News and Politics

widely held opinions are often irrational

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Introduction

Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor

Marcus Aurelius was a stoic philosopher and a Roman emperor from 161 AD to 180 AD, the last of the Five Good Emperors and, according to Wikipedia, “the last emperor of the Pax Romana, an age of relative peace, calmness, and stability for the Roman Empire lasting from 27 BC to 180 AD.” The stoicists believed that practicing virtue in one’s life was a necessary and sufficient condition for happiness, which they called eudaimonia. The literal translation of eudaimonia is “good spiritedness.”

Meditations contains 12 books, but historians think that Marcus Aurelius wrote Meditations for himself, as a source for his own guidance and self-improvement, and that the book was never intended by him to be published. Although a Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius was a deep thinker and nothing like the mindless leaders and politicians of our day. He believed that it was important to develop a cosmic perspective on life, and to understand that everything we see comes from Nature.

Some pretty smart and wise people lived 2,000 years ago.

2,000 years later...

The quote above applies to our lives today because the majority opinion changes depending on what fear porn is currently being promoted by the mass media and on social media.

“The economy is collapsing!”

“We are now at the beginning of World War 3!”

“If we don’t raise the debt ceiling the government will default!”

“If we don’t lower our carbon footprint humanity will be destroyed by climate change!”

It just goes on and on and on... and there’s a new one every week. These insane narratives – all of which are lies – are promoted over and over again by a mass media whose purpose, it seems, is to spread fear porn and chaos. It is easy to go along with these narratives because not to – as the talking heads and the social media gurus tell us – makes us social outcasts. We feel stupid not to join the majority.

But the majority opinion is often the insane opinion. The majority opinion is often just a narrative – a collection of lies and half-truths designed to scare us. For example, a 4th-generation farmer in South Dakota is being threatened with an eminent domain lawsuit – the precursor to seizing his land – so that a private corporation can build a “carbon capture reduction pipeline” on his property. According to MIT’s Climate Portal,

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) refers to a collection of technologies that can combat climate change by reducing carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions. The idea behind CCS is to capture the CO 2 generated by burning fossil fuels before it is released to the atmosphere. The question is then: What to do with the captured CO 2? Most current CCS strategies call for the injection of CO2 deep underground. This forms a “closed loop”, where the carbon is extracted from the Earth as fossil fuels and then is returned to the Earth as CO2.”

If this seems nutty to you, well, it is. There are a lot of climate change grifters out there, and they are making a ton of money on incomprehensible programs like these. Part of this majority opinion includes the idea that raising cows is environmentally dangerous because it raises the carbon footprint, and farming itself is dangerous because of polluting fertilizers and gas-guzzling farm equipment. The government of the Netherlands believes just that. The Dutch are the greatest farmers in the world, but their government wants to shut down farming to a large extent because it is (supposedly) environmentally dangerous. Type in “Netherlands farmer protest” into your search engine and read all about this craziness! What is truly dangerous are nutty opinions like this.

The Majority Opinion is that global warming is going to destroy the climate and the planet. But like many majority opinions, it is crazy. Here is a graph  that shows 4 consecutive years of decreasing maxima in the past four 11-year solar cycles:

The last four 11-year solar cycles.

As you can see, for the past 44 years the sunspot numbers – a measure of the amount of solar radiation that hits the earth – has been decreasing. The planet warms when the amount of solar radiation increases, and cools when it decreases. The Majority Opinion doesn’t want to examine the science, because it conflicts with the fear-porn global warming/climate change narrative and the grifters who benefit from it.

Today, Marcus Aurelius’ maxim holds true more than ever.

It seems like a good idea to me to develop a more cosmic perspective on life, like Marcus Aurelius did 2,000 years ago. This involves recognizing our own spirituality and connection to the Infinite. And it would probably be a good idea to observe nature and pay attention to the vast, underlying harmony we see there. Through nature we can perceive the face of the Creative Source.  

In a previous post we discussed the esoteric idea that an Awakening has begun that is releasing more Light into the collective consciousness, and that this light is penetrating deeply into the dark underbelly of the collective human karma and exposing it. What would this infusion of Light look like?

Precisely what we see unfolding on the planet at this time. Chaos.

The Lower Ground

Institutions, organizations, and people who lack integrity are being exposed, and we haven’t even scratched the surface yet. The Transhumanist movement – with its offshoot, the transgender movement – is a misogynist attack on women, children, and human biological reproduction (transgender surgeries destroy the reproductive organs in boys and girls). The goal of the Transhumanists is a society where natural childbirth disappears, and bodies are bio-printed or receive neural implants. Gene-altering technologies such as CRISPR are already well under development to achieve this goal. Moreover, the Transhumanists are aligned with Big Pharma.

Part of the Transhumanist agenda is the normalization of child abuse – pedophilia. A United Nations report published by International Committee of Jurists (ICJ), UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) just last month strongly suggests that global government normalize pedophilia by allowing children to legally decide on engaging in sexual activities with adults. Yeah, right, like the underage person will be able to “decide” to have sexual relations with an adult. The relevant sentence in the document reads as follows:

“Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.” There’s more but you can read the report yourself.

It’s all part of the interaction between Dark and Light.

This is a brief (and sanitized) summary of what I will call the Lower Ground. The Lower Ground was described accurately by Aldus Huxley back in 1961:

There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."

https://archive.org/details/AldousHuxley--TheUltimateRevolution--ABlueprintToEnslaveTheMasses

Huxley also said this in 1962:

It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, ... to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system....And there seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of ultimate revolution, a method of control by which a people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy. This, the enjoyment of servitude, Well this process is, as I say, has gone on over the years...”

Aldous Huxley, 1962 U.C. Berkeley Speech on “The Ultimate Revolution,” at public intelligence, https://publicintelligence.net/aldous-huxley-1962-u-c-berkeley-speech-on-the-ultimate-revolution/

Over 60 years ago Huxley described the Lower Ground agenda, based in Science TM, which we are living through now. It is rooted in the old consciousness of power, control, and fear. It is a part of the old train track of human history and human consciousness, which goes back 200,000 years to when hominids were transformed into homo sapiens. No one knows precisely how this happened, but a new form of human being appeared on the planet. SF writer David Brin explains how this might have happened in his Uplift series of speculative fiction books.

The Higher Ground

In Brin’s Uplift universe an intergalactic civilization called the Five Galaxies has existed for billions of years. In this civilization, a  patron race with higher consciousness biologically enhances or “uplifts” a pre-sentient species. For example, on earth, hominids would have been uplifted into homo sapiens and given greater intelligence and self-awareness by a more advanced species from the stars.

These enhanced species would simply be given a chance to grow intellectually and spiritually, with the goal of joining a galactic community of planets that have advanced enough in Knowledge and wisdom so that war, conflict, and contention is eliminated. The idea is to create a civilization, if it chooses correctly, that can eventually discover its true potential.

The Uplift process is an opportunity, not a guarantee, of a successful civilization whose individuals respect each other and operate collectively in harmony. Consciousness has free will and can decide to go to the dark or to the light.

The last sentence above is a very brief precis of the past 200,000 years of human history, since our own Uplift.

That’s a short description of the Higher Ground.

Consequences

The Lower Ground is rooted in atheism and materialism. It is still operating on the lower track of human consciousness. The Higher Ground recognizes what the Uplift has given us: enhanced biology that can link with a higher consciousness that some call the Creative Source, or Spirit, or God,  that is within all things and animates all things.

