That’s precisely why the US government stopped the publication of this information. They threatened the MIT researchers with federal prison if they proceeded under the pretext that the US government considered cryptography a military munition. Those who distributed it would be treated no differently than arms traffickers.
That’s what Mark Miller, a young student at Yale, told his closest friends.
He knew what he was sitting on had revolutionary potential and that powerful people had disappeared others for much less.
Miller was steadfast. He wanted to get this information out, even if it was over his dead body.
In 1977, a group of brilliant researchers at MIT made an astonishing discovery—public-key cryptography.
It was a mathematical system for encrypting information so that only the intended recipient could read it. It would otherwise take millions of years for the world’s most powerful supercomputers to crack.
Cryptography, or the practice of encoding information, is as old as civilization.
One of the oldest known cryptography uses dates back to around 600 BC when the ancient Spartans would pass encrypted messages on thin papyrus sheets. To decrypt the message, the recipient could wrap the papyrus around a scytale (a cylinder of varying dimensions).
The words written on the papyrus itself were gibberish. But you could decrypt the message if you had the right scytale. This is how the Spartans sent and received secret military plans.
Today, computers allow for radically more sophisticated cryptography.
That’s why the discovery of public-key cryptography was a development of historical significance.
Never before had unbreakable cryptography been available to the average person. It had always been a government monopoly, and they didn’t want to give it up.
The MIT researchers broke that monopoly in 1977.
The average person could now use public-key cryptography to preserve the privacy of their communications from anyone, including the world’s most powerful governments.
Public-key cryptography altered the status quo between the rulers and the ruled. It was similar to the invention of gunpowder or the printing press.
The staggering ‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion’ mind control program at the University of Florida; An entire bureaucracy; This is the future NOW; It has to be crushed
exposes (see also here and here and here) the University of Florida Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) program and the details:
The HR department held a training to lecture employees about their “white privilege,” “white fragility,” and the “‘unearned advantages’ of whiteness.” As part of their “personal journey,” white employees were encouraged to confront their pathological whiteness.
They learned mantras from twelve-step programs for overcoming their whiteness, including Racists Anonymous: “I have come to admit that I am powerless over my addiction to racism”; “We admit our collective history is rooted in white supremacy.”
University of Florida has created a radical DEI bureaucracy that promotes racial preferences in faculty hiring, encourages white employees to engage with a 12-step program called Racists Anonymous, and maintains segregated scholarships that violate civil rights law.
Officially, the university has reported that it hosts 31 DEI initiatives at a cost of $5 million per year. But I have obtained internal documents via Sunshine Law requests revealing the stunning scope, scale, and radicalism of UF’s DEI bureaucracy, which is embedded everywhere.
In 2020, UF planned out a huge number of diversity initiatives, including mandatory diversity training, an entire year focused on “racism,” a presidential task force to explore the university’s racist past, and recommendations for banning “historic racist imagery.”
In 2021, the university moved to create a massive “DEI infrastructure” and deploy DEI cadres to each division, school, and college. The embedded cadres were tasked with administering loyalty surveys to test faculty and staff’s “commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
According to documents, UF has created 1,018 “DEI initiatives” and the ideology has penetrated nearly all of its divisions: 73 percent “have a DEI committee” and “DEI officer”; 70 percent “espoused commitment to DEI”; 53 percent “have a DEI strategic plan.”
The university encourages racial preferences in hiring, with favored practices including “specific formal training in [DEI],” advertising jobs through “DEI identity” groups, using an “equity specialist” for search committees, and engaging in race-based recruiting and benchmarks.
—end of Rufo statement—
He paints a picture of university infiltration on a massive scale.
It would be impossible to install such a program without key players in MANY key positions.
The rest of the university employees are scared sheep and willing foot soldiers.
—The 12-step program as overt mind control.
People surrender their will, power of choice, intelligence, and sign on as slaves waiting for orders from above.
As I’ve been writing for some time now, these programs have nothing to do with equality of opportunity or meritocracy. They’re about who holds the power.
The rulers and enforcers of the USSR and China would find the U of Florida structure quite familiar.
Tyrants form collectives. It hardly matters what the “subject matter” is. The whole point is subjugation.
At the U of Florida, no doubt there was a point, along the way, when supervisors, department heads, deans, executives, and boards thought: “Well, all this is somewhat troubling, but we can live with it. It’ll progress to a certain level and then stop. These people couldn’t be actually trying to take over the University.”
But these people were, and they did.
That’s always the way it is. People don’t rise up and squash the criminals. They wait. And then one day it’s too late.
The criminals rely on The Group. The force of The Group. Not the ideas. Not the philosophy. Not the logic. Not on anything sensible. The thoughts the criminals spout and the theories—those are just the cover. The root is group intimidation. The calculation is: “We have enough force to overwhelm the individual.”
It’s war.
The idiots and the cowards and the passive ones refuse to see this.
That tells you something about the awesome lack of integrity residing in these high-minded professors who teach at the university level.
along with the Atlantic, the Economist and Foreign Policy magazines. ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC all praised the idea for its efficiency in coordinating their daily narratives and will all have teams in WePlot offices.
The CIA venture capital fund In-Q-Tel has announced it is funding the entire Series A round for co-working startup WePlot for corporate journalists.
The start up was conceived by a former deputy director of the CIA and an MIT professor of business ergonomics who has been on the CIA payroll for decades.
“We wanted to take the genius of the community ethos of WeWork and apply it to news agencies and the intelligence community to form one group that fuses all the ways both are making the world a better place. And so WePlot was born,” said Professor Won Long Wang who also serves on the boards of Zoom and TikTok.
WePlot got right to work buying up office space in New York and Washington D.C. The New York Times and Washington Post have announced they are moving their entire foreign correspondent staff, foreign policy staff and politics departments to the new co-working spaces, along with the Atlantic, the Economist and Foreign Policy magazines. ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC all praised the idea for its efficiency in coordinating their daily narratives and will all have teams in WePlot offices.
In New York WePlot will be located across the street from the United Nations, while in the capitol they will be next door to the Canon House Office building on the hill where it will be easier to meet with Speaker Pelosi’s team on coordinating stories and narratives on race, white supremacy and domestic terrorism. Washington Post Assistant Editor Malik Ahmed said this would streamline coordination processes with CIA officers.
“Sometimes they get stuck in traffic coming to our offices from Langley and we are late for editorial meetings. This just makes things easier if we all show up at the same place. No more scheduling conflicts or issues with technological or cognitive symmetry.”
CIA spokesperson Shirley Jenkins says it works better for the agency for security reasons as well. “The post doesn’t have the kind of robust cyber security measures we do, so by giving them a place where the infrastructure is already in place we don’t have to constantly be checking their servers for breaches.”
She also mentioned the importance of having their cyber hacking team Anonymous in the new WePlot buildings to better coordinate their attacks with corporate journalists and CIA officers. “Anonymous have been an essential part of going after all the targets that the CIA wants them to go after. Having reporters close by who can manage the narratives of their hacking campaigns will be indispensable in convincing people of the righteousness and virtues of their operations.”
They plan to open a west coast co-working office in Los Angeles that would include all west coast newspapers, plus entertainment rags Rolling Stone, GQ, Variety and Hollywood Reporter. Eventually they will go global with offices in London, Paris, Brussels, Toronto, Tel Aviv, Auckland and Melbourne.
The Tech community praised the idea, calling Professor Wang a real visionary. Kara Swisher called him “…a true genius with the insight and pulse of the news and information economies and how they ought to function in a free and open society that values diversity of thought and transparency.”
WePlot has plans to expand in silicon valley with representatives from Google, Apple, Facebook (now Meta) and Twitter meeting with news agencies together in real time to coordinate which authoritative sources will be allowed on their platforms instead of getting daily memos from the CIA.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a statement early today celebrating the start-up, “We need more Wangs out there to probe for the truth. It’s just a big win for democracy and in the war against misinformation.”
The Good Citizen is powered by Good Citizens like you. Consider a paid subscription to support more works like this. If you can’t be a paid subscriber please share this post with other Good Citizens.
After my original posting, a lot of people suggested I ask Stephanie Seneff to sponsor me. In fact, if I had a dime for everyone who suggested Stephanie, I could retire 🙂
Stephanie and I are good friends (we talk all the time). She would do it if she were an MIT faculty member. But she isn’t.
I can tell you one thing though: it was absolutely stunning to me that she was the only person at MIT people suggested I ask. That in itself is remarkable.
The entire MIT faculty is wrong on this issue
There are over 1,000 faculty members at MIT and not a single one thinks the vaccines might be unsafe? Nobody?!?!?
OK, I can live with that. Apparently, they’ve all drunk the Kool-Aid at MIT.
But what is totally unacceptable is that they refuse to even consider the possibility that they could be wrong.
What ever happened to open-minded scientists?
I know that there are a few faculty members who believe I should be able to speak at MIT, but they are afraid of retribution from their peers. So they avoid the controversy by doing nothing. They won’t even let me publicly reveal who they are.
What’s even worse than that is that there are serious cases of vaccine injury at MIT that are not being reported
More on those stories later. They’ve been covered up.
MIT should be speaking out for what the science says, not actively suppressing scientific discourse.
MIT should be a leader in science. They should be saying the science does not support the use of the vaccine, the vaccine mandates, and mask mandates. That’s what a great science institution should do: look at the data and tell the truth.
MIT does the opposite. They refuse to even look at the data. They simply go along with the narrative and suppress anyone who questions whether the government is telling us the truth.
Summary
MIT is a heartless institution that will not face the possibility they are wrong. They just don’t want to talk about it.
They will not even acknowledge the vaccine injuries within their own community.
MIT used to be a great institution. Those days are gone.
At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naive realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”
Upon recounting my bout with COVID to an acquaintance, I was asked if I knew where I might have picked up the virus. When I mentioned my hunch about the source, my acquaintance gasped, then inferred that I and those I caught it from must not have been wearing masks since the virus had spread.
“No,” I responded, much to her surprise, “we were wearing masks.”
Such a comment demonstrates the great confidence which many have placed in measures such as lockdowns and mask mandates in recent months. “Science confirms that these measures work!” many exclaim, arguing that those who question masks or other allegedly helpful restrictions are anti-science.
Yet new research from several MIT academics casts some doubt on the anti-science nature of COVID skeptics. In their paper, “Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,” the academics show some curious cognitive dissonance, making anti-mask proponents out to be clever propagandists who create easily understandable charts and graphs to sway the public away from the authoritative opinions of experts.
At the same time the academics admit, almost in a puzzled fashion, that these “anti-maskers” do their investigations in a very scientific manner. “Indeed,” the paper claims, “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naive realism about the ‘objective’ truth of public health data.”
The MIT academics go on to admit that those opposed to masks are not afraid to get down and dirty in looking at statistics, nor are they afraid to increasingly question the media and government authorities, a trait MIT researchers call “a weaponization of critical thinking.” Even more surprising is the revelation that anti-maskers’ “approach to the pandemic is grounded in a more scientific rigor, not less.”
People can bicker all day long about which side is right on this issue, but in this instance, these straightforward, honest comments from the MIT researchers should give us pause. They are clearly opposed to the ideas of the anti-maskers, yet they can’t help but begrudgingly respect the scientific methods of their opponents.
So how do we cut through the obvious politics of this issue and discern between science and propaganda? American philosopher James Burnham offered some insight into this question in his 1941 book, The Managerial Revolution, writing:
The aim of propaganda is to persuade people to accept certain ideas or feelings or attitudes. The aim of science is to discover the truth about the world. The propagandistic aim is usually best served by being thoroughly one-sided, by presenting only what is favorable to your case and suppressing all that might weaken it and bolster your opponent.
One could say that both the anti-maskers and the MIT researchers are engaging in propaganda, anxious to present only evidence favorable to their side. But in another sense, one could argue that they are only parroting the narrative promoted by the mainstream media and our politicians, while anti-maskers are actually approaching the data critically.
Burnham expands upon this thought by noting, “In the case of any hypothesis which is under consideration, science, in contrast to propaganda, is always anxious to present all the evidence, for and against. The scientific aim is just as well served by proving a hypothesis false as by proving it true.” [Emphasis added.]
Given these facts, why is it that nearly every media source, politician, and even the average Joe is so eager to squelch “unorthodox” opinions like those explored in this MIT paper? If they refuse to allow their hypotheses to be tested, then they are the ones who are truly anti-science.
The invisible “tattoo” is a pattern made up of tiny semiconducting crystals that reflect light and thus glows under infra-red light. The pattern will be delivered alongside the vaccine into the skin via hi-tech dissolvable microneedles made of a mixture of polymers and sugar.
MIT researchers have struck on a novel, and for many surely unsettling, method of keeping track of who has and hasn’t had a particular vaccination – creating an ink that can be safely embedded in the skin alongside the vaccine itself, and only visible using a special infra-red application.
“In areas where paper vaccination cards are often lost or do not exist at all, and electronic databases are unheard of, this technology could enable the rapid and anonymous detection of patient vaccination history to ensure that every child is vaccinated,” MIT researcher Kevin McHugh said in a statement.
Strikingly, the research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – in fact, the project came about following a direct request from the Microsoft founder himself, who has been personally and somewhat controversially involved in efforts to eradicate polio and measles via vaccinations worldwide.
Bill Gates wants to tattoo vaccine records onto people by injecting a QR code under the skin with “invisible” nanoparticles.
The system has been practically trialled by MIT researchers on rats, with the embryonic patterns still detectable nine months after injection – on human cadavers, the patterns outlasted five years of simulated Sun exposure.
“It’s possible someday this ‘invisible’ approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications that could improve how medical care is provided, particularly in the developing world,” MIT professor and senior author Robert Langