Thursday, May 02, 2019

Lou Dobbs: Democrats Attempting Coup D’etat Against White House

In a conversation on his Fox Business show Wednesday, Lou Dobbs accused Democrats of wanting to overthrow the government. As in “carry out an actual coup d’etat.”
Guest Byron York of The Washington Examiner told the host that House Democrats could not rely on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation to provide the basis for impeaching President Donald Trump.
In a bit of a stretch, Dobbs replied that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the House intelligence committee chairman, said Mueller should be investigated for his probe. (Schiff actually questioned whether Mueller’s probe is going deep enough into Trump’s ties to Deutsche Bank.)
“They have realized they’ve gotta do it themselves,” York said of the Democratic lawmakers. “They cannot depend on Mueller but they want to keep pursuing the president.”
“No, they want to destroy the man,” Dobbs replied in the exchange shared by Media Matters, above. “They want to subvert his administration. They would love to carry out an actual coup d’état.”
Dobbs has used the c-word previously to describe Democratic opposition to the president, like here and here.


What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico

There were 12.0 million immigrants from Mexico living in the United States in 2016, and fewer than half of them (45%) were in the country illegally, according to Pew Research Center estimates. Mexico is the country’s largest source of immigrants, making up 26.6% of all U.S. immigrants.
With President Donald Trump’s administration taking steps to reduce the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. – including through the increase of law enforcement agents at the southern border – here’s what we know about illegal immigration from Mexico.
U.S. unauthorized immigrant total declines from Mexico but is steady from other nations1The number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. illegally has declined by more than 1 million since 2007. In 2016, 5.4 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico lived in the U.S., down from a peak of 6.9 million in 2007. Despite the drop, Mexicans still make up about half of the nation’s 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants (51% in 2016).
2More U.S. border apprehensions of non-Mexicans than Mexicans in 2017There were more apprehensions of non-Mexicans than Mexicans at U.S. borders in fiscal year 2017 for the third time on record (the first was in fiscal 2014). In fiscal 2017, the Border Patrol made 130,454 apprehensions of Mexicans, a sharp drop from a peak of 1.6 million apprehensions in 2000. The decline in apprehensions reflects the decrease in the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.
3Mexicans were deported from the U.S. 245,306 times in 2016 – up from 169,031 in 2005, but down from a recent high of 308,828 in 2013. The increase over the past decade is due in part to a 2005 shift in policy that increased the chances of being deported following apprehension in the border region. Prior to that change, many unauthorized immigrants were returned without a formal deportation order.
Short-term residents decline and long-term residents rise as shares of U.S. unauthorized immigrants4Mexican unauthorized immigrant adults are more likely to be long-term residents of the U.S. As of 2016, 80% had lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years, while only 8% had been in the country for five years or less. By comparison, 52% of unauthorized immigrant adults from countries other than Mexico had lived in the U.S. a decade or more as of 2016, while 28% had lived in the U.S. for five years or less. (This analysis also slightly revises earlier estimates published by Pew Research Center.)
Want to know more about immigration to the U.S.?
Take your understanding to the next level with our short email mini-course.
Sign up now!

5Unauthorized immigrants from Mexico make up at least 75% of the total unauthorized immigrant population in five states. This is the case in New Mexico (91%), Idaho (79%), Arizona (78%), Oklahoma (78%) and Wyoming (77%). In California, Mexicans make up 69% of the state’s unauthorized immigrant population, and they numbered more than 1.5 million in 2016 – the highest total of any state.

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Ununpentium (Moscovium), used in new Spaceship Propulsion.

One more element may soon be added to the Periodic Table. On September 10, 2013, scientists reported evidence supporting the existence of element 115.

One more element may soon be added to the Periodic Table. On September 10, 2013, an international team of scientists working at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany reported that they have acquired new evidence supporting the existence of element 115. The new evidence will be reviewed by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists (IUPAC), and if confirmed, element 115 will likely be given a new name and added to the Periodic Table of Elements. Its temporary name, which is being used as a placeholder, is ununpentium.
Element 115 is one of a number of superheavy elements—elements with an atomic number greater than 104—that are so short-lived, they can’t be detected in nature. Scientists can, however, synthesize these elements in a laboratory by smashing atoms together.
In 2004, scientists from the United States and Russia first reported the discovery of element 115. Unfortunately, the evidence from that research and a few more studies that followed was not enough to confirm the existence of a new element.
Now, scientists are developing new techniques to detect the presence of superheavy elements. In an experiment conducted at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany, scientists successfully bombarded a thin layer of americium (atomic number 95) with calcium (atomic number 20) to produce ununpentium (atomic number 115). Ununpentium was observed with a new type of detector system that measured the photons that were released from the reaction. The unique photon energy profile for ununpentium can be thought of as the element’s fingerprint, the scientists say.
element115-particlecollision-580
Creation of element 115 during a particle collision of americium and calcium atoms. Image Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Dirk Rudolph, lead author of the new study and Professor at the Division of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, commented on the findings in a press release. He said:
This can be regarded as one of the most important experiments in the field in recent years, because at last it is clear that even the heaviest elements’ fingerprints can be taken. The result gives high confidence to previous reports. It also lays the basis for future measurements of this kind.
Presently, there are 114 elements in the Periodic Table of Elements. Two new elements, flerovium (atomic number 114) and livermorium (atomic number 116), were added to the Periodic Table in 2012. While elements 113 and 118 are also thought to exist, their presence has not yet been confirmed.
The next step for element 115 will be for the IUPAC to review all of the evidence to date and make a decision as to whether more experiments are needed or if the current evidence is sufficient to support the discovery of a new element. If the latter occurs, the scientists who first discovered element 115 will be asked to formally submit a new name for the element. Then, the new name will be released for scientific review and public comment. If approved, the element along with its new name will be added to the Periodic Table of Elements. Element 115 is currently called ununpentium, which is just a placeholder until its formal name is established.
The new research about element 115 was published on September 10, 2013 in the journal Physical Review Letters.
ununpentium-wikimediacommons-580
Nucleus of ununpentium (Uup) surrounded by a cloud of electrons. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
The research was supported by ENSAR (European Nuclear Science and Applications Research), the Royal Physiographic Society in Lund, the Swedish Research Council, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the US Department of Energy and the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council.
Bottom line: On September 10, 2013, an international team of scientists working at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany reported that they have acquired new evidence that supports the existence of element 115 (ununpentium). The research was published on September 10, 2013 in the journal Physical Review Letters. After the IUPAC reviews and confirms the evidence, element 115 will likely be given a new name and added to the Periodic Table of Elements.

All of this would excite only physics and chemistry geeks if not for Bob Lazar (1959- ), who introduced it to UFO lore. According to him, UFO engines use element 115 to generate anti-gravity. Various UFO nuts and wannabe scientists have taken the idea and run with it.[3] This would provide an interesting way of verifying the UFO stories told by Lazar. Should element 115 be synthesised and shown to be capable of powering anti-gravity engines, Lazar's claim would have some serious support. Obviously, given that Lazar runs a website dealing in chemicals and sales of elements, he was smart enough to pick a number higher than any element discovered at the height of his fame in order to hide it from any scrutiny; no use saying carbon or phosphorus has magical powers, as we have more than enough of that to test it.
Lazar's claims state that bismuth has "unusual gravitational properties" (this is flatly false, though it may be a misinterpretation of the relativistic effects that control the chemical properties of heavier elements) and known characteristics of Element 115 are expected to be similar (not that this matters, as the longest reported half-life of the element is 200 milliseconds). The claims further state that the element was pressed into discs, then stacked and fused into a cylinder, then milled down to form a cone, and finally sliced to form the key piece of anti-gravity fuel. Again, this is physically impossible given that the element doesn't exist in nature and has been confirmed to be as highly unstable as all the other artificially-generated elements in that region of the periodic table. A few proponents of the claim still rave that there may be a magic "island of stability" (a particular combination of protons and neutrons) that would render this element stable, but no signs of such a region of the periodic table have emerged. Some of the elements heavier than uranium possess relatively stable isotopes (on the order of thousands of years) but by the time you get to 100, fermium, even the most stable isotopes last on the order of days and it only goes rapidly down from there. Still, the island of stability is a theoretical entity that is good, real physics — but even this wouldn't help the claims made about element 115, as expected half-lives in this island are on the order of minutes and seconds, which is indeed relatively stable in a region of the periodic table where the atoms last for milliseconds or less.
If one could synthesise element 115 (specifically its predicted stable isotope) more conclusively and show it to have an incredibly short half-life and radioactive unstability (which is pretty much conclusive right now), it would show that powering any device through the use of this element would be impossible, and certainly the 500 pounds that he claimed the US government had in their possession would also be an impossible claim. Literally. As that would consist of around 4.72 × 1023 atoms, and with only 50 atoms ever made from all the collision experiments made on this subject in a decade, this would take some time for the government to procure — many times the age of the Universe, or so. 

I buy what I want


I buy what I want, far above what Wal-Mart stores and FM radio supplies.  I'm far too talented for average Wal-Mart shopper; therefore, they say "different"

You are talking about mainstream pop music - not the alternative music one can dig deep and find. You probably know where to find good music today but can’t avoid hearing popular music in public places. You are talking about the mainstream and on this account you are truly right; pop music has never been so poorly crafted and horrible to listen!
Unfortunately, when one goes out to buy something, or chances upon some music playing from a workplace radio, it is not something he or she can just turn off. Mainstream music is everywhere and the masses are programmed to listen and consume it. It is both annoying and sad.
The majority are not connoisseurs of “good” anything and do not take the time to go and find the best music from any era. They will eat at McDonald's, buy poorly crafted baked goods from Walmart and be happy drowning their food in corn syrupy low grade, sugar-filled guck. They will watch cheesy super-hero films that are 99% spectacle with lame story-lines and think what they saw was actually good. Same thing with music; most people just take what is served to them and believe it when they are told, “this is the now”. But the now has never been worse, despite all our advances in technology and production!
Digitization of music and corporate downsizing might be to blame as selling vinyl record units declined. Over the past twenty-five years corporations got rid of the A&R departments (Artist and Repertoire - those people who discovered, nurtured and signed new talent) in order to cut costs. Now they just go with the pretty face and the same five to ten producers who write and create our modern music (no wonder it all sounds the same!). Most people don’t even buy their music anymore. The masses no longer sit at home with headphones, savoring their favorite record albums.
Today the emphasis is on “cheap” and that is what you hear and see out in public. Cheap is built-in to the bland architecture of the modern Walmart and Home Depot and reflected in the plastic products we buy. Everywhere you go, people are wearing ugly aprons and looking rather sad as horrible music is played over their heads. It is what you might picture a sci-fi dystopia to look like! Everything and everyone must succumb to the “formula”.
Culture is dying and we live in a barbarous age filled with materialist consumers and robot-like workers and I blame the corporations and their lame, square-headed managers who keep lowering the bar. They only focus on money and profits and how they can manipulate the people in order to get maximal return on minimal investment.
Don’t get me wrong; I believe free enterprise is good. But is only good when it has real, not fictitious persons.
Good artists need time to develop. The greatest artists are not necessarily the youngest, prettiest faces. We have to stop selling the illusion that dancing super-models actually deserve their music career success. They are the Pat Boone's of today; they might believe themselves to be wonderful and work hard learning their choreography but they are not talented or even clever. As Keith says, corporate creations are just “wannabes”.
The good news is that vinyl and serious music collecting is making a return. In the past ten years we have vinyl record sales grow exponentially. Millennials realize that vinyl records sound better - not sterile, cold and glassy like CDs but warmer to the human ear. Good artists might be able to make a career of selling records that people can seriously listen to.
I have to agree with the answer wiki, there is better music out there. If you and others like you support it, maybe we can wrestle the music away from the corporate stranglehold.

Monday, April 08, 2019

33 Easy Speaking Hacks to Make You Sound Smarter

  1. Memorize a fact and drop it into a conversation Since all you’re trying to do is sound smarter, before you head to a cocktail party memorize a little-known fact, like Princes Charles and William will never travel on the same plane so that in the event of a crash, at least one will survive to protect the throne.
  2. Shyness is pride Even if you’re brilliant, you won’t sound that way if you present your case weakly. Don’t worry about what people are thinking about you and focus on making your point forcefully.
  3. Steer the conversation Instead of trying to fake your way through a conversation on a topic you’re clueless about, subtly direct it into an area more up your alley and go to town.
  4. Nail down “who” and “whom” It’s always funny when someone clearly trying to sound more intelligent misuses “whom.” Here’s the way to tell: just answer the question. Who did it? He did. Whom should I thank? Thank him.
  5. Memorize pi Have this one ready to go when someone says the word “pie.” Learn it to a max of 50 places; it’s long enough that no one will upstage you.
  6. Fake a British accent I say, our friends across the pond sound ever so much smarter than us Yanks. Obviously the goal here is British scientist, not Russell Brand.
  7. Cut out crutch words It’s tough to sound smart when you say “like” and “um” every few seconds. Train yourself not to resort to these crutch words.
  8. Don’t commit If you never speak, you won’t sound dumb but you sure won’t sound any smarter. Instead, hedge. Say “I’m waiting for more conclusive evidence” when pressed for your opinion.
  9. Beat around the bush When you’re talking business, hedging is also known as using jargon. With a crowd of people who aren’t in your industry, use all those acronyms and industry-speak that a colleague would get but will mystify the uninitiated.
  10. Criticize intangibles This was designed for a work environment but it applies anywhere. An easy way to sound superior is to dog other people on unquantifiable traits like motivational skills or how much they’re a team player.
  11. Fabricate statistics No one is really going to check that crazy figure you made up to back up your interesting story. If they do, just say you mixed up the magazine you got it from. Was it GQ? Or maybe it was Men’s Journal?

  1. Don’t mention your source Even if it’s completely true, you won’t sound very smart saying you got that fact you just shared from watching “Family Guy.” You don’t have to lie, just say you “heard that somewhere.”
  2. Use sound bites You don’t have to read the Wall Street Journal cover to cover every day to sound smart. Scan a few headlines from different sections before heading out the door and pretend you’re totally up-to-speed.
  3. Speak to two people Everyone agrees that if you can speak to two people well, you can do the same with 200 people. The trick here to boost your confidence and sound smarter is to find two agreeable faces in that audience of 200 and speak only to them.
  4. Learn a couple foreign language phrases The key to this hack is memorizing a few phrases in a foreign tongue. Go as obscure as possible to lower your odds of coming across an actual speaker of that language who’ll try to engage you in conversation.
  5. Read Amazon book reviews Who’s got the time to read a whole book? Use Amazon’s user-generated book reviews for inside information that makes it sound like you read what you haven’t.
  6. Ask questions With a little bit of information you can pose questions to someone else and then call them out if their answer is wrong, instantly making you look like a god among mortals.
  7. Tell people you only read The Economist This will a) impress people who always mean to read The Economist but end up reading People … and b) imply that you’ve tried every other possible news magazine and they all fell short of your high standards.
  8. You say it best … …when you say nothing at all. Tacking on a phrase like “It is what it is” to the end of a conversation just makes you sound less intelligent.
  9. Get in the last word On the other hand, there is something to be said for getting the final say. Simply repackage what others have said and put it out there with a tone that says, “and now the subject is put to bed.”
  10. Cheat Alex Trebek has been sounding smarter than contestants for years, but as Sean Connery revealed, the guy reads from a card! Use your smartphone to surreptitiously pull up a pertinent fact to contribute to a conversation.
  11. Name drop Let a famous thinker or writer give your argument weight and make you sound like you know what you’re talking about. Our personal favorite: Noam Chomsky.


  1. Say “I prefer their early stuff” Someone discussing a band you aren’t familiar with? Use this line to appear more discerning, but use with caution: the line between cool and tool here is very thin.
  2. Gesture Gesturing while speaking actually might make you smarter by helping you have better recall. Even if it doesn’t, people’s attention will be divided between your words and watching your hands and they might miss you saying something incorrect.
  3. Talk the loudest Probably because it conveys confidence, if you talk the loudest, the people around you will assume you are an authority on the subject.
  4. Speak slowly Is Jeff Goldblum smart? Just by watching his movies we have no way to prove or disprove that he is. But he comes off like some kind of cool scientist in interviews just by taking his time to say things.
  5. Master the mic If you are giving a miked-up presentation, you’ll look like an idiot if you’re holding it too close to your face or a speaker. Take a few minutes to practice the right way to use it.
  6. Remember a few quotes Winston Churchill said, “It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations. The quotations, when engraved upon the memory, give you good thoughts.” See what we did there?
  7. His or her It’s PC to say “their” when referring to one person, but it’s not really correct. It sounds smarter to say, “The owner of this sandwich should know his or her lunch is about to be eaten.”
  8. Don’t overshoot Know your limits. If you aren’t 100% sure you’ve got a grasp of that $10 word, go with something you know.
  9. Master the metaphor Sometimes when you have nothing relevant to contribute, your best option is to say something right out of left field, leave, and let your audience assume what you said must be brilliant because it couldn’t possibly be that moronic. Try, “A single Russian hair outweighs half a Pole.”
  10. Answer questions with questions Teachers do this to encourage students to find their own answers. You can do this when you have no clue what the answer is.
  11. Make up words Most people have limited vocabularies. You’ll have to assess your audience to see if you can get away with this, but if you sprinkle in a legitimate-sounding word of your own design, people will simply assume you know a word they don’t.

Sunday, April 07, 2019

RH Negative blood and the paranormal … is there a connection?

Most women will be able to tell you a little bit about what it means to be RH Negative. Most people don’t take much notice of their blood type, however when you are pregnant, one of the first things they test, is to see if your blood is RH Negative. We as humans either have RH positive or RH Negative blood. To be negative means that you don’t have a certain protein on the surface of your red blood cells. As a pregnant woman, if you are RH negative and your baby is RH positive, it can cause problems as your body could start producing anti bodies to attack the RH positive antigen in your baby’s blood. It can make them sick. Don’t I know it! My Mum was RH negative and I am positive. I was born prematurely and given a blood transfusion at birth as I was becoming ill as her body was attacking our incompatible blood types. Nowadays it is not as much of a threat thanks to the way modern medicine works and a simple antibody is given to the mother while pregnant and they are monitored closely. Aside from pregnancy, it is pretty muchthe only time that th RH negative or positive factor is significant …… or is it?

RH Negative is considered to be rare

Around 15% of the population are considered to be RH Negative. Scientific studies have indicated that without the protein in the red blood cells that people who are RH Positive have, the blood has a blue colour to it. This is why people who are RH Negative are also referred to as blue bloods.

Where does the RH Negative factor come from?

Some theories out there include that the RH negative antibody actually comes from Alien DNA and that they either interbred with humans or somehow genetically engineered us in some way. The Book of Enoch (which predates the Bible) talks about a type of angel called the Nephilim who was a watcher mating with humans and creating a type of human-angel hybrid. While they were all wiped out, some were said to survive, and this is where the RH Negative factor comes in. Some people for this reason, refer to it as the God Gene.

Scientists however believe that the RH negative blood is simply a mutation that happened some time during our evolution. It is believed that we evolved from Apes, this could have happened somewhere along the way. It was actually because of the Rhesus macaque also known as the Rhesus Monkey that we even know about these positive and negative antigens. Scientists discovered that human antigens were similar to that of the Rhesus macaque. Monkey have also shown to have comparable blood types. They are not identical to the A,B and O Blood types that we have, but there are similarities.

What does this have to do with the paranormal?

People who are ‘blue bloods’ are more prone to have a lower body temperature, higher than average IQ, higher blood pressure, red hair and a sensitivity to sunlight according to studies. That is not the only thing they are said to be sensitive in. Some people say that having blood that is RH Negative means that they have elevated intuition and a stronger connection to spirtuality in part due to it’s connection with ‘The book of Enoch’. Some have a heightened awareness of their surroundings whilst others sense things before they happen. They feel a general connection to the spiritual realm. Due to this connection and it’s religious connotations, some people believe that people who are RH negative are able to sense and identify demons (if they exist).
Quite of a lot of people who are RH Negative also seem to have another trait in common. They suffer from Night terrors or sleep paralysis. Science tells us that sleep paralysis happens when our brain wakes up before our body does. Some people however interpret this as an encounter with a negative spirit or perhaps even something else. Others again put this down to an alien encounter. People who are RH negative are also said to be more likely to be able to have out of body experiences through astral projection because they feel a connection to spiritual world and space.
A lot of people who have had ET experiences or abduction stories, seem to have a connecting value. They are often RH negative. Perhaps this is where the theory of Aliens genetically engineering blood comes into play.

Is it actually true or coincidence?

The only way to determine if any of this has any sort of merit is to look at the numbers. I put the call out on various types of social media and asked people who felt they had a physic ability or some sort of sensitivity to the paranormal to tell me what their blood type was.
Updated figures as of 8th September 2018



As you can see from the results, most of the people who have completed the survey were RH negative and the majority felt they had some sort of ability or sensitivity to the paranormal. Does this show us there is a connection? It is not solid evidence but it is still interesting to see these results. For me looking at these results, the fact that only 7 people that were RH positive answered the survey leads me to think that perhaps the survey was only completed by people who felt they either had an ability or were RH negative so it is not a reliable snapshot. It is still quite interesting to look at though. I also have thrown out the results from the sleep paralysis question at the end as it didn’t give users the option to answer no so the results for that question were flawed. The way this study was set up will never give us definitive answers. It is just interesting to see what people come up with. I am by no means saying there is a scientific connection. I am not a scientist, I am just someone asking a question to see who answers.
If you would lke to contribute to the survey, click on this link: RH Negative survey . It is one thing to make a claim, it is another to have the data to back it up. So let’s create some data!
So what do you think? Do you think your blood type has an influence on your psychic ability? Is it a mutation in our DNA through evolution or some sort of intervention from above? I actually find it quite fascinating looking into the paranormal at this level. There is more paranormal research than standing in a dark room talking to yourself.

DOES RH NEGATIVE BLOOD INCREASE ODDS OF ALIEN ABDUCTION?

Throughout mankind’s history, the accounts of visitations from a higher power, extraterrestrial beings, or mysterious forces have been immortalized and passed down through generations in song and story. Controversial details get set aside or passed over as impossible or inconsistent with the current research or evidence. However, the stories persist, and the details re-emerge in tales of greater powers, lost and unknown history and tribes of people, or secrets taken to the grave with underground groups, meetings and rituals buried in the past.
It doesn’t take long to find these kinds of tales reflected in the volumes of world religious texts, myths, and folklore:
  • Other beings, “angels” coming down to earth off the mountain or out of a cave to guide mankind and give them “gifts” and the secrets to eternal life
  • Gods descending from another dimension or world to lie with women, producing superhuman offspring
  • Mystical encounters in secluded or high places with wise entities who impart great knowledge
  • Men and women abducted, literally or inter-dimensionally, transported under a spell or beam of great light, held captive and subjected to manipulation by other beings or forces, transformed into someone or something else or left with inexplicable scars, memories or feelings.

The Greek myths alone are overflowing with such tales of a God slipping under the dark of night or the veil of a wooded forest to bed a beautiful earthly woman, luring her with a fog of unearthly pheromones in a dream or by psychic powers, leaving as mysteriously as he arrived. The child born is a demigod, a newer version of man, and equipped to carry the people into a battle or into a new age of man. A simple woman giving birth to the son of a God, creating a hero that tries to save or sometimes destroy mankind.
Other “God” visitations alter the course of mankind or the destiny of a hero that plays out over the evolution of an epoch or people.
It’s not just the Greeks – this kind of superhuman or spiritual intervention can be found in the legends and historical narratives of the Norse, Sumerians, Mayans, Egyptians, Asians, Native Americans, and ancient Pagans across the globe.
Could these stories be true? Were they really Gods, or something else?

GODS, ANGELS OR ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS?

Today, modern scientists, researchers and theorists are exploring and challenging long-held beliefs and scientific hypotheses on the origin of man and our ancestry. Included in this challenge is the question of who were these outsiders of legend that visited earth so long ago, and why do we find them in so many stories and artifacts that are unique in depicting their powers and their intermingling with humans? The stories left behind, and their relevance and influence, have been uncovered through the diligent protection of sacred texts and modern archeology. Many of the sources are well known, a part of common knowledge, while others continue to be brought to our attention via modern media.
Today’s researchers are sharing and illuminating the information in new ways. Examples include:
  • Cave paintings depicting early human life and showing what looks like common characteristics of an alien being and flying saucer, descending from the sky and interacting with the tribes’ people
  • Ancient architecture with hieroglyphs and art depicting “Gods” or other beings with power and advanced technology
  • Artifacts bearing physical characteristics that match mythical descriptions of beings from another world used in fertility and abundance rituals
  • Ancient scrolls from Asia and India, passages in myths and in the Koran or Bible that mention other beings or people at the time of man being of a different origin, “taking wives” or creating great men or kings, such as Genesis 6:4 “Here were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
  • Crop circles
  • Documented cases and witness accounts from the 15th and 16th centuries in Germany and France; the Nuremberg sightings; the Roswell crash; abductees Betty and Barney Hill; Whitley Strieber; the unidentified object crash in the mountains of Shaitan Mazar, Russia; and countless others who witnessed UFOs or were abducted
  • Government cover-ups, ex-military confessions of UFOs and secret military and government medical research on unidentified beings (“non-humans”)

The list goes on and continues to grow with time.
Contemporary truth seekers speculate that the Gods in our ancient stories are actually ancient astronauts, a species from another world. These astronauts found Earth (or created it) and through the interbreeding with apes or humans, or by genetic modification in a spaceship lab, spliced extraterrestrial genes with primate or human genes, creating a hybrid – modern man. This would mean that our ancestry is of Alien origin, a mixed breed with bloodlines that extend beyond our planet.
Some believe this interaction and experimentation continues and was the source of the evolution of man through different versions – one improving upon the other. Others believe they now live among us freely, and because of the early development of man/alien hybrid, they can naturally interbreed with humans, slowly homogenizing the bloodline and assimilating with ease.
If that’s true, then couldn’t we trace this added bloodline to the gene pool?

Saturday, April 06, 2019

Safe Spaces rejection in Wisconsin

Since Elca and Rasmussen College ended, everyone alienated me from all jurgen Habermas / Axel Honneth safe spaces in the whole freakin county and maybe Minnesota   I go like “Can I join your little safe space?” and wham! Instant Rejection or lying = if a safe space exists over there.  What possible explanation out there is there?
Me Not liberal enough? Of course!!!!

Monday, April 01, 2019

Close the southern border

President Trump took aim at Democrats on Saturday while condemning immigration laws in the U.S., doubling down on his threat to close the nation’s southern border.
In a pair of Twitter posts in the afternoon, Trump asserted that “it would be so easy to fix our weak and very stupid Democrat inspired immigration laws.”
“In less than one hour, and then a vote, the problem would be solved,” he wrote. “But the Dems don’t care about the crime, they don’t want any victory for Trump and the Republicans, even if good for USA!”

He went on to insist that Mexico needed to step in and put a stop to the incoming flow at the border.
“Mexico must use its very strong immigration laws to stop the many thousands of people trying to get into the USA. Our detention areas are maxed out & we will take no more illegals,” Trump tweeted. “Next step is to close the Border! This will also help us with stopping the Drug flow from Mexico!”
The president has repeatedly threatened this week to take action at the border and claimed Thursday that Mexico wasn’t doing anything to help prevent “the flow of illegal immigrants to our Country.” He also accused multiple Central American nations of doing “nothing.”
Trump threatens to close southern border, says Mexico and Central America are doing ‘nothing’ to stop migrantsVideo
Trump took matters a step further on Friday, tweeting that “If Mexico doesn’t immediately stop ALL illegal immigration coming into the United States through[sic] our Southern Border, I will be CLOSING the Border, or large sections of the Border, next week.”

The president’s warnings followed remarks on Wednesday from U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAlleenan, who said the border was at its “breaking point.” The agency was looking at “an unprecedented humanitarian and border security crisis all along our Southwest border,” he said.

Friday, March 29, 2019

The age of the Internet grants anyone who can access it an opportunity to learn a great deal about virtually anything in a short amount of time. Unfortunately, the published information can be incorrect. Anyone who Googles "The John Birch Society" will see this problem demonstrated almost immediately. From the slanted view given of the Society at Wikipedia to the crazed rantings of detractors, much of the information provided is either distorted or downright false. Thus, we offer this page where we seek to set the record straight.

Myth: The JBS is a radical organization full of right-wing extremists.-
Fact: The JBS is dedicated to restoring the Republic according to the vision of the Founding Fathers: limited government, individual liberty, and the rule of law. Along with America's Founders, we believe that governments are instituted to protect individual rights and liberties, and are not formed to provide for the wants of individuals. To label JBS radical or extreme for agreeing with our nation's Founders is to place that same label on them.
Myth: The JBS message is hate-filled.-
Fact: There never has been any hate in our agenda and it will never be employed as a tactic. From the outset, membership in JBS has been strictly denied to haters and, should any member adopt a racist or anti-Semitic attitude or behavior, the membership of such a person will be permanently revoked.
Myth: The JBS Founder Robert Welch called President Dwight Eisenhower a Communist.-
Fact: Originally detailing some of Pres. Eisenhower's history in a 1954 letter sent privately to a few friends, Mr. Welch's research grew over several years into a full-length book entitled The Politician (1963). Once the book was published, its very existence was ignored while critics continued to dwell on only one of several possible conclusions offered by Mr. Welch.The book provides 300 pages and 150 pages of footnotes and documentation, including covering one of Mr. Eisenhower's most immoral and despicable acts of authorizing "Operation Keelhaul"; which used American soldiers to repatriate anti-communist Poles to their certain death or torture. Read the book for yourself and discover what Mr. Welch did say and learn the role played by Mr. Eisenhower over his many years as one of our nation's military and political leaders.
Myth: The JBS considers public water fluoridation part of a Communist mind-control plot.-
Fact: While the JBS doesn't agree with water fluoridation because it is a form of government mass medication of citizens in violation of their individual right to choose which medicines they ingest, it was never opposed as a mind-control plot. If citizens want to add fluoride to their diet or daily routine, there are plentiful opportunities for them to do so. It’s a choice they should make, not their local government. Furthermore, opposition to fluoridation was never a major action item of any JBS campaign.
Myth: The JBS is nothing more than a group of conspiracy theorists.-
Fact: The John Birch Society reports on those that create and influence public policy and the motivations behind their actions. JBS directs members to counter unconstitutional actions through peaceful, educational means, including supporting or blocking legislation, setting up relationships with key elected officials and local leaders, and holding elected officials accountable to their oath of office. By definition, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons work secretly for an evil or unlawful purpose. Given the state that America is in today, one could argue that an unconstitutional agenda is no longer secret, but in the open for all to see. Those that continue to work against the Constitution do so brazenly, continuing to make promises and entitlements to citizens that the country cannot afford while committing future generations to crushing debt and ever decreasing prosperity at the expense of liberty.
Myth: The JBS was booted out of the conservative movement by William F. Buckley.-
Fact: In the mid-1950s on more than one occasion, John Birch Society Founder Robert Welch financially helped an up-and-coming conservative leader, and recommended that others do the same, so this rising young star could get his new magazine off the ground. That newcomer was William F. Buckley and his magazine was National Review. A few short years later, Mr. Buckley attacked Robert Welch in a lengthy article in his magazine. Over the past several decades, Buckley carried out a campaign of attacking or disparaging Welch and the Society. On numerous occasions, he boasted to friends that he intended to destroy The John Birch Society. He didn't succeed. Read more in John McManus' book, William F. Buckley: Pied Piper for the Establishment.
Myth: The JBS is against civil rights because it opposed several Civil Rights acts.-
Fact: Correcting civil rights abuses that do exist should be accomplished at the state and local level, something The John Birch Society members - of all races, colors and ethnic backgrounds - have always supported. Civil rights legislation should have come from the states and the communities rather than being used as a steppingstone toward our present-day out-of-control federal government.
Myth: The JBS is nothing more than controlled opposition, pretending to be a friend to the cause of liberty. Robert Welch sold his candy company to the leftist, internationalist Rockefellers.-
Fact: Robert Welch was out of the candy manufacturing business (retiring in 1956) when his brother (for whom he used to work) sold the James O. Welch Candy company to Nabisco in 1963. JBS has never been funded by any Rockefeller money. Nelson Rockefeller publicly attacked JBS, and JBS has exposed the Rockefeller support for the United Nations and its goal of a new world order more than any other organization.
Myth: The John Birch Society played a role in the assassination of President Kennedy.-
Fact: This is perhaps the most despicable myth. The truth is that The John Birch Society has always lived by the age-old adage that foul means can never be employed to accomplish a goal, no matter how important that goal. While JBS and its members called attention to the many dangerous and unconstitutional acts and programs promoted by President Kennedy, it has always been the Society’s position that anything harmful to our country emanating from the White House should be countered by congressional or judicial action urged upon our nation’s leaders by concerned American citizens. Immediately after the assassination, founder Robert Welch canceled the “For God and Country” rally that thousands had committed to attend in Boston the following day. He then sent a telegram of condolences to Mrs. Kennedy. In that brief message, published by the Boston Globe on November 23, 1963, Robert Welch stated: “On behalf of the Council of the John Birch Society and myself, I wish to express our deep sorrow at the untimely loss to our nation of its youngest elected President and to convey more particularly to you and all members of President Kennedy’s family our sincere and heartfelt sympathy in your overwhelming personal loss.

Saturday, March 02, 2019

China starting World War III very soon!

You Will Lose Your Job to a Robot—and Sooner Than You Think

 want to tell you straight off what this story is about: Sometime in the next 40 years, robots are going to take your job.
I don’t care what your job is. If you dig ditches, a robot will dig them better. If you’re a magazine writer, a robot will write your articles better. If you’re a doctor, IBM’s Watson will no longer “assist” you in finding the right diagnosis from its database of millions of case studies and journal articles. It will just be a better doctor than you.
And CEOs? Sorry. Robots will run companies better than you do. Artistic types? Robots will paint and write and sculpt better than you. Think you have social skills that no robot can match? Yes, they can. Within 20 years, maybe half of you will be out of jobs. A couple of decades after that, most of the rest of you will be out of jobs.
In one sense, this all sounds great. Let the robots have the damn jobs! No more dragging yourself out of bed at 6 a.m. or spending long days on your feet. We’ll be free to read or write poetry or play video games or whatever we want to do. And a century from now, this is most likely how things will turn out. Humanity will enter a golden age.
But what about 20 years from now? Or 30? We won’t all be out of jobs by then, but a lot of us will—and it will be no golden age. Until we figure out how to fairly distribute the fruits of robot labor, it will be an era of mass joblessness and mass poverty. Working-class job losses played a big role in the 2016 election, and if we don’t want a long succession of demagogues blustering their way into office because machines are taking away people’s livelihoods, this needs to change, and fast. Along with global warming, the transition to a workless future is the biggest challenge by far that progressive politics—not to mention all of humanity—faces. And yet it’s barely on our radar.

We Already Have a Solution for the Robot Apocalypse. It’s 200 Years Old.
That’s kind of a buzzkill, isn’t it? Luckily, it’s traditional that stories about difficult or technical subjects open with an entertaining or provocative anecdote. The idea is that this allows readers to ease slowly into daunting material. So here’s one for you: Last year at Christmas, I was over at my mother’s house and mentioned that I had recently read an article about Google Translate. It turns out that a few weeks previously, without telling anyone, Google had switched over to a new machine-learning algorithm. Almost overnight, the quality of its translations skyrocketed. I had noticed some improvement myself but had chalked it up to the usual incremental progress these kinds of things go through. I hadn’t realized it was due to a quantum leap in software.
But if Google’s translation algorithm was better, did that mean its voice recognition was better too? And its ability to answer queries? Hmm. How could we test that? We decided to open presents instead of cogitating over this.
But after that was over, the subject of erasers somehow came up. Which ones are best? Clear? Black? Traditional pink? Come to think of it, why are erasers traditionally pink? “I’ll ask Google!” I told everyone. So I pulled out my phone and said, “Why are erasers pink?” Half a second later, Google told me.
Roberto Parada
Not impressed? You should be. We all know that phones can recognize voices tolerably well these days. And we know they can find the nearest café or the trendiest recipe for coq au vin. But what about something entirely random? And not a simple who, where, or when question. This was a why question, and it wasn’t about why the singer Pink uses erasers or why erasers are jinxed. Google has to be smart enough to figure out in context that I said pink and that I’m asking about the historical reason for the color of erasers, not their health or the way they’re shaped. And it did. In less than a second. With nothing more than a cheap little microprocessor and a slow link to the internet.
(In case you’re curious, Google got the answer from Design*Sponge: “The eraser was originally produced by the Eberhard Faber Company…The erasers featured pumice, a volcanic ash from Italy that gave them their abrasive quality, along with their distinctive color and smell.”)
Still not impressed? When Watson famously won a round of Jeopardy! against the two best human players of all time, it needed a computer the size of a bedroom to answer questions like this. That was only seven years ago.
What do pink erasers have to do with the fact that we’re all going to be out of a job in a few decades? Consider: Last October, an Uber trucking subsidiary named Otto delivered 2,000 cases of Budweiser 120 miles from Fort Collins, Colorado, to Colorado Springs—without a driver at the wheel. Within a few years, this technology will go from prototype to full production, and that means millions of truck drivers will be out of a job.
Automated trucking doesn’t rely on newfangled machines, like the powered looms and steam shovels that drove the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. Instead, like Google’s ability to recognize spoken words and answer questions, self-driving trucks—and cars and buses and ships—rely primarily on software that mimics human intelligence. By now everyone’s heard the predictions that self-driving cars could lead to 5 million jobs being lost, but few people understand that once artificial-intelligence software is good enough to drive a car, it will be good enough to do a lot of other things too. It won’t be millions of people out of work; it will be tens of millions.
This is what we mean when we talk about “robots.” We’re talking about cognitive abilities, not the fact that they’re made of metal instead of flesh and powered by electricity instead of chicken nuggets.
In other words, the advances to focus on aren’t those in robotic engineering—though they are happening, too—but the way we’re hurtling toward artificial intelligence, or AI. While we’re nowhere near human-level AI yet, the progress of the past couple of decades has been stunning. After many years of nothing much happening, suddenly robots can play chess better than the best grandmaster. They can play Jeopardy! better than the best humans. They can drive cars around San Francisco—and they’re getting better at it every year. They can recognize faces well enough that Welsh police recently made the first-ever arrest in the United Kingdom using facial recognition software. After years of plodding progress in voice recognition, Google announced earlier this year that it had reduced its word error rate from 8.5 percent to 4.9 percent in 10 months.
All of this is a sign that AI is improving exponentially, a product of both better computer hardware and software. Hardware has historically followed a growth curve called Moore’s law, in which power and efficiency double every couple of years, and recent improvements in software algorithms have been even more explosive. For a long time, these advances didn’t seem very impressive: Going from the brainpower of a bacterium to the brainpower of a nematode might technically represent an enormous leap, but on a practical level it doesn’t get us that much closer to true artificial intelligence. However, if you keep up the doubling for a while, eventually one of those doubling cycles takes you from the brainpower of a lizard (who cares?) to the brainpower of a mouse and then a monkey (wow!). Once that happens, human-level AI is just a short step away.
This can be hard to imagine, so here’s a chart that shows what an exponential doubling curve looks like, measured in petaflops (quadrillions of calculations per second). During the first 70 years of the digital era, computing power doubled every couple of years—and that produced steadily improving accounting software, airplane reservation systems, weather forecasts, Spotify, and the like. But on the scale of the human brain—usually estimated at 10 to 50 petaflops—it produced computing power so minuscule that you can’t see any change at all. Around 2025 we’ll finally start to see visible progress toward artificial intelligence. A decade later we’ll be up to about one-tenth the power of a human brain, and a decade after that we’ll have full human-level AI. It will seem like it happened overnight, but it’s really the result of a century of steady—but mostly imperceptible—progress.
Are we really this close to true AI? Here’s a yardstick to think about. Even with all this doubling going on, until recently computer scientists thought we were still years away from machines being able to win at the ancient game of Go, usually regarded as the most complex human game in existence. But last year, a computer beat a Korean grandmaster considered one of the best of all time, and earlier this year it beat the highest-ranked Go player in the world. Far from slowing down, progress in artificial intelligence is now outstripping even the wildest hopes of the most dedicated AI cheerleaders. Unfortunately, for those of us worried about robots taking away our jobs, these advances mean that mass unemployment is a lot closer than we feared—so close, in fact, that it may be starting already. But you’d never know that from the virtual silence about solutions in policy and political circles.
I’m hardly alone in thinking we’re on the verge of an AI Revolution. Many who work in the software industry—people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk—have been sounding the alarm for years. But their concerns are largely ignored by policymakers and, until recently, often ridiculed by writers tasked with interpreting technology or economics. So let’s take a look at some of the most common doubts of the AI skeptics.
#1: We’ll never get true AI because computing power won’t keep doubling forever. We’re going to hit the limits of physics before long. There are several pretty good reasons to dismiss this claim as a roadblock. To start, hardware designers will invent faster, more specialized chips. Google, for example, announced last spring that it had created a microchip called a Tensor Processing Unit, which it claimed was up to 30 times faster and 80 times more power efficient than an Intel processor for machine learning tasks. A huge array of those chips are now available to researchers who use Google’s cloud services. Other chips specialized for specific aspects of AI (image recognition, neural networking, language processing, etc.) either exist already or are certain to follow.
What’s more, this raw power is increasingly being harnessed in a manner similar to the way the human brain works. Your brain is not a single, superpowerful computing device. It’s made up of about 100 billion neurons working in parallel—i.e., all at the same time—to create human-level intelligence and consciousness. At the lowest level, neurons operate in parallel to create small clusters that perform semi-independent actions like responding to a specific environmental cue. At the next level, dozens of these clusters work together in each of about 100 “sub-brains”—distinct organs within the brain that perform specialized jobs such as speech, visual processing, and balance. Finally, all these sub-brains operate in parallel, and the resulting overall state is monitored and managed by executive functions that make sense of the world and provide us with our feeling that we have conscious control of our actions.
Modern computers also yoke lots of microprocessors together. As of 2017, the fastest computer in the world uses roughly 40,000 processors with 260 cores each. That’s more than 10 million processing cores running in parallel. Each one of these cores has less power than the Intel processor on your desktop, but the entire machine delivers about the same power as the human brain.
This doesn’t mean AI is here already. Far from it. This “massively parallel” architecture still presents enormous programming challenges, but as we get better at exploiting it we’re certain to make frequent breakthroughs in software performance. In other words, even if Moore’s law slows down or stops, the total power of everything put together—more use of custom microchips, more parallelism, more sophisticated software, and even the possibility of entirely new ways of doing computing—will almost certainly keep growing for many more years.
#2: Even if computing power keeps doubling, it has already been doubling for decades. You guys keep predicting full-on AI, but it never happens. It’s true that during the early years of computing there was a lot of naive optimism about how quickly we’d be able to build intelligent machines. But those rosy predictions died in the ’70s, as computer scientists came to realize that even the fastest mainframes of the day produced only about a billionth of the processing power of the human brain. It was a humbling realization, and the entire field has been almost painfully realistic about its progress ever since.
We’ve finally built computers with roughly the raw processing power of the human brain—although only at a cost of more than $100 million and with an internal architecture that may or may not work well for emulating the human mind. But in another 10 years, this level of power will likely be available for less than $1 million, and thousands of teams will be testing AI software on a platform that’s actually capable of competing with humans.
#3: Okay, maybe we will get full AI. But it only means that robots will act intelligent, not that they’ll really be intelligent. This is just a tedious philosophical debating point. For the purposes of employment, we don’t really care if a smart computer has a soul—or if it can feel love and pain and loyalty. We only care if it can act like a human being well enough to do anything we can do. When that day comes, we’ll all be out of jobs even if the computers taking our places aren’t “really” intelligent.
#4: Fine. But waves of automation—steam engines, electricity, computers—always lead to predictions of mass unemployment. Instead they just make us more efficient. The AI Revolution will be no different. This is a popular argument. It’s also catastrophically wrong.
The Industrial Revolution was all about mechanical power: Trains were more powerful than horses, and mechanical looms were more efficient than human muscle. At first, this did put people out of work: Those loom-smashing weavers in Yorkshire—the original Luddites—really did lose their livelihoods. This caused massive social upheaval for decades until the entire economy adapted to the machine age. When that finally happened, there were as many jobs tending the new machines as there used to be doing manual labor. The eventual result was a huge increase in productivity: A single person could churn out a lot more cloth than she could before. In the end, not only were as many people still employed, but they were employed at jobs tending machines that produced vastly more wealth than anyone had thought possible 100 years before. Once labor unions began demanding a piece of this pie, everyone benefited.
The AI Revolution will be nothing like that. When robots become as smart and capable as human beings, there will be nothing left for people to do because machines will be both stronger and smarter than humans. Even if AI creates lots of new jobs, it’s of no consequence. No matter what job you name, robots will be able to do it. They will manufacture themselves, program themselves, repair themselves, and manage themselves. If you don’t appreciate this, then you don’t appreciate what’s barreling toward us.
In fact, it’s even worse. In addition to doing our jobs at least as well as we do them, intelligent robots will be cheaper, faster, and far more reliable than humans. And they can work 168 hours a week, not just 40. No capitalist in her right mind would continue to employ humans. They’re expensive, they show up late, they complain whenever something changes, and they spend half their time gossiping. Let’s face it: We humans make lousy laborers.
If you want to look at this through a utopian lens, the AI Revolution has the potential to free humanity forever from drudgery. In the best-case scenario, a combination of intelligent robots and green energy will provide everyone on Earth with everything they need. But just as the Industrial Revolution caused a lot of short-term pain, so will intelligent robots. While we’re on the road to our Star Trek future, but before we finally get there, the rich are going to get richer—because they own the robots—and the rest of us are going to get poorer because we’ll be out of jobs. Unless we figure out what we’re going to do about that, the misery of workers over the next few decades will be far worse than anything the Industrial Revolution produced.
Wait, wait, skeptics will say: If all this is happening as we speak, why aren’t people losing their jobs already? Several sharp observers have made this point, including James Surowiecki in a recent issue of Wired. “If automation were, in fact, transforming the US economy,” he wrote, “two things would be true: Aggregate productivity would be rising sharply, and jobs would be harder to come by than in the past.” But neither is happening. Productivity has actually stalled since 2000 and jobs have gotten steadily more plentiful ever since the Great Recession ended. Surowiecki also points out that job churn is low, average job tenure hasn’t changed much in decades, and wages are rising—though he admits that wage increases are “meager by historical standards.”
True enough. But as I wrote four years ago, since 2000 the share of the population that’s employed has decreased; middle-class wages have flattened; corporations have stockpiled more cash and invested less in new products and new factories; and as a result of all this, labor’s share of national income has declined. All those trends are consistent with job losses to old-school automation, and as automation evolves into AI, they are likely to accelerate.
That said, the evidence that AI is currently affecting jobs is hard to assess, for one big and obvious reason: We don’t have AI yet, so of course we’re not losing jobs to it. For now, we’re seeing only a few glimmers of smarter automation, but nothing even close to true AI.
Remember that artificial intelligence progresses in exponential time. This means that even as computer power doubles from a trillionth of a human brain’s power to a billionth and then a millionth, it has little effect on the level of employment. Then, in the relative blink of an eye, the final few doublings take place and robots go from having a thousandth of human brainpower to full human-level intelligence. Don’t get fooled by the fact that nothing much has happened yet. In another 10 years or so, it will.
So let’s talk about which jobs are in danger first. Economists generally break employment into cognitive versus physical jobs and routine versus nonroutine jobs. This gives us four basic categories of work:
Routine physical: digging ditches, driving trucks
Routine cognitive: accounts-payable clerk, telephone sales
Nonroutine physical: short-order cook, home health aide
Nonroutine cognitive: teacher, doctor, CEO
Routine tasks will be the first to go—and thanks to advances in robotics engineering, both physical and cognitive tasks will be affected. In a recent paper, a team from Oxford and Yale surveyed a large number of machine-learning researchers to produce a “wisdom of crowds” estimate of when computers would be able to take over various human jobs. Two-thirds said progress in machine learning had accelerated in recent years, with Asian researchers even more optimistic than North American researchers about the advent of full AI within 40 years.
But we don’t need full AI for everything. The machine-learning researchers estimate that speech transcribers, translators, commercial drivers, retail sales, and similar jobs could be fully automated during the 2020s. Within a decade after that, all routine jobs could be gone.
Nonroutine jobs will be next: surgeons, novelists, construction workers, police officers, and so forth. These jobs could all be fully automated during the 2040s. By 2060, AI will be capable of performing any task currently done by humans. This doesn’t mean that literally every human being on the planet will be jobless by then—in fact, the researchers suggest it could take another century before that happens—but that’s hardly any solace. By 2060 or thereabouts, we’ll have AI that can do anything a normal human can do, which means that nearly all normal jobs will be gone. And normal jobs are what almost all of us have.
2060 seems a long way off, but if the Oxford-Yale survey is right, we’ll face an employment apocalypse far sooner than that: the disappearance of routine work of all kinds by the mid-2030s. That represents nearly half the US labor force. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers recently released a study saying much the same. It predicts that 38 percent of all jobs in the United States are “at high risk of automation” by the early 2030s, most of them in routine occupations. In the even nearer term, the World Economic Forum predicts that the rich world will lose 5 million jobs to robots by 2020, while a group of AI experts, writing in Scientific American, figures that 40 percent of the 500 biggest companies will vanish within a decade.
Not scared yet? Kai-Fu Lee, a former Microsoft and Google executive who is now a prominent investor in Chinese AI startups, thinks artificial intelligence “will probably replace 50 percent of human jobs.” When? Within 10 years. Ten years! Maybe it’s time to really start thinking hard about AI.
And forget about putting the genie back in the bottle. AI is coming whether we like it or not. The rewards are just too great. Even if America did somehow stop AI research, it would only mean that the Chinese or the French or the Brazilians would get there first. Russian President Vladimir Putin agrees. “Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia but for all humankind,” he announced in September. “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” There’s just no way around it: For the vast majority of jobs, work as we know it will come steadily to an end between about 2025 and 2060.
So who benefits? The answer is obvious: the owners of capital, who will control most of the robots. Who suffers? That’s obvious too: the rest of us, who currently trade work for money. No work means no money.
But things won’t actually be quite that grim. After all, fully automated farms and factories will produce much cheaper goods, and competition will then force down prices. Basic material comfort will be cheap as dirt.
Why Elon Musk Is Sounding the Alarm on Artificial Intelligence
Still not free, though. And capitalists can only make money if they have someone to sell their goods to. This means that even the business class will eventually realize that ubiquitous automation doesn’t really benefit them after all. They need customers with money if they want to be rich themselves.
One way or another, then, the answer to the mass unemployment of the AI Revolution has to involve some kind of sweeping redistribution of income that decouples it from work. Or a total rethinking of what “work” is. Or a total rethinking of what wealth is. Let’s consider a few of the possibilities.
The welfare state writ large: This is the simplest to think about. It’s basically what we have now, but more extensive. Unemployment insurance will be more generous and come with no time limits. National health care will be free for all. Anyone without a job will qualify for some basic amount of food and housing. Higher taxes will pay for it, but we’ll still operate under the assumption that gainful employment is expected from anyone able to work.
This is essentially the “bury our heads in the sand” option. We refuse to accept that work is truly going away, so we continue to punish people who aren’t employed. Jobless benefits remain stingy so that people are motivated to find work—even though there aren’t enough jobs to go around. We continue to believe that eventually the economy will find a new equilibrium.
This can’t last for too long, and millions will suffer during the years we continue to delude ourselves. But it will protect the rich for a while.
Universal basic income #1: This is a step further down the road. Everyone would qualify for a certain level of income from the state, but the level of guaranteed income would be fairly modest because we would still want people to work. Unemployment wouldn’t be as stigmatized as it is in today’s welfare state, but neither would widespread joblessness be truly accepted as a permanent fact of life. Some European countries are moving toward a welfare state with cash assistance for everyone.
Universal basic income #2: This is UBI on steroids. It’s available to everyone, and the income level is substantial enough to provide a satisfying standard of living. This is what we’ll most likely get once we accept that mass unemployment isn’t a sign of lazy workers and social decay, but the inevitable result of improving technology. Since there’s no personal stigma attached to joblessness and no special reason that the rich should reap all the rewards of artificial intelligence, there’s also no reason to keep the universal income level low. After all, we aren’t trying to prod people back into the workforce. In fact, the time will probably come when we actively want to do just the opposite: provide an income large enough to motivate people to leave the workforce and let robots do the job better.
Silicon Valley—perhaps unsurprisingly—is fast becoming a hotbed of UBI enthusiasm. Tech executives understand what’s coming, and that their own businesses risk a backlash unless we take care of its victims. Uber has shown an interest in UBI. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg supports it. Ditto for Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield. A startup incubator called Y Combinator is running a pilot program to find out what happens if you give people a guaranteed income.
There are even some countries that are now trying it. Switzerland rejected a UBI proposal in 2016, but Finland is experimenting with a small-scale UBI that pays the unemployed about $700 per month even after they find work. UBI is also getting limited tryouts by cities in Italy and Canada. Right now these are all pilot projects aimed at learning more about how to best run a UBI program and how well it works. But as large-scale job losses from automation start to become real, we should expect the idea to spread rapidly.
A tax on robots: This is a notion raised by a draft report to the European Parliament and endorsed by Bill Gates, who suggests that robots should pay income tax and payroll tax just like human workers. That would keep humans more competitive. Unfortunately, there’s a flaw here: The end result would be to artificially increase the cost of employing robots, and thus the cost of the goods they produce. Unless every country creates a similar tax, it accomplishes nothing except to push robot labor overseas. We’d be worse off than if we simply let the robots take our jobs in the first place. Nonetheless, a robot tax could still have value as a way of modestly slowing down job losses. Economist Robert Shiller suggests that we should consider “at least modest robot taxes during the transition to a different world of work.” And where would the money go? “Revenue could be targeted toward wage insurance,” he says. In other words, a UBI.
Socialization of the robot workforce: In this scenario, which would require a radical change in the US political climate, private ownership of intelligent robots would be forbidden. The market economy we have today would continue to exist with one exception: The government would own all intelligent robots and would auction off their services to private industry. The proceeds would be divided among everybody.
Progressive taxation on a grand scale: Let the robots take all the jobs, but tax all income at a flat 90 percent. The rich would still have an incentive to run businesses and earn more money, but for the most part labor would be considered a societal good, like infrastructure, not the product of individual initiative.
Wealth tax: Intelligent robots will be able to manufacture material goods and services cheaply, but there will still be scarcity. No matter how many robots you have, there’s only so much beachfront property in Southern California. There are only so many original Rembrandts. There are only so many penthouse suites. These kinds of things will be the only real wealth left, and the rich will still want them. So if robots make the rich even richer, they’ll bid up the price of these luxuries commensurately, and all that’s left is to tax them at high rates. The rich still get their toys, while the rest of us get everything we want except for a view of the sun setting over the Pacific Ocean.
A hundred years from now, all of this will be moot. Society will adapt in ways we can’t foresee, and we’ll all be far wealthier, safer, and more comfortable than we are today—assuming, of course, that the robots don’t kill us all, Skynet fashion.
But someone needs to be thinking hard about how to prepare for what happens in the meantime. Not many are. Last year, for example, the Obama White House released a 48-page report called “Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence.” That sounds promising. But it devoted less than one page to economic impacts and concluded only that “policy questions raised by AI-driven automation are important but they are best addressed by a separate White House working group.”
Regrettably, the coming jobocalypse has so far remained the prophecy of a few Cassandras: mostly futurists, academics, and tech executives. For example, Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google’s parent company, believes that AI is coming faster than we think, and that we should provide jobs to everyone during the transition. “The country’s goal should be full employment all the time, and do whatever it takes,” he says.
Another sharp thinker about our jobless future is Martin Ford, author of Rise of the Robots. Mass joblessness, he warns, isn’t limited to low-skill workers. Nor is it something we can fight by committing to better education. AI will decimate any job that’s “predictable”—which means nearly all of them. Many of us might not like to hear this, but Ford is unsentimental about the work we do. “Relatively few people,” he says, are paid “primarily to engage in truly creative work or ‘blue sky’ thinking.”
Roberto Parada
All this is bad enough, but it’s made worse by the fact that income inequality has already been increasing for decades. “The frightening reality,” Ford says, is that “we may face the prospect of a ‘perfect storm’ where the impacts from soaring inequality, technological unemployment, and climate change unfold roughly in parallel, and some ways amplify and reinforce each other.” Unsurprisingly, he believes the only plausible solution is some form of universal basic income.
So how do we get these ideas into the political mainstream? One thing is certain: The monumental task of dealing with the AI Revolution will be almost entirely up to the political left. After all, when the automation of human labor begins in earnest, the big winners are initially going to be corporations and the rich. Because of this, conservatives will be motivated to see every labor displacement as a one-off event, just as they currently view every drought, every wildfire, and every hurricane as a one-off event. They refuse to see that global warming is behind changing weather patterns because dealing with climate change requires environmental regulations that are bad for business and bad for the rich. Likewise, dealing with an AI Revolution will require new ways of distributing wealth. In the long run this will be good even for the rich, but in the short term it’s a pretty scary prospect for those with money—and one they’ll fight zealously. Until they have no choice left, conservatives are simply not going to admit this is happening, let alone think about how to address it. It’s not in their DNA.
Other candidates are equally unlikely. The military thinks about automation all the time—but primarily as a means of killing people more efficiently, not as an economic threat. The business community is a slave to quarterly earnings and in any case will be too divided to be of much help. Labor unions have good reason to care, but by themselves they’re too weak nowadays to have the necessary clout with policymakers.
Nor are we likely to get much help from governments, which mostly don’t even understand what’s happening. Google’s Schmidt puts it bluntly. “The gap between the government, in terms of their understanding of software, let alone AI, is so large that it’s almost hopeless,” he said at a conference earlier this year. Certainly that’s true of the Trump administration. Asked about AI being a threat to jobs, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stunningly waved it off as a problem that’s still 50 or 100 years in the future. “I think we’re, like, so far away from that,” he said. “Not even on my radar screen.” This drew a sharp rebuke from former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers: “I do not understand how anyone could reach the conclusion that all the action with technology is half a century away,” he said. “Artificial intelligence is transforming everything from retailing to banking to the provision of medical care.”
So who’s left? Like it or not, the only real choice to sound the alarm outside the geek community is the Democratic Party, along with its associated constellation of labor unions, think tanks, and activists. Imperfect as it is—and its reliance on rich donors makes it conspicuously imperfect—it’s the only national organization that has both the principles and the size to do the job.
Unfortunately, political parties are inherently short-term thinkers. Democrats today are absorbed with fighting President Donald Trump, saving Obamacare, pushing for a $15 minimum wage—and arguing about all those things. They have no time to think hard about the end of work.
Nonetheless, somebody on the left with numbers, clout, power, and organizing energy—hopefully all the above—had better start. Conventional wisdom says Trump’s victory last year was tipped over the edge by a backlash among working-class voters in the Upper Midwest. When blue-collar workers start losing their jobs in large numbers, we’ll see a backlash that makes 2016 look like a gentle breeze. Either liberals start working on answers now, or we risk voters rallying around far more effective and dangerous demagogues than Trump.
Despite the amount of media attention that both robots and AI have gotten over the past few years, it’s difficult to get people to take them seriously. But start to pay attention and you see the signs: An Uber car can drive itself. A computer can write simple sports stories. SoftBank’s Pepper robot already works in more than 140 cellphone stores in Japan and is starting to get tryouts in America too. Alexa can order replacement Pop-Tarts before you know you need them. A Carnegie Mellon computer that seems to have figured out human bluffing beat four different online-poker pros earlier this year. California, suffering from a lack of Mexican workers, is ground zero for the development of robotic crop pickers. Sony is promising a robot that will form an emotional bond with its owner.
These are all harbingers, the way a dropping barometer signals a coming storm—not the possibility of a storm, but the inexorable reality. The two most important problems facing the human race right now are the need for widespread deployment of renewable energy and figuring out how to deal with the end of work. Everything else pales in comparison. Renewable energy already gets plenty of attention, even if half the country still denies that we really need it. It’s time for the end of work to start getting the same attention.