A civilization that never recognizes the Higher Ground will perish. It will destroy itself. Let’s say that a potential Higher Ground civilization recognizes the higher train track of human history and has the ability to place new memes on it. Instead of the old meme structure of conflict and war and power and greed being used to resolve problems, we start afresh. But there is lots of conflict, because those who choose the Dark, the Lower Ground, constantly place the old memes on the new track of consciousness, trying to bring it down to the old level. This is a necessary step for its survival, for the dark perishes in  the light, like the wicked witch in a shower.

Conclusion

Our job is not to go into agreement with the materialists and the atheists. If we say, “these dark energies are so powerful we can’t do anything,” the next 10,000 years of human history will look a lot like the previous ten millennia (if we don’t destroy ourselves first). The good news is that we all have creative power, and there are billions of us. All that is needed is not to fall for the fear and the disinformation of those on the Lower Ground. Just don’t buy into degraded concepts of human existence, and their inevitability. Allow the Light that is shining brighter and brighter every day to supplant the old memes of darkness and division. Place the new memes of harmony and cooperation on the new track of human history, and let’s create a better future.


In Our DemocracyTM, ScienceTM and our “leaders” aren’t doing a very good job

Derivatives and the Banking System

With the failure and bailout of SVB Bank and Signature Bank, the FDIC insurance fund, which is supposed to bail out banks when they fail, is bankrupt. This banking insurance fund only had $100 billion or so before the collapse of SVB and Signature. SVB had about $150 billion in unsecured deposits, and Signature had about $50 billion. The rest of the bailout money was printed by the Fed. If another regional bank (perhaps your bank) collapses due to rising interest rates and falling bond prices, where will the “money” come from to bail it out? Sorry folks, there aint no money left. The elite venture capitalists already got theirs, and bankrupted the system. Mr. Potter doesn’t have any money left for the hard working taxpayers.

First Republic Bank is also on shaky ground. On Thursday 11 major US banks pledged to deposit $30 billion into it. This does not bode well for our banking system.

Small/medium sized banks are important to the economy.

Our elites are destroying the economy and swooping up the assets and the remaining wealth of this country, causing bank runs on their own banks, and sending over $100 billion for a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. The War in Ukraine has morphed from defending the Ukrainian people into a sophisticated money laundering operation, while the people are lied to by our so-called “leaders.” The corruption in both banking and government is becoming more and more visible to the public.

As shaky as the system is now, there’s an even bigger problem. No one talks about derivatives, the elephant in the room. Derivatives are financial contracts set between two or more parties that derive their value from an underlying asset or group of assets, such as a group of mortgages, stocks, bonds, or commodities. The problem is that although derivatives can be used to reduce risk (hedging), they are far more likely to be used to speculate on the price movement of an underlying asset, or to leverage holdings. A leveraged financial instrument can be purchased with only a small amount of capital and gives you an interest in a much larger amount of value in the underlying asset. So you can invest, with just a little cash, in a very large number of markets and financial instruments. In the process, of course, you spread you money very, very thin.

As more and more derivatives – such as collateralized mortgage obligations, which are tranches or slices of a pool of mortgages – are created on top of the original pool of mortgages, they become more and more detached from the real asset. Investment banks have been creating derivatives for decades as a way to make money. But many of these derivative contracts cannot even be valued – they cannot be “marked to market.” That is because many of these financial instruments are so far removed from the real asset that they are essentially valueless.

Ok, so no big deal, right? Our Tresury Secretary, Janet Yellen, tells us that the banking system is “sound.” Not being one to trust politicians, out of curiosity I looked up the exposure of U.S. banks to derivatives. I couldn’t believe what I found. This is a screenshot of partial list of banks.

Source: https://www.usbanklocations.com/bank-rank/derivatives.html

Check out the first three investment banks – three of 20 Big Banks (banks that are “too big to fail”) that handle U.S. Treasury auctions and which collect substantial fees for doing so.

Leading the pack is Goldman Sachs, with over $53 trillion in derivatives. Uh, excuse me. $50 TRILLION? How the hell can a bank have that much exposure on their books?

It comes from greed and unbridled speculation. Note that the values listed here are par values. Meaning that this is what the banks themselves determine is their worth. The real value of many of these derivatives aren’t even close to the par value, but the banks can’t admit that or they will all collapse. Neither can the bank regulators. Oops! Also note that this isn’t new information. A banker would yawn at this essay. It’s common knowledge at the Fed, and the government oversight committees in Congress, at the FDIC and the SEC.

The next two banks all have around $50 trillion in derivatives on their books. If you go to this website and add up these figures, you get an astonishing total of about $193 trillion dollars in derivatives on the books of U.S. banks (that was my quick calculation).

And we wonder why banks are in trouble?

Go to the website and check the list to see where your bank stands. The list is longer than the image here.

The graph above just lists the derivatives held by banks in the US. According to Investopedia,

The derivatives market is, in a word, gigantic—often estimated at over $1 quadrillion on the high end. How can that be? Largely because there are numerous derivatives in existence, available on virtually every possible type of investment asset, including equities, commodities, bonds, and currency. Some market analysts even place the size of the market at more than 10 times that of the total world gross domestic product (GDP).”

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/derivative.asp

Wow.

Again, the values in this table are the dollar amounts that the banks assign to the worth of their derivatives. This is called the notional value, or face value.

Notional value is a term used to value the underlying asset in a derivatives trade. The notional, or face, value of derivatives contracts is much higher than the market value due to the use of leverage, or borrowed money.”

The derivative game is played by investment banks assigning dollar values to their own portfolios. The derivatives market, worldwide, is a gigantic albatross around the neck of the world’s financial system.

It’s a nice gig, isn’t it? Hey, why don’t you get a printing press and start printing money in your basement? That’s what the derivatives market essentially does. If you or I were to do this we would be – rightly – thrown in jail.

Investment banks have the ability to literally create financial instruments that are backed by nothing, just like the fiat money currencies such as the dollar and the euro.

So the next time you hear rich guys – like the venture capitalists in SVC Bank, whose investors started a run on their own bank – cry about bailouts, take it with a grain of salt. The gummint bailed out the rich depositors in SVC Bank and Signature Bank, and bankrupted the FDIC’s bank insurance fund.

In my opinion, the banking system must be reset to wipe out all so-called “assets” that cannot be marked to market. But what do I know? I’m no expert.

Who is Running Our World?

So far we are on pretty solid ground. Now let’s get into the realm of speculation.

First, remember that the internet began as a secure, closed information-sharing network of the U.S. Department of Defense and research institutions, called ARPANET. What they don’t tell you is that one of the goals of this network was to engage in weapons research at various universities across the country. That’s why the military created the network in the first place, in my opinion.

We also know that the Patent Office has confiscated thousands of inventions that the military and the intelligence community consider threats to “national security.” According to Wired (and many other sources),

Government Secrecy Orders on Patents Have Stifled More Than 5,000 Inventions. If the government thinks your patent-pending invention has national security implications, it can slap a secrecy order on it that prevents you from developing it. More than 5,300 such orders have been issued, with some of them in effect for decades.”

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/

If the Department of Defense thinks your invention is a threat to national security – which means, the established order – it can slap a Patent Secrecy Order on your invention. Which means you can’t commercialize it or even publicize it. Your invention just sits at the Patent Office.

According to Wired, “Tens of thousands of patent applications are manually examined each year under the Invention Secrecy Act and referred for a final decision to the Pentagon, National Security Agency, Department of Justice and, more recently, Department of Homeland Security.” Yeah. These outfits all belong to the military/intelligence complex.

But what happens to your invention after it gets sequestered? Well, as far as I can tell, it’s stolen, basically. An entire industry has been built around cutting-edge inventions that have been stolen from U.S. inventors. These inventions are monetized by venture capitalists (at places like the CIA and SVB Bank, the one that just failed and got bailed out.)

To see how the CIA monetizes patent information, let’s take a peek at In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital outfit. The name of the website is iqt.org. If you click on the “Portfolio” link (iqt.org/portfolio) you can see hundreds of cutting edge organizations sponsored by the CIA. This is just a screenshot of part of the first page:

These CIA-created/sponsored companies are creating high-tech startups using technology stolen from American inventors under the guise of national security. Some of this technology is being weaponized. But of course, it’s all in a good cause! Serving the interests of America’s elite millionaires and billionaires, and hidden cliques within the secret national security and intelligence community.

How many billions (or trillions) of dollars have CIA funded companies like this made over the years? Scroll through the portfolio section on the In-Q-Tel website and click on some of these companies. The CIA is engaging in cutting-edge tech in every imaginable field, funded by taxpayer money, and we have no say in what is being researched, or how that research will be applied to American society and the economy.

We can conclude by saying that innovation in technology is driven by a control paradigm, and it is managed by insiders in the military and in the intelligence community.

How do you like them apples?

But no worries, folks. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and President Joe Biden tell us that the banking system is “sound.” Like the avalanche of phony derivatives held by our banks, these people are divorced from reality. But remember folks. In Our DemocracyTM, ScienceTM and our “leaders” are working for the best interests of the people!


[1] https://world101.cfr.org/global-era-issues/cyberspace-and-cybersecurity/origins-internet

Welcome to the medical surveillance state.

...the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

The program was implemented on April 1, 2022, but didn’t become universally adopted by most medical clinics and hospitals across the United States until January 2023.

"Under this program, doctors at clinics and hospitals have been instructed to ask patients about their vaccination status, which is then added to their electronic medical records as a diagnostic code, known as ICD-10 code, without their knowledge or consent so that they can be tracked—not just within the health care system but outside of it as well.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/the-federal-government-is-tracking-the-unvaccinated_5056313.html

By "partially jabbed" is meant anyone who is not current on any recommended vaccine.

For example, ICD-10 code Z28.310 identifies those who have not received a COVID jab and Z28.311 identifies those who are not up to date on their shots. [emphasis mine]

EVs make perfect sense for people who have in-home solar power arrays and are concerned with their carbon footprint

There are good reasons to buy an all-electric vehicle. Among them are, according to Car and Driver,

An electric car's mechanisms tend to be much simpler than those of a standard-powered vehicle. A few examples listed by My EV include the following:

An electric motor has fewer moving parts than a gasoline engine.

An electric car is fitted with a single-speed transmission.

Unlike conventional automobiles, electric cars are not equipped with many of the usual parts that eventually break and need to be replaced or repaired.”

https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a31875141/electric-car-battery-life/

However, many people buy EVs because they are “far easier on the environment.”

But is this really true?  

According to CNBC,

Almost all studies have shown that the production of electric cars causes more harm to the environment than the production of a combustion car. This is primarily because of the heavy battery used in electric cars. So, if the production of a fuel car releases 10 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, the manufacturing of an EV generates 15.3 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide.

However, fuel cars lose this edge when it comes to the usage of the vehicle. According to the United States Department of Energy, an average fuel car releases 5.2 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. The figure has been reached after keeping the yearly commute distance at 19,300 km. On the other hand, a study by the Alternative Fuel Data Centre of the US reveals that an electric car produces 2.2 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide for the same distance.

Using this emission data, it is safe to conclude that an electric car and a fuel car are equally harmful to the environment for the first 20 months or so. The difference kicks in thereafter. After the first 20 months, electric cars are way less polluting than their ICE-powered counterparts.

Even if we extend this EV vs ICE debate to lithium extraction and oil drilling, electric cars will still be the slightly better option. Skeptics of EVs often point out that the extraction of lithium-ion — a crucial component of EVs — is damaging to the environment. While the argument is not without merit, it must also be taken into consideration that lithium ions make up for just 5–7 percent of the EV battery. Further, lithium extraction, although a water-intensive process, takes place in desolate places where no life can survive. For instance, the Atacama desert in Chile. In contrast, oil drilling takes place on ocean beds which disrupts marine life in the area.”

https://www.cnbctv18.com/auto/evs-or-fuel-cars--comparing-their-carbon-footprints-12184562.htm

This argument in support of EVs, however, does not take into account the other metals that go into making an EV battery. The average EV car battery weighs between 500 and 1,000 pounds. If lithium ions make up only 5% to 7% of the EV car battery, where do the other hundreds of pounds of material come from? It turns out that in addition to lithium, the materials to make an EV battery consist of cobalt, nickel, graphite, copper, and steel. All of these metals come from the earth and must be mined. Not only are mines ugly but they destroy the surface and pollute rivers and the surrounding land.

Lithium mine in Sonora, Mexico.

So, the EV– internal combustion debate as to environmental safety is, in my opinion, a draw. EVs are not environmental panaceas, they may at best be a “slightly better option” than internal combustion vehicles.

Here are some things to consider before buying an EV:

1) The obvious: If you do not have a solar power array at home, the energy to charge your EV comes from the fossil fuel grid, and that grid burns oil, gas, and coal (or exhausts nuclear fuel). Every time you charge your EV you are increasing your carbon footprint.

2) EV batteries are unnecessarily large. Most EVs can go from 0 to 60 in less than 3 seconds! The power to achieve this amazing power surge, however, drains the battery faster and requires a larger battery, and thus more material extracted from mother earth.

3) Driving an EV to the limit of its range heavily discharges the battery pack. Regularly discharging an EV battery reduces the life of the battery. This means the range of your EV, for practical purposes, is reduced.  

4) Fast charging your EV only gets you an 80% charge, which means you have to stop and recharge more often. Moreover, Fast-charging stresses the battery. According to Car and Driver, “Another thing that can diminish batteries lifespan is using Level 3 fast-charging stations. These stations can charge the battery up to 80% in 30 minutes, but they can also overheat the battery. Carfax warns that this can affect the battery's long-term performance and longevity.”

5) Leaving an EV outside in the garage – in the heat or cold – will result in a reduced range when you get up the next day to drive it. EVs burn power even when they aren’t being used, because their powered heating (and cooling) systems are always on, to keep the battery from getting too cold or too hot. That means keeping the vehicle plugged in to avoid loss of charge while it’s just sitting there. And if you don’t have a solar array at home, you are increasing your carbon footprint.

6) Finally, if you want to fast charge your EV at home you have to rewire your home’s electrical system to commercial grade. The standard 240 volt charging system for at-home charging takes between 8 and 9 hours for a full charge. Otherwise you have to drive to a charging station.

The good news for EV owners is that although the average EV battery currently lasts about 8–10 years, the cost of replacement is going down. However, the more EVs are sold the more mineral extraction is necessary, which means that more of the earth’s surface is torn up to extract the minerals and metals necessary to make them, thus increasing the carbon footprint for the EV industry. Moreover, 80% of EV car batteries are made in China. The more EVs are sold the more we help the Chinese economy, when our own workers are suffering from high inflation and a lack of jobs.

However, the EV supply problem is likely to solve itself. There simply might not be enough lithium to manufacture the 2.5 billion EVs necessary for the world to achieve net carbon zero emissions.

According to Ian Shine at weforum.org,

The International Energy Agency says the world could face lithium shortages by 2025. And Credit Suisse says lithium demand could treble between 2020 and 2025, meaning “supply would be stretched.” 

The campaign group Transport and Environment says there is only enough lithium to produce up to 14 million EVs in 2023, Reuters reports. “There simply isn’t going to be enough lithium on the face of the planet, regardless of who expands and who delivers, it just won’t be there,” Lake Resources Chairman Stuart Crow told the Financial Times. “Car makers are starting to sense that maybe the battery makers aren’t going to be able to deliver.”

Volkswagen, the world’s second-largest car manufacturer, has already sold out of EVs in the US and Europe for 2022. Ford’s E-Transit van sold out before production had even begun.”

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/electric-vehicles-world-enough-lithium-resources/

Conclusion

All-electric vehicles are a great idea for people with a solar installation at home, for their emissions footprint should be greatly reduced when compared to a gas powered vehicle. For those without solar arrays, charging your EV uses energy from the polluting fossil fuel grid, and your overall carbon footprint for the life of the EV probably isn’t much different compared to a gasoline powered vehicle.  

Moving the social Overton Window

Introduction

Our society is so polarized that it is almost impossible to have reasoned, give-and-take conversations about politics or current events without contentious argument. We have gone past the social threshold of tolerance. Listening to and tolerating the opinions of others – we might actually learn something from other people! – is not acceptable anymore. Fighting the “other side” is the correct approach. However, the complete polarization of society is a relatively new phenomenon in the post-World War 2 era.

The Law of Three and the Classical Dialectic

The process of listening to others – the exchange of ideas – has been called a dialectic. The American Heritage Dictionary defines dialectic as

1. The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.

2. The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis.

3. The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces...” (the rest of the definition is incomprehensible).

American Heritage dictionary, 5th edition

The classical dialectical method is a conversation between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation.

The process of thesis – antithesis –> synthesis is a dynamic process based on the Law of Three, which has been understood for thousands of years. Gurdjieff said,

Everything in the world obeys the Law of Three, everything existing came into being in accordance with this law. Combinations of positive and negative principles can produce new results, different from the first and the second, only if a third force comes in.”

“The Law of Three” at https://ggurdjieff.com/law-of-three/

Image from “The Law of Three” article. Author annotated.

Geometrically, the Law of Three can be represented by an equilateral triangle. The equilateral triangle is the fundamental and simplest regular polygon (a two dimensional figure). The equilateral triangle is a triangle with 3 sides that are equal in length, and 3 internal angles (60 degrees) that are also equal.

The Law of Three is based mathematically in harmony and equality, not conflict. However, there is always a dark side to human concepts based in harmony. Or, more accurately, dark minds pervert and twist the truth.

The Perverted Dialectic

Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels used the Law of Three and the classical dialectic in an eristic manner. The word eristic comes from Eris, the Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord, and refers to assertions that aim to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. An eristic discourse is aimed at defeating the other side by getting an opponent to agree to negate something he or she believes. The eristic “dialogue” manifests itself in the struggle session, wherein forceful criticism is used to change a person’s beliefs. This tactic was adopted by Mao Tse-tung’s fanatical followers, the Red Guard, during China’s Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976). In China during that time, a mob might surround your house, drag you into the street, and begin to criticize you. You were expected to agree and criticize yourself. This is the essence of the struggle session, as you decide whether to hold onto your beliefs or give in to the mob. Very often physical violence (as well as verbal violence) was used in order to forcefully get a person to change their beliefs.

(George Orwell wrote about this in his book, 1984.) This process is, of course, a perversion of the classical dialectic, which was a harmonious method of exchanging ideas and searching for the truth.

Struggle Session during the Cultural Revolution. This poor man is being made an example of, probably for having incorrect thoughts.

Modernly, materialists and secular activists use a perverted version of the classical dialectic to move a society to a desired social goal. I call this social engineering. The first step in this process is to destroy the culture and traditions of a society. The old society must be broken in order to create a new one.

This is done through unrelenting and unremitting criticism of a society’s cultural norms. A politicized version of Critical Theory is the engine social engineers use to move a society toward a “new normal.” It uses what I call a perverted dialectic to move people off the old cultural norms and into new ones.

The perverted dialectic can be used to successfully take down the structural elements of a culture you want to destroy. Here, the thesis is the established cultural norms the social engineer wants to change. The antithesis is a “revolutionary” concept (a perversion) that strategically redefines the key terms involved, and the synthesis is the negation of cultural norms so that they are understood by the society in terms of the social engineer’s desired result.

This is what Mao Tse-tung did in China to create authoritarian control over 1.4 billion people. Using the perverted dialectic, he set children on their parents for not having “correct” ideas, he destroyed classical Chinese culture and religion and spirituality, and replaced it with a materialist, fascist, authoritarian control system. Modernly, the Chinese Communist Party is the primary example of a collectivist, totalitarian, technocratic surveillance state that stifles different opinions and demands obedience. It is the kind of State our elites want to create, and are attempting to create now.

Examples

Here is an example provided by James Lindsay that I got from his appearance a couple years ago on the Joe Rogan Experience.

You are a shopkeeper. Two people enter your store, one is black and the other white. Whom do you serve first? If you serve the white person first you are a racist by definition. What happens if you serve the black person first? You are STILL a racist! Why? Because by serving the black person first you are trying to get them out of the store faster.

In a perverted dialectic, the shopkeeper (or substitute any targeted person in society) is guilty no matter what they do. Here, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #12 is employed: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Thesis: “Shopkeepers want to be nice to their customers so they can sell more products and make more money.”

Antithesis: “That shopkeeper is a racist.”

Synthesis: “Racist shopkeepers should be shut down. Boycott the store!”

Here the social engineer, using a politicized Critical Theory, insistently holds to their position (does not compromise one inch) no matter how unreasonable or irrational their demands are, and constantly repeats their criticisms. The synthesis then moves to the antithesis. This tactic is highly effective because human beings want harmony and agreement, and people don’t like to be criticized. It essentially uses the lower emotions, fear, anger, and hatred, to move opinions.

(Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals outlines this process. #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” #10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” #12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”)

A politicized Critical Theory and the perverted dialectic essentially use Orwellian methods of redefining language, and violence, to force harmony into conflict. It is perverted, but highly effective.

Example: Let’s say you want to redefine what “justice” is. How would you go about this?

Well, first you would shift the meaning of justice – the classical idea that individuals have the right to fair treatment under the law in an impartial way, regardless of race, color, or creed ­– to an eristic concept of “social justice” based on the idea that the law is not and can never be impartial and so inevitably favors certain social groups over others. Therefore, certain classes in society are automatically “oppressors” and other social classes are “victims.” And so (the social engineer says) the law and its application must be tilted in favor of certain groups in order to level the playing field. Of course, the definition of who is the victim of injustice is defined to reflect the goals of the social engineer. The goals of the social engineer are always “social justice” goals (and thus cannot be criticized), and the traditional concept of justice is always racist and unfair.

It’s a brilliant and effective way to move the Overton Window toward the desired social goal.

Thesis: “Individuals have the right to fair treatment under the law in an impartial way, regardless of race, color, or creed.”

Antithesis: “The law always favors certain social groups over others.”

Synthesis: “The law is inherently racist and must be changed to favor disadvantaged social groups.”

Constant criticism of the accepted idea of justice is the mechanism the perverted dialectic uses to shift perspectives. By constantly hammering the society you want to destroy, the social engineer provides the energy or momentum that drives its goals in the intended direction. Like a rock poised on the edge of a hill, it is first necessary to overcome the social inertia of present belief systems. This is done through social media and mass media with unrelenting, repetitive criticism. (Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister: “It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”)

Once social criticism becomes established, momentum swings to the side of the social critic, and societal “readjustment” gets easier and easier. This is done by NEVER compromising, or being reasonable. Fear and hatred are the energetic drivers of the perverted dialectic. Persistent opponents, of course, are simply censored, thrown in jail, or raided, and their documents, health records, phones, computers, and passports are seized.

The Perverted Dialectic. Author created diagram.

