Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature

 

*

Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature 

Henry P. Stapp

 (two extracts)

Abstract

Orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory renounces the quest to understand the reality in which we are imbedded, and settles for practical rules that describe connections between our observations.

Many physicists have believed that this renunciation of the attempt describe nature herself was premature, and John von Neumann, in a major work, reformulated quantum theory as a theory of the evolving objective universe. In the course of his work he converted to a benefit what had appeared to be a severe deficiency of the Copenhagen interpretation, namely its introduction into physical theory of the human observers.

He used this subjective element of quantum theory to achieve a significant advance on the main problem in philosophy, which is to understand the relationship between mind and matter. That problem had been tied closely to physical theory by the works of Newton and Descartes. The present work examines the major problems that have appeared to block the development of von Neumann’s theory into a fully satisfactory theory of Nature, and proposes solutions to these problems.

 

The Nonlocality Controversy

“Nonlocality gets more real”. This is the provocative title of a recent report in Physics Today. Three experiments are cited. All three confirm to high accuracy the predictions of quantum theory in experiments that suggest the occurrence of an instantaneous action over a large distance. The most spectacular of the three experiments begins with the production of pairs of photons in a lab in downtown Geneva. For some of these pairs, one member is sent by optical fiber to the village of Bellevue, while the other is sent to the town of Bernex. The two towns lie more than 10 kilometers apart. Experiments on the arriving photons are performed in both villages at essentially the same time.

What is found is this: The observed connections between the outcomes of these experiments defy explanation in terms of ordinary ideas about the nature of the physical world on the scale of directly observable objects. This conclusion is announced in opening sentence of the

Physical-Review-Letters report that describes the experiment: “Quantum theory is nonlocal”. This observed effect is not just an academic matter. A possible application of interest to the Swiss is this: The effect can be used in principle to transfer banking records over large distances in a secure way.

But of far greater importance to physicists is its relevance to two fundamental questions: What is the nature of physical reality ? What is the form of basic physical theory ?

The answers to these questions depend crucially on the nature of physical causation. Isaac Newton erected his theory of gravity on the idea of instant action at a distance. According to Newton’s theory, if a person were to suddenly kick a stone, and send it flying off in some direction, every particle in the entire universe would immediately begin to feel the effect of that kick.

Thus, in Newton’s theory, every part of the universe is instantly linked, causally, to every other part. To even think about such an instantaneous action one needs the idea of the instant of time “now”, and a sequence of such instants each extending over the entire universe.

This idea that what a person does in one place could act instantly affect physical reality in a faraway place is a mind-boggling notion, and it was banished from classical physics by Einstein’s theory of relativity.

But the idea resurfaced at the quantum level in the debate between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein objected to the “mysterious action at a distance”, which quantum theory seemed to entail, but Bohr defended “the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality”.

The essence of this radical revision was explained by Dirac at the 1927 Solvay conference. He insisted on the restriction of the application of quantum theory to our knowledge of a system, rather than to the system itself. Thus physical theory became converted from a theory about ‘physically reality’, as it had formerly been understood, into a theory about human knowledge.

This view is encapsulated in Heisenberg’s famous statement: “The conception of the objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept, but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behaviour of the particle but rather our knowledge of this behaviour.”

This conception of quantum theory, espoused by Bohr, Dirac, and Heisenberg, is called the Copenhagen interpretation. It is essentially subjective and epistemological, because the basic reality of the theory is ‘our knowledge’.

This way of dodging the action-at-a-distance problem was challenged by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in a famous paper entitled: “Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” The issue was whether a theory that is specified to be merely a set of rules about connections between human experiences can be considered to be a complete description of physical reality. Einstein and his colleagues gave a reasonable definition of “physical reality”, and then argued, directly from some basic precepts of quantum theory itself, that the answer to this question is ‘No’.

Bohr disagreed.

Given the enormity of what must exist in the universe as a whole, and the relative smallness human knowledge, it is astonishing that, in the minds of most physicists, Bohr prevailed over Einstein in this debate: the majority of quantum physicists acquiesced to Bohr’s claim that quantum theory, regarded as a theory about human knowledge, is a complete description of physical reality. This majority opinion stems, I believe, more from the lack of a promising alternative candidate than from any decisive logical argument. Einstein, commenting on the orthodox Copenhagen position, said: “What I dislike about this kind of argument is the basic positivistic attitude, which from my view is untenable, and seems to me to come to the same thing as Berkeley’s principle, ‘esse est percipi’, “to be is to be perceived”. Several other scientists also reject the majority opinion. For example, Murray Gell-Mann asserts: “Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation into believing that the problem was solved fifty years ago”.

Gell-mann believes that in order to integrate quantum theory coherently into cosmology, and to understand the evolutionary process that has produced creatures that can have knowledge, one needs to have a coherent theory of the evolving quantum mechanical reality in which these creatures are imbedded. It is in the context of such efforts to construct a more complete theory that the significance of the experiments pertaining to quantum nonlocality lies.

The point is this: If nature really is nonlocal, as these experiments suggest, then the way is open to the development of a rationally coherent theory of nature that integrates the subjective knowings introduced by Copenhagen quantum theory into an objectively existing and evolving physical reality.

(…)

 

 

The Passive and Active Roles of Mind

The founders of quantum theory recognized that the mathematical structure of quantum theory is naturally suited for, and seems to require, bringing into the dynamical equations two separate aspects of the interaction between the physical universe and the minds of the experimenter/observers.

The first of these two aspects is the role of the experimenter in choosing what to attend to; which aspect of nature he wants to probe; which question he wants to ask about the physical world. This is the active role of mind.

The second aspect is the recognition, or coming to know, the answer that nature returns.

This is the passive role of mind.

 

The Active Physical Counterpart to the Passive Mental Event

I have mentioned the Schrödinger evolution of the state S(t) of the universe. The second part of the orthodox quantum dynamics consists of an event that discards from the ensemble of quasi-classical elements mentioned above those elements that are incompatible with the answer that nature returns. This reduction of the prior ensemble of elements, which constitute the quantum mechanical representation of the brain, to the sub ensemble compatible with the “outcome of the query” is analogous to what happens in classical statistical mechanics when new information about the physical system is obtained.

However, in the quantum case one must in principle regard the entire ensemble of classically described brains as real, because interference between the different elements are in principle possible.

Each quantum event consists, then of a pair of events, one physical, the other mental. The physical event reduces the initial ensemble that constitutes the brain prior to the event to the sub ensemble consisting of those branches that are compatible with the informational content of the associated mental event.

This dynamical connection means that, during an interval of conscious thinking, the brain changes by an alternation between two processes.

The first is the generation, by a local deterministic mechanical rule, of an expanding profusion of alternative possible branches, with each branch corresponding to an entire classically describable brain embodying some specific possible course of action. The quantum brain is the entire ensemble of these separate, but equally real, quasi-classical branches.

The second process involves an event that has both physical and mental aspects. The physical aspect, or event, chops off all branches that are incompatible with the associated mental aspect, or event. For example, if the mental event is the experiencing of some feature of the physical world, then the associated physical event would be the updating of the brain’s representation of that aspect of the physical world. This updating of the (quantum) brain is achieved by discarding from the ensemble of quasi-classical brain states all those branches in which the brain’s representation of the physical world is incompatible with the information content of the mental event.

This connection is similar to a functionalist account of consciousness. But here it is expressed in terms of a dynamical interaction that is demanded by the requirement that the objective formulation of the theory yield the same predictions about connections between our conscious experiences that the empirically validated Copenhagen quantum theory gives. The interaction is the exact expression of the basic dynamical rule of quantum theory, which is the stipulation that each increment in knowledge is associated with a reduction of the quantum state to one that is compatible with the new knowledge.

The quantum brain is an ensemble of quasi-classical components. As just noted, this structure is similar to something that occurs in classical statistical mechanics, namely a “classical statistical ensemble.” But a classical statistical ensemble, though structurally similar to a quantum brain, is fundamentally a different kind of thing. It is a representation of a set of truly distinct possibilities, only one of which is real.

A classical statistical ensemble is used when a person does not know which of the conceivable possibilities is real, but can assign a ‘probability’ to each possibility. In contrast, all of the elements of the ensemble that constitute a quantum brain are equally real: no choice has yet been made among them, Consequently, and this is the key point, entire ensemble acts as a whole in the determination of the upcoming mind-brain event.

