was asked for his thoughts on AI and its possible influence as a response to Elon Musk’s comments.
“I have pretty strong opinions on this. I am optimistic. And I think people who are naysayers and try to drum up these doomsday scenarios — I just, I don’t understand it. It’s really negative and in some ways I actually think it is pretty irresponsible,” he said.
In the broadcast, Zuckerberg also said AI will have many realistic applications, like saving lives through disease diagnosis and powering driverless cars, which can create dramatic improvement for human society.

Source