This can be done over and over. For example, the word “merit” can be redefined if the social engineer can promote the idea that the structural basis of society itself is corrupt and unjust against marginalized communities. All that is necessary is to redefine the term “marginalized community.” In this way you can move the marginalized to the center and stigmatize the majority. You can marginalize those who believe in ideas like family, fairness, spirituality and religion, and meritocracy, into subordinate positions (because they are “racists,” “fascists,” or whatever your favorite critical term is).

The clever social engineer can redefine “merit” to mean an indoctrinated, politicized view that merit itself doesn’t exist because it is actually societal privilege; and therefore, those who can’t demonstrate competence are discriminated against. Constructive ideas like merit are twisted, denigrated, and redefined using critical labels such as “ableist.” In other words, if you are good at what you do you and are paid accordingly, you are “ableist” because so many marginalized and deserving people are not. Rather than promoting a system where everyone is given equal opportunity, the social engineer – whose goal is societal destruction – replaces those who can competently do things with politicized incompetents who follow the Party Line. However, it is also a brilliant way to place a very small vocal minority in positions of power.

The perverted dialectic works because the social engineer’s arguments ALWAYS have some basis in fact. Societal privilege and injustice DO exist in society, and they probably always will. However, the purpose and intent of the social engineer is the key. The classical dialectic is constructed to work toward positive and harmonious solutions. The intent of the social engineer with a perverted dialectic is social destruction.

It’s dark versus light. We are in a spiritual war for the hearts, minds, and souls of 7 billion human beings.

The goal of the dark is to destroy the light, to destroy a society, not to build it up. This is what the “new normal,” Transhumanism, and the Great Reset are all about, and it is precisely what is happening in society today.  The people doing this are undertaking a massive “reordering” of U.S. society.

The dark is afraid of the light and must attack it. However, if you understand the Law of Three and the perverted dialectic you can understand what our society is going through today, and not succumb to the antithetical fear porn and hatred of the social engineer.

Transhumanist insanity is now officially promoted by our own government

The Biden administration has just issued a new Executive Order, “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy,” September 12, 2022. With this EO the U.S. government is putting into immediate motion a totalitarian bio-surveillance state where the government owns and programs your biology.

If this insane Transhumanist plan is implemented, the government will own every cell in your body. Don’t believe me? Here is the most relevant portion of this EO:

The United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities.  We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence..."

What is “biological data? Toward the end of this EO it is defined:

(e) The term “biological data” means the information, including associated descriptors, derived from the structure, function, or process of a biological system(s) that is measured, collected, or aggregated for analysis."

New Executive Order

Is further elaboration necessary? This EO is an in-your-face, dystopian plan to phase out human biology and to create a programmed Borg, “Human 2.0” society.

I suggest you read this all the way through.

Under the guise of  “climate change,” “sustainability,” and “equity, ethics, safety, and security,” this EO outlines the plan our elites have for the human race.

Midterms are coming up in November. We must vote out any politician who supports this attack on humanity.

The basis for this Executive Order is Transhumanist technology, which was outlined by Renee Wygrzyn during her talk at the Long Now Foundation.

Here is the document in full:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy

SEPTEMBER 12, 2022

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  It is the policy of my Administration to coordinate a whole-of-government approach to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing towards innovative solutions in health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, supply chain resilience, and national and economic security.  Central to this policy and its outcomes are principles of equity, ethics, safety, and security that enable access to technologies, processes, and products in a manner that benefits all Americans and the global community and that maintains United States technological leadership and economic competitiveness.

Biotechnology harnesses the power of biology to create new services and products, which provide opportunities to grow the United States economy and workforce and improve the quality of our lives and the environment.  The economic activity derived from biotechnology and biomanufacturing is referred to as “the bioeconomy.”  The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vital role of biotechnology and biomanufacturing in developing and producing life-saving diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that protect Americans and the world.  Although the power of these technologies is most vivid at the moment in the context of human health, biotechnology and biomanufacturing can also be used to achieve our climate and energy goals, improve food security and sustainability, secure our supply chains, and grow the economy across all of America.

For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities.  We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.

Simultaneously, we must take concrete steps to reduce biological risks associated with advances in biotechnology.  We need to invest in and promote biosafety and biosecurity to ensure that biotechnology is developed and deployed in ways that align with United States principles and values and international best practices, and not in ways that lead to accidental or deliberate harm to people, animals, or the environment.  In addition, we must safeguard the United States bioeconomy, as foreign adversaries and strategic competitors alike use legal and illegal means to acquire United States technologies and data, including biological data, and proprietary or precompetitive information, which threatens United States economic competitiveness and national security.

We also must ensure that uses of biotechnology and biomanufacturing are ethical and responsible; are centered on a foundation of equity and public good, consistent with Executive Order 13985 of January 20, 2021 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government); and are consistent with respect for human rights.  Resources should be invested justly and equitably so that biotechnology and biomanufacturing technologies benefit all Americans, especially those in underserved communities, as well as the broader global community.

To achieve these objectives, it is the policy of my Administration to:

(a)  bolster and coordinate Federal investment in key research and development (R&D) areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing in order to further societal goals;

(b)  foster a biological data ecosystem that advances biotechnology and biomanufacturing innovation, while adhering to principles of security, privacy, and responsible conduct of research;

(c)  improve and expand domestic biomanufacturing production capacity and processes, while also increasing piloting and prototyping efforts in biotechnology and biomanufacturing to accelerate the translation of basic research results into practice;

(d)  boost sustainable biomass production and create climate-smart incentives for American agricultural producers and forest landowners;

(e)  expand market opportunities for bioenergy and biobased products and services;

(f)  train and support a diverse, skilled workforce and a next generation of leaders from diverse groups to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing;

(g)  clarify and streamline regulations in service of a science- and risk-based, predictable, efficient, and transparent system to support the safe use of products of biotechnology;

(h)  elevate biological risk management as a cornerstone of the life cycle of biotechnology and biomanufacturing R&D, including by providing for research and investment in applied biosafety and biosecurity innovation;

(i)  promote standards, establish metrics, and develop systems to grow and assess the state of the bioeconomy; to better inform policy, decision-making, and investments in the bioeconomy; and to ensure equitable and ethical development of the bioeconomy;

(j)  secure and protect the United States bioeconomy by adopting a forward‑looking, proactive approach to assessing and anticipating threats, risks, and potential vulnerabilities (including digital intrusion, manipulation, and exfiltration efforts by foreign adversaries), and by partnering with the private sector and other relevant stakeholders to jointly mitigate risks to protect technology leadership and economic competitiveness; and

(k)  engage the international community to enhance biotechnology R&D cooperation in a way that is consistent with United States principles and values and that promotes best practices for safe and secure biotechnology and biomanufacturing research, innovation, and product development and use.

The efforts undertaken pursuant to this order to further these policies shall be referred to collectively as the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative.

Sec. 2.  Coordination.  The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (APEP) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), shall coordinate the executive branch actions necessary to implement this order through the interagency process described in National Security Memorandum 2 of February 4, 2021 (Renewing the National Security Council System) (NSM-2 process).  In implementing this order, heads of agencies (as defined in section 13 of this order) shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consult outside stakeholders, such as those in industry; academia; nongovernmental organizations; communities; labor unions; and State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments to advance the policies described in section 1 of this order.

Sec. 3.  Harnessing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing R&D to Further Societal Goals.  (a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the heads of agencies specified in subsections (a)(i)-(v) of this section shall submit the following reports on biotechnology and biomanufacturing to further societal goals related to health, climate change and energy, food and agricultural innovation, resilient supply chains, and cross-cutting scientific advances.  The reports shall be submitted to the President through the APNSA, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the APEP, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (APDP), and the Director of OSTP.

(i)    The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing to achieve medical breakthroughs, reduce the overall burden of disease, and improve health outcomes.

(ii)   The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology, biomanufacturing, bioenergy, and biobased products to address the causes and adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including by sequestering carbon and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(iii)  The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing for food and agriculture innovation, including by improving sustainability and land conservation; increasing food quality and nutrition; increasing and protecting agricultural yields; protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases; and cultivating alternative food sources.

(iv)   The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of HHS, and the heads of other appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary of Commerce, shall submit a report assessing how to use biotechnology and biomanufacturing to strengthen the resilience of United States supply chains.

(v)    The Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Director, shall submit a report identifying high-priority fundamental and use‑inspired basic research goals to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing and to address the societal goals identified in this section.

(b)  Each report specified in subsection (a) of this section shall identify high-priority basic research and technology development needs to achieve the overall objectives described in subsection (a) of this section, as well as opportunities for public-private collaboration.  Each of these reports shall also include recommendations for actions to enhance biosafety and biosecurity to reduce risk throughout the biotechnology R&D and biomanufacturing lifecycles.

(c)  Within 100 days of receiving the reports required under subsection (a) of this section, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the APNSA, the APEP, the APDP, and the heads of appropriate agencies as determined through the NSM-2 process, shall develop a plan (implementation plan) to implement the recommendations in the reports.  The development of this implementation plan shall also include the solicitation of input from external experts regarding potential ethical implications or other societal impacts, including environmental sustainability and environmental justice, of the recommendations contained in the reports required under subsection (a) of this section.  The implementation plan shall include assessments and make recommendations regarding any such implications or impacts.

(d)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined through the NSM-2 process, shall perform a budget crosscut to identify existing levels of agency spending on biotechnology- and biomanufacturing-related activities to inform the development of the implementation plan described in subsection (c) of this section.

(e)  The APNSA, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the APEP, the APDP, and the Director of OSTP, shall review the reports required under subsection (a) of this section and shall submit the reports to the President in an unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(f)  The APNSA, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the APEP, the APDP, and the Director of OSTP, shall include a cover memorandum for the reports submitted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, along with the implementation plan required under subsection (c) of this section, in which they make any additional overall recommendations for advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing.

(g)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, agencies at which recommendations are directed in the implementation plan required under subsection (c) of this section shall report to the Director of OMB, the APNSA, the APEP, the APDP, and the Director of OSTP on measures taken and resources allocated to enhance biotechnology and biomanufacturing, consistent with the implementation plan described in subsection (c) of this section.

(h)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology shall submit to the President and make publicly available a report on the bioeconomy that provides recommendations on how to maintain United States competitiveness in the global bioeconomy.

Sec. 4.  Data for the Bioeconomy.  (a)  In order to facilitate development of the United States bioeconomy, my Administration shall establish a Data for the Bioeconomy Initiative (Data Initiative) that will ensure that high-quality, wide-ranging, easily accessible, and secure biological data sets can drive breakthroughs for the United States bioeconomy.  To assist in the development of the Data Initiative, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of OMB and the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Director of OSTP, and in consultation with external stakeholders, shall issue a report within 240 days of the date of this order that:

(i)    identifies the data types and sources, to include genomic and multiomic information, that are most critical to drive advances in health, climate, energy, food, agriculture, and biomanufacturing, as well as other bioeconomy-related R&D, along with any data gaps;

(ii)   sets forth a plan to fill any data gaps and make new and existing public data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable in ways that are equitable, standardized, secure, and transparent, and that are integrated with platforms that enable the use of advanced computing tools;

(iii)  identifies — based on the data types and sources described in subsection (a)(i) of this section — security, privacy, and other risks (such as malicious misuses, manipulation, exfiltration, and deletion), and provides a data-protection plan to mitigate these risks; and

(iv)   outlines the Federal resources, legal authorities, and actions needed to support the Data Initiative and achieve the goals outlined in this subsection, with a timeline for action.

(b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce (acting through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)), the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of OMB, shall identify and recommend relevant cybersecurity best practices for biological data stored on Federal Government information systems, consistent with applicable law and Executive Order 14028 of May 12, 2021 (Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity).

(c)  The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Director of NIST and in coordination with the Secretary of HHS, shall consider bio-related software, including software for laboratory equipment, instrumentation, and data management, in establishing baseline security standards for the development of software sold to the United States Government, consistent with section 4 of Executive Order 14028.

Sec. 5.  Building a Vibrant Domestic Biomanufacturing Ecosystem.  (a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the APNSA and the APEP, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of NSF, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), shall develop a strategy that identifies policy recommendations to expand domestic biomanufacturing capacity for products spanning the health, energy, agriculture, and industrial sectors, with a focus on advancing equity, improving biomanufacturing processes, and connecting relevant infrastructure.  Additionally, this strategy shall identify actions to mitigate risks posed by foreign adversary involvement in the biomanufacturing supply chain and to enhance biosafety, biosecurity, and cybersecurity in new and existing infrastructure.

(b)  Agencies identified in subsections (b)(i)-(iv) of this section shall direct resources, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, towards the creation or expansion of programs that support a vibrant domestic biomanufacturing ecosystem, as informed by the strategy developed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section:

(i)    the NSF shall expand its existing Regional Innovation Engine program to advance emerging technologies, including biotechnology;

(ii)   the Department of Commerce shall address challenges in biomanufacturing supply chains and related biotechnology development infrastructure;

(iii)  the Department of Defense shall incentivize the expansion of domestic, flexible industrial biomanufacturing capacity for a wide range of materials that can be used to make a diversity of products for the defense supply chain; and

(iv)   the Department of Energy shall support research to accelerate bioenergy and bioproduct science advances, to accelerate biotechnology and bioinformatics tool development, and to reduce the hurdles to commercialization, including through incentivizing the engineering scale-up of promising biotechnologies and the expansion of biomanufacturing capacity.

(c)  Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall submit a plan to the President, through the APNSA and the APEP, to support the resilience of the United States biomass supply chain for domestic biomanufacturing and biobased product manufacturing, while also advancing food security, environmental sustainability, and the needs of underserved communities.  This plan shall include programs to encourage climate-smart production and use of domestic biomass, along with budget estimates, including accounting for funds appropriated for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 and proposed in the President’s FY 2023 Budget.

(d)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the heads of appropriate agencies as determined by the Secretary, shall:

(i)   provide the APNSA with vulnerability assessments of the critical infrastructure and national critical functions associated with the bioeconomy, including cyber, physical, and systemic risks, and recommendations to secure and make resilient these components of our infrastructure and economy; and

(ii)  enhance coordination with industry on threat information sharing, vulnerability disclosure, and risk mitigation for cybersecurity and infrastructure risks to the United States bioeconomy, including risks to biological data and related physical and digital infrastructure and devices.  This coordination shall be informed in part by the assessments described in subsection (d)(i) of this section.

Sec. 6.  Biobased Products Procurement.  (a)  Consistent with the requirements of 7 U.S.C. 8102, within 1 year of the date of this order, procuring agencies as defined in 7 U.S.C. 8102(a)(1)(A) that have not yet established a biobased procurement program as described in 7 U.S.C. 8102(a)(2) shall establish such a program.

(b)  Procuring agencies shall require that, within 2 years of the date of this order, all appropriate staff (including contracting officers, purchase card managers, and purchase card holders) complete training on biobased product purchasing.  The Office of Federal Procurement Policy, within OMB, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall provide training materials for procuring agencies.

(c)  Within 180 days of the date of this order and annually thereafter, procuring agencies shall report previous fiscal year spending to the Director of OMB on the following:

(i)    the number and dollar value of contracts entered into during the previous fiscal year that include the direct procurement of biobased products;

(ii)   the number of service and construction (including renovations) contracts entered into during the previous fiscal year that include language on the use of biobased products; and

(iii)  the types and dollar values of biobased products actually used by contractors in carrying out service and construction (including renovations) contracts during the previous fiscal year.

(d)  The requirements in subsection (c) of this section shall not apply to purchase card transactions and other “[a]ctions not reported” to the Federal Procurement Data System pursuant to 48 CFR 4.606(c).

(e)  Within 1 year of the date of this order and annually thereafter, the Director of OMB shall publish information on biobased procurement resulting from the data collected under subsection (c) of this section and information reported under 7 U.S.C. 8102, along with other related information, and shall use scorecards or similar systems to encourage increased biobased purchasing.

(f)  Within 1 year of the date of this order and annually thereafter, procuring agencies shall report to the Secretary of Agriculture specific categories of biobased products that are unavailable to meet their procurement needs, along with desired performance standards for currently unavailable products and other relevant specifications.  The Secretary of Agriculture shall publish this information annually.  When new categories of biobased products become commercially available, the Secretary of Agriculture shall designate new product categories for preferred Federal procurement, as prescribed by 7 U.S.C. 8102.

(g)  Procuring agencies shall strive to increase by 2025 the amount of biobased product obligations or the number or dollar value of biobased-only contracts, as reflected in the information described in subsection (c) of this section, and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 7.  Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Workforce.  (a)  The United States Government shall expand training and education opportunities for all Americans in biotechnology and biomanufacturing.  To support this objective, within 200 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the APDP, the Director of OSTP, and the Director of NSF shall produce and make publicly available a plan to coordinate and use relevant Federal education and training programs, while also recommending new efforts to promote multi-disciplinary education programs.  This plan shall promote the implementation of formal and informal education and training (such as opportunities at technical schools and certificate programs), career and technical education, and expanded career pathways into existing degree programs for biotechnology and biomanufacturing.  This plan shall also include a focused discussion of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Minority Serving Institutions and the extent to which agencies can use existing statutory authorities to promote racial and gender equity and support underserved communities, consistent with the policy established in Executive Order 13985.  Finally, this plan shall account for funds appropriated for FY 2022 and proposed in the President’s FY 2023 Budget.

(b)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, agencies that support relevant Federal education and training programs as described in subsection (a) of this section shall report to the President through the APNSA, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the ADPD, and the Director of OSTP, on measures taken and resources allocated to enhance workforce development pursuant to the plan described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 8.  Biotechnology Regulation Clarity and Efficiency.  Advances in biotechnology are rapidly altering the product landscape.  The complexity of the current regulatory system for biotechnology products can be confusing and create challenges for businesses to navigate.  To improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for biotechnology products, and to enable products that further the societal goals identified in section 3 of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in coordination with the Director of OMB, the ADPD, and the Director of OSTP, shall:

(a)  within 180 days of the date of this order, identify areas of ambiguity, gaps, or uncertainties in the January 2017 Update to the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology or in the policy changes made pursuant to Executive Order 13874 of June 11, 2019 (Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products), including by engaging with developers and external stakeholders, and through horizon scanning for novel products of biotechnology;

(b)  within 100 days of completing the task in subsection (a) of this section, provide to the general public plain-language information regarding the regulatory roles, responsibilities, and processes of each agency, including which agency or agencies are responsible for oversight of different types of products developed with biotechnology, with case studies, as appropriate;

(c)  within 280 days of the date of this order, provide a plan to the Director of OMB, the ADPD, and the Director of OSTP with processes and timelines to implement regulatory reform, including identification of the regulations and guidance documents that can be updated, streamlined, or clarified; and identification of potential new guidance or regulations, where needed;

(d)  within 1 year of the date of this order, build on the Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation developed pursuant to Executive Order 13874 by including on the website the information developed under subsection (b) of this section, and by enabling developers of biotechnology products to submit inquiries about a particular product and promptly receive a single, coordinated response that provides, to the extent practicable, information and, when appropriate, informal guidance regarding the process that the developers must follow for Federal regulatory review; and

(e)  within 1 year of the date of this order, and annually thereafter for a period of 3 years, provide an update regarding progress in implementing this section to the Director of OMB, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the APNSA, the ADPD, and the Director of OSTP.  Each 1-year update shall identify any gaps in statutory authority that should be addressed to improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for biotechnology products, and shall recommend additional executive actions and legislative proposals to achieve such goals.

Sec. 9.  Reducing Risk by Advancing Biosafety and Biosecurity.  (a)  The United States Government shall launch a Biosafety and Biosecurity Innovation Initiative, which shall seek to reduce biological risks associated with advances in biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and the bioeconomy.  Through the Biosafety and Biosecurity Innovation Initiative — which shall be established by the Secretary of HHS, in coordination with the heads of other relevant agencies as determined by the Secretary — agencies that fund, conduct, or sponsor life sciences research shall implement the following actions, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(i)   support, as a priority, investments in applied biosafety research and innovations in biosecurity to reduce biological risk throughout the biotechnology R&D and biomanufacturing lifecycles; and

(ii)  use Federal investments in biotechnology and biomanufacturing to incentivize and enhance biosafety and biosecurity practices and best practices throughout the United States and international research enterprises.

(b)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of HHS and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with agencies that fund, conduct, or sponsor life sciences research, shall produce a plan for biosafety and biosecurity for the bioeconomy, including recommendations to:

(i)   enhance applied biosafety research and bolster innovations in biosecurity to reduce risk throughout the biotechnology R&D and biomanufacturing lifecycles; and

(ii)  use Federal investments in biological sciences, biotechnology, and biomanufacturing to enhance biosafety and biosecurity best practices throughout the bioeconomy R&D enterprise.

(c)  Within 1 year of the date of this order, agencies that fund, conduct, or sponsor life sciences research shall report to the APNSA, through the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor, on efforts to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 10.  Measuring the Bioeconomy.  (a)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of NIST, shall, in consultation with other agencies as determined by the Director, industry, and other stakeholders, as appropriate, create and make publicly available a lexicon for the bioeconomy, with consideration of relevant domestic and international definitions and with the goal of assisting in the development of measurements and measurement methods for the bioeconomy that support uses such as economic measurement, risk assessments, and the application of machine learning and other artificial intelligence tools.

(b)  The Chief Statistician of the United States, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of NSF, and the heads of other appropriate agencies as determined by the Chief Statistician, shall improve and enhance Federal statistical data collection designed to characterize the economic value of the United States bioeconomy, with a focus on the contribution of biotechnology to the bioeconomy.  This effort shall include:

(i)   within 180 days of the date of this order, assessing, through the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the feasibility, scope, and costs of developing a national measurement of the economic contributions of the bioeconomy, and, in particular, the contributions of biotechnology to the bioeconomy, including recommendations and a plan for next steps regarding whether development of such a measurement should be pursued; and

(ii)  within 120 days of the date of this order, establishing an Interagency Technical Working Group (ITWG), chaired by the Chief Statistician of the United States, which shall include representatives of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, OSTP, the NSF, and other appropriate agencies as determined by the Chief Statistician of the United States.

(A)  Within 1 year of the date of this order, the ITWG shall recommend bioeconomy-related revisions to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) to the Economic Classification Policy Committee.  In 2026, the ITWG shall initiate a review process of the 2023 recommendations and update the recommendations, as appropriate, to provide input to the 2027 NAICS and NAPCS revision processes.

(B)  Within 18 months of the date of this order, the ITWG shall provide a report to the Chief Statistician of the United States describing the Federal statistical collections of information that take advantage of bioeconomy-related NAICS and NAPCS codes, and shall include recommendations to implement any bioeconomy-related changes as part of the 2022 revisions of the NAICS and NAPCS.  As part of its work, the ITWG shall consult with external stakeholders.

Sec. 11.  Assessing Threats to the United States Bioeconomy.  (a)  The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) shall lead a comprehensive interagency assessment of ongoing, emerging, and future threats to United States national security from foreign adversaries against the bioeconomy and from foreign adversary development and application of biotechnology and biomanufacturing, including acquisition of United States capabilities, technologies, and biological data.  As part of this effort, the DNI shall work closely with the Department of Defense to assess technical applications of biotechnology and biomanufacturing that could be misused by a foreign adversary for military purposes or that could otherwise pose a risk to the United States.  In support of these objectives, the DNI shall identify elements of the bioeconomy of highest concern and establish processes to support ongoing threat identification and impact assessments.

(b)  Within 240 days of the date of this order, the DNI shall provide classified assessments to the APNSA related to:

(i)   threats to United States national and economic security posed by foreign adversary development and application of biomanufacturing; and

(ii)  foreign adversary means of, and intended usages related to, acquisition of United States biotechnologies, biological data, and proprietary or precompetitive information.

(c)  Within 120 days of receiving the DNI’s assessments, the APNSA shall coordinate with the heads of relevant agencies as determined through the NSM-2 process to develop and finalize a plan to mitigate risks to the United States bioeconomy, based upon the threat identification and impact assessments described in subsection (a) of this section, the vulnerability assessments described in section 5(d) of this order, and other relevant assessments or information.  The plan shall identify where executive action, regulatory action, technology protection, or statutory authorities are needed to mitigate these risks in order to support the technology leadership and economic competitiveness of the United States bioeconomy.

(d)  The United States Government contracts with a variety of providers to support its functioning, including by contracting for services related to the bioeconomy.  It is important that these contracts are awarded according to full and open competition, as consistent with the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369, 98 Stat. 1175).  In accordance with these objectives, and within 1 year of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the DNI, the Administrator of NASA, and the Administrator of General Services, shall review the national security implications of existing requirements related to Federal procurement — including requirements contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement — and shall recommend updates to those requirements to the FAR Council, the Director of OMB, and the heads of other appropriate agencies as determined through the NSM-2 process.  The recommendations shall aim to standardize pre-award data collection to enable due diligence review of conflict of interest; conflict of commitment; foreign ownership, control, or influence; or other potential national security concerns.  The recommendations shall also include legislative proposals, as relevant.

(e)  The Director of OMB shall issue a management memorandum to agencies, or take other appropriate action, to provide generalized guidance based on the recommendations received pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

Sec. 12.  International Engagement.  (a)  The Department of State and other agencies that engage with international partners as part of their missions shall undertake the following actions with foreign partners, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law — with a specific focus on developing countries, international organizations, and nongovernmental entities — to promote and protect both the United States and global bioeconomies:

(i)     enhance cooperation, including joint research projects and expert exchanges, on biotechnology R&D, especially in genomics;

(ii)    encourage regulatory cooperation and the adoption of best practices to evaluate and promote innovative products, with an emphasis on those practices and products that support sustainability and climate objectives;

(iii)   develop joint training arrangements and initiatives to support bioeconomy jobs in the United States;

(iv)    work to promote the open sharing of scientific data, including genetic sequence data, to the greatest extent possible in accordance with applicable law and policy, while seeking to ensure that any applicable access and benefit-sharing mechanisms do not hinder the rapid and sustainable development of innovative products and biotechnologies;

(v)     conduct horizon scanning to anticipate threats to the global bioeconomy, including national security threats from foreign adversaries acquiring sensitive technologies or data, or disrupting essential bio-related supply chains, and to identify opportunities to address those threats;

(vi)    engage allies and partners to address shared national security threats;

(vii)   develop, and work to promote and implement, biosafety and biosecurity best practices, tools, and resources bilaterally and multilaterally to facilitate appropriate oversight for life sciences, dual-use research of concern, and research involving potentially pandemic and other high-consequence pathogens, and to enhance sound risk management of biotechnology- and biomanufacturing-related R&D globally; and

(viii)  explore how to align international classifications of biomanufactured products, as appropriate, to measure the value of those products to both the United States and global bioeconomies.

(b)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the USTR and the heads of other agencies as determined by the Secretary, as appropriate, shall submit to the APNSA a plan to support the objectives described in subsection (a) of this section with foreign partners, international organizations, and nongovernmental entities.

Sec. 13.  Definitions.  For purposes of this order:

(a)  The term “agency” has the meaning given that term by 44 U.S.C. 3502(1).

(b)  The term “biotechnology” means technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.

(c)  The term “biomanufacturing” means the use of biological systems to develop products, tools, and processes at commercial scale.

(d)  The term “bioeconomy” means economic activity derived from the life sciences, particularly in the areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing, and includes industries, products, services, and the workforce.

(e)  The term “biological data” means the information, including associated descriptors, derived from the structure, function, or process of a biological system(s) that is measured, collected, or aggregated for analysis.

(f)  The term “biomass” means any material of biological origin that is available on a renewable or recurring basis.  Examples of biomass include plants, trees, algae, and waste material such as crop residue, wood waste, animal waste and byproducts, food waste, and yard waste.

(g)  The term “biobased product” has the meaning given that term in 7 U.S.C. 8101(4).

(h)  The term “bioenergy” means energy derived in whole or in significant part from biomass.

(i)  The term “multiomic information” refers to combined information derived from data, analysis, and interpretation of multiple omics measurement technologies to identify or analyze the roles, relationships, and functions of biomolecules (including nucleic acids, proteins, and metabolites) that make up a cell or cellular system.  Omics are disciplines in biology that include genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics.

(j)  The term “key R&D areas” includes fundamental R&D of emerging biotechnologies, including engineering biology; predictive engineering of complex biological systems, including the designing, building, testing, and modeling of entire living cells, cell components, or cellular systems; quantitative and theory-driven multi-disciplinary research to maximize convergence with other enabling technologies; and regulatory science, including the development of new information, criteria, tools, models, and approaches to inform and assist regulatory decision-making.  These R&D priorities should be coupled with advances in predictive modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, high-performance and other advanced computing systems, metrology and data-driven standards, and other non-life science enabling technologies.

(k)  The terms “equity” and “underserved communities” have the meanings given those terms by sections 2(a) and 2(b) of Executive Order 13985.

(l)  The term “Tribal Colleges and Universities” has the meaning given that term by section 5(e) of Executive Order 14049 of October 11, 2021 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Native Americans and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities).

(m)  The term “Historically Black Colleges and Universities” has the meaning given that term by section 4(b) of Executive Order 14041 of September 3, 2021 (White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Historically Black Colleges and Universities).

(n)  The term “minority serving institution” has the meaning given that term by 38 U.S.C. 3698(f)(4).

(o)  The term “foreign adversary” has the meaning given that term by section 3(b) of Executive Order 14034 of June 9, 2021 (Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data From Foreign Adversaries).

(p)  The term “life sciences” means all sciences that study or use living organisms, viruses, or their products, including all disciplines of biology and all applications of the biological sciences (including biotechnology, genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and pharmaceutical and biomedical research and techniques), but excluding scientific studies associated with radioactive materials or toxic chemicals that are not of biological origin or synthetic analogues of toxins.

Sec. 14.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.                           

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

  September 12, 2022."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/12/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation-for-a-sustainable-safe-and-secure-american-bioeconomy/