Each thought is associated with the actualization of some macroscopic quasi-stable features of the brain. Thus the reduction event is a macroscopic happening. Moreover, this event involves, dynamically, the entire ensemble of quasi-classical brain states. In the corresponding classical model each element of the ensemble evolves independently, in accordance with a micro local law of motion that involves just that one branch alone. Thus there are basic dynamical differences between the quantum and classical models, and the consequences of these dynamical differences need to be studied in order to exhibit the quantum effects.

The only freedom in the theory—insofar as we leave Nature’s choices alone—is the choice made by the individual about which question it will ask next, and when it will ask it. These are the only inputs of mind to the dynamics of the brain. This severe restriction on the role of mind is what gives the theory its predictive power. Without this restriction mind could be free to do anything, and the theory would have no consequences.

Asking a question about something is closely connected to focussing one’s attention on it. Attending to something is the act of directing one’s mental power to some task. This task might be to update one’s representation of some feature of the surrounding world, or to plan or execute some other sort of mental or physical action.

The key question is then: Can this freedom merely to choose which question is asked, and when it is asked, lead to any statistical influence of mind on the behaviour of the brain, where a ‘statistical’ influence is an influence on values obtained by averaging over the properly weighted possibilities.

The answer is Yes  !

 

The Quantum Zeno Effect

There is an important and well-studied effect in quantum theory that depends on the timings of the reduction events arising from the queries put to nature. It is called the Quantum Zeno Effect. It is not diminished by interaction with the environment.

The effect is simple. If the same question is put to nature sufficiently rapidly and the initial answer is Yes, then any noise-induced diffusion, or force-induced motion, of the system away from the sub ensemble where the answer is ‘Yes’ will be suppressed: the system will tend to be confined to the sub ensemble where the answer is ‘Yes’. The effect is sometimes called the “watched pot” effect: according to the old adage “A watched pot never boils”; just looking at it keeps it from changing.

Also, a state can be pulled along in some direction by posing a rapid sequence of questions that change sufficiently slowly over time. In short, according to the dynamical laws of quantum mechanics, the freedom to choose which questions are put to nature, and when they are asked, allows mind to influence the behaviour of the brain.

A person is aware of almost none of the processing that is going on in his brain: unconscious brain action does almost everything. So it would be both unrealistic and theoretically unfeasible to give mind unbridled freedom: the questions posed by mind ought to be determined in large measure by brain.

What freedom is given to man ?

According to this theory, the freedom given to Nature is simply to provide a Yes or No answer to a question posed by a subsystem. It seems reasonable to restrict in a similar way, the choice given to a human mind.

* original design of T. Gleitzer

related:

« Can consciousness exist without a brain » - zerohedge

The powerfuls' dirty secret ( + Maui)

No one walks in front of the king. Kings like Louis XIV, emperors like Julius Caesar and most of the 'leaders' use that trick. To disobey is a crime of lese majesty. But there is one person that is admitted sometime to walk side by side with the number one: another tyrant, the defeated tyrant. 

The 'slave in chief' bears that right in order to remember all that being a slave is rewarded, from down to up. However, upon the multitude of slaves that constitute a people, only a few have the permanent honor to share with the leader their ideas. These are the five or six that Etienne de la Boétie talks about in the extract below.

These five or six buy hundreds that are created at there own will among the most popular characters that they want to become the leaders of the populace from movies and sport leaders to politicians and businessmen. Not only the WEF serves that purpose but the NFL, Hollywood, all kinds of Awards, and so on.

What did England do to conquest India ?

Britain began to defeat or corrupt a few big people, made some war, some more corruption and imposed their financial laws all around that made great a few hundred of people who were enough to bow down the will of thousands who didn't even understand that they had a new master.

Yes, the powerful prefer to feed an enemy, to give him a share in their profits rather than to wound him. Voluntary serves are top quality, you know ? Yes ! Bribe is the best game in town ... Do your children wear a Messi or Ronaldo T-shirt ?

Discourse of voluntary servitude, or 'Against' one'

Extract:

"This method tyrants use of stultifying their subjects cannot be more clearly observed than in what Cyrus did with the Lydians after he had taken Sardis, their chief city, and had at his mercy the captured Croesus, their fabulously rich king.

When news was brought to him that the people of Sardis had rebelled, it would have been easy for him to reduce them by force; but being unwilling either to sack such a fine city or to maintain an army there to police it, he thought of an unusual expedient for reducing it.

He established in it brothels, taverns, and public games, and issued the proclamation that the inhabitants were to enjoy them. He found this type of garrison so effective that he never again had to draw the sword against the Lydians. These wretched people enjoyed themselves inventing all kinds of games, so that the Latins have derived the word from them, and what we call pastimes they call ludi, as if they meant to say Lydi.

Not all tyrants have manifested so clearly their intention to effeminize their victims; but in fact, what the aforementioned despot publicly proclaimed and put into effect, most of the others have pursued secretly as an end.

It is indeed the nature of the populace, whose density is always greater in the cities, to be suspicious toward one who has their welfare at heart, and gullible toward one who fools them. Do not imagine that there is any bird more easily caught by decoy, nor any fish sooner fixed on the hook by wormy bait, than are all these poor fools neatly tricked into servitude by the slightest feather passed, so to speak, before their mouths.

Truly it is a marvellous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny.

By these practices and enticements, the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books. Roman tyrants invented a further refinement. They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of eating than by anything else.

The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato. Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: 31 and then everybody would shamelessly cry, “Long live the King !” The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them.

A man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himself at the public feast, lauding Tiberius and Nero for handsome liberality, who on the morrow, would be forced to abandon his property to their avarice, his children to their lust, his very blood to the cruelty of these magnificent emperors, without offering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. The mob has always behaved in this way — eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honourably accepted, and dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honourably endured.

 

Nowadays I do not meet anyone who, on hearing mention of Nero, does not shudder at the very name of that hideous monster, that disgusting and vile pestilence. Yet when he died — when this incendiary, this executioner, this savage beast, died as vilely as he had lived — the noble Roman people, mindful of his games and his festivals, were saddened to the point of wearing mourning for him.

Thus wrote Cornelius Tacitus, a competent and serious author, and one of the most reliable. This will not be considered peculiar in view of what this same people had previously done at the death of Julius Caesar, who had swept away their laws and their liberty, in whose character, it seems to me, there was nothing worthwhile, for his very liberality, which is so highly praised, was more baneful than the crudest tyrant who ever existed, because it was actually this poisonous amiability of his that sweetened servitude for the Roman people.

After his death, that people, still preserving on their palates the flavour of his banquets and in their minds the memory of his prodigality, vied with one another to pay him homage. They piled up the seats of the Forum for the great fire that reduced his body to ashes, and later raised a column to him as to “The Father of His People.” (Such was the inscription on the capital.) They did him more honour, dead as he was, than they had any right to confer upon any man in the world, except perhaps on those who had killed him.

They didn’t even neglect, these Roman emperors, to assume generally the title of Tribune of the People, partly because this office was held sacred and inviolable and also because it had been founded for the defence and protection of the people and enjoyed the favour of the state.

By this means they made sure that the populace would trust them completely, as if they merely used the title and did not abuse it. Today there are some who do not behave very differently: they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning public welfare and common good. You well know, O Longa, this formula which they use quite cleverly in certain places; although for the most part, to be sure, there cannot be cleverness where there is so much impudence.

The kings of the Assyrians and even after them those of the Medes showed themselves in public as seldom as possible in order to set up a doubt in the minds of the rabble as to whether they were not in some way more than man, and thereby to encourage people to use their imagination for those things which they cannot judge by sight. Thus a great many nations who for a long time dwelt under the control of the Assyrians became accustomed, with all this mystery, to their own subjection, and submitted the more readily for not knowing what sort of master they had, or scarcely even if they had one, all of them fearing by report someone they had never seen.

The earliest kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration, whereas with people neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused, it seems to me, amusement and laughter. It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. Indeed, they always fooled their victims so easily that while mocking them they enslaved them the more.

 

What comment can I make concerning another fine counterfeit that ancient peoples accepted as true money ?

 They believed firmly that the great toe of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, performed miracles and cured diseases of the spleen; they even enhanced the tale further with the legend that this toe, after the corpse had been burned, was found among the ashes, untouched by the fire. In this wise a foolish people itself invents lies and then believes them. Many men have recounted such things, but in such a way that it is easy to see that the parts were pieced together from idle gossip of the city and silly reports from the rabble.

When Vespasian, returning from Assyria, passes through Alexandria on his way to Rome to take possession of the empire, he performs wonders: he makes the crippled straight, restores sight to the blind, and does many other fine things, concerning which the credulous and undiscriminating were, in my opinion, more blind than those cured.

Tyrants themselves have wondered that men could endure the persecution of a single man; they have insisted on using religion for their own protection and, where possible, have borrowed a stray bit of divinity to bolster up their evil ways."

(…)

"Our own leaders have employed in France certain similar devices, such as toads, ‘fleurs-de-lys’, sacred vessels, and standards with flames of gold. However, that may be, I do not wish, for my part, to be incredulous, since neither we nor our ancestors have had any occasion up to now for scepticism.

Our kings have always been so generous in times of peace and so valiant in time of war, that from birth they seem not to have been created by nature like many others, but even before birth to have been designated by Almighty God for the government and preservation of this kingdom. Even if this were not so, yet should I not enter the tilting ground to call in question the truth of our traditions, or to examine them so strictly as to take away their fine conceits.

Here is such a field for our French poetry, now not merely honoured but, it seems to me, reborn through our Ronsard, our ‘Baïf’, our Bellay. These poets are defending our language so well that I dare to believe that very soon neither the Greeks nor the Latins will in this respect have any advantage over us except possibly that of seniority. And I should assuredly do wrong to our poesy — I like to use that word despite the fact that several have rimed mechanically, for I still discern a number of men today capable of ennobling poetry and restoring it to its first lustre — but, as I say, I should do the Muse great injury if I deprived her now of those fine tales about King Clovis, amongst which it seems to me I can already see how agreeably and how happily the inspiration of our Ronsard in his Franciade will play. I appreciate his loftiness, I am aware of his keen spirit, and I know the charm of the man: he will appropriate the ‘oriflamme’ to his use much as did the Romans their sacred bucklers and the shields cast from heaven to earth, according to Virgil. He will use our phial of holy oil much as the Athenians used the basket of Ericthonius; he will win applause for our deeds of valour as they did for their olive wreath which they insist can still be found in Minerva’s tower. Certainly I should be presumptuous if I tried to cast slurs on our records and thus invade the realm of our poets.

 

But to return to our subject, the thread of which I have unwittingly lost in this discussion: it has always happened that tyrants, in order to strengthen their power, have made every effort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves, but also in adoration. Therefore, all that I have said up to the present concerning the means by which a more willing submission has been obtained applies to dictators in their relationship with the inferior and common classes.

I come now to a point which is, in my opinion, the mainspring and the secret of domination, the support and foundation of tyranny. Whoever thinks that halberds, sentries, the placing of the watch, serve to protect and shield tyrants is, in my judgment, completely mistaken.

These are used, it seems to me, more for ceremony and a show of force than for any reliance placed in them. The archers forbid the entrance to the palace to the poorly dressed who have no weapons, not to the well-armed who can carry out some plot.

Certainly it is easy to say of the Roman emperors that fewer escaped from danger by the aid of their guards than were killed by their own archers. It is not the troops on horseback, it is not the companies afoot, it is not arms that defend the tyrant. This does not seem credible on first thought, but it is nevertheless true that there are only four or five who maintain the dictator, four or five who keep the country in bondage to him.

 

Five or six have always had access to his ear, and have either gone to him of their own accord, or else have been summoned by him, to be accomplices in his cruelties, companions in his pleasures, panders to his lusts, and sharers in his plunders.

These six manage their chief so successfully that he comes to be held accountable not only for his own misdeeds but even for theirs. The six have six hundred who profit under them, and with the six hundred they do what they have accomplished with their tyrant.

The six hundred maintain under them six thousand, whom they promote in rank, upon whom they confer the government of provinces or the direction of finances, in order that they may serve as instruments of avarice and cruelty, executing orders at the proper time and working such havoc all around that they could not last except under the shadow of the six hundred, nor be exempt from law and punishment except through their influence.

 

The consequence of all this is fatal indeed. And whoever is pleased to unwind the skein will observe that not the six thousand but a hundred thousand, and even millions, cling to the tyrant by this cord to which they are tied. According to Homer, Jupiter boasts of being able to draw to himself all the gods when he pulls a chain. Such a scheme caused the increase in the senate under Julius, the formation of new ranks, the creation of offices; not really, if properly considered, to reform justice, but to provide new supporters of despotism. In short, when the point is reached, through big favours or little ones, that large profits or small are obtained under a tyrant, there are found almost as many people to whom tyranny seems advantageous as those to whom liberty would seem desirable. Doctors declare that if, when some part of the body has gangrene a disturbance arises in another spot, it immediately flows to the troubled part.

Even so, whenever a ruler makes himself a dictator, all the wicked dregs of the nation — I do not mean the pack of petty thieves and earless ruffians who, in a republic, are unimportant in evil or good — but all those who are corrupted by burning ambition or extraordinary avarice, these gather round him and support him in order to have a share in the booty and to constitute themselves petty chiefs under the big tyrant.

 This is the practice among notorious robbers and famous pirates: some scour the country, others pursue voyagers; some lie in ambush, others keep a lookout; some commit murder, others robbery; and although there are among them differences in rank, some being only underlings while others are chieftains of gangs, yet is there not a single one among them who does not feel himself to be a sharer, if not of the main booty, at least in the pursuit of it.

It is dependably related that Sicilian pirates gathered in such great numbers that it became necessary to send against them Pompey the Great, and that they drew into their alliance fine towns and great cities in whose harbours they took refuge on returning from their expeditions, paying handsomely for the haven given their stolen goods"

related:

Dependency on the State is the Core of the Takeover Plot of Humanity

N.B. Did u notice how the PTB’s justify themselves because of the future ? As if they own it. (Like religions)

Fuck the future !! Tackle the present !

The '2023' 9/11:

Maui is a combination of EMF (or satellite microwave) and CGI. (I'm not ok with Mr Mathis who is dismissing EMF.  We've had HAARP for a long time don't we ?)

All that is to say: "Hey there, do not trespass, the control is ours, life and death !".

ColoradoFires: Direct Energy Attack ? Trees Untouched !! (2022.01.01)

'Children Were Incinerated to Ash': Livid Hawaiians Slam Biden for Cracking Jokes, Lying about Wife

Trees standing ?, houses leveled - but not all !?, cars incinerated !!!

What was that ?

Horror: Those Who Disobeyed Barricades Survived Maui Fires

Watch: Maui Residents Turned Back by Police Barricades Recount their Brush with Death

Red flag !

On The Brink of a Dramatic Change: The Digitalization of Money

"(...) In my recent interview with the media and finance expert, and one of the most famous Bitcoiners, Max Keiser, he compared the CBDC to a parasitic and centralized cancer: "If you were to look at the amount of energy that Bitcoin uses and the rate at which it's increasing, you would say good is triumphing over evil. So this gives me a lot of hope. And I don't think centralization in anything works at all, except cancer. Cancer is the only thing that seems to work to be overly centralized and parasitic. That's the cancer model, but I think we're gonna win against the cancer of CBDCs."

Another red flag:

The Rise of The BRICS

The 'Earthquake' Starts Today

BRICS Don't Challenge Rothschild Banking Monopoly

Existential Angst in ‘Nam (50 Years Late)

China Aims to Catalogue the Genes of 1.4 Billion People Every Five Years

And remember, didn't I say years ago that 'Brexit is the prelude to WW3' ? Well, read this:

Asymmetric Response and the Perp Walk to World War III 

New "Word" Order (LKJ)

In 1979, Linton Kwesi Jonshon  was not only a poet but a prophet !

"The killers of Kigali

must be sanitary workers

the butchers of Butare

must be sanitary workers

the savages of Shatila

must be sanitary workers

the beasts of Bosnia

must be sanitary workers

in the new world order.

 

And it's the same old Cain and Abel syndrome4

far more ancient than the fall of Rome

but in the new world order an atrocity

is a brand new language of barbarity.

 

Mass murder, normalized

program, rationalized

genocide, sanitized

and the ancient clan sin

now name (it) ethnic cleansing.":

Listen !!! (a capella)

 LKJ: The Need of Building Local Autonomous Organisations

Maybe the greatest violin performance ever :

It must be said that the 'Newspeak' began with the French revolution. God was renamed the 'Supreme being', the names of the days, of the weeks, months and years changed and much more !

related:

Tracking Orwellian Change - The Aristocratic Takeover of "Transparency"

The word ‘slut’ used to be seen as an insult but Gen Z are reclaiming it

Inflation is Prosperity. Shortage is Abundance. Recession is Growth

Denmark Caves, Restores Blasphemy Prosecutions

The Pandemic Planning Racket

And btw, two opposite example of ‘new talk’: Putin qualifying the war with Ukraine of ‘special operation’ and Bibi giving the war title to what is a special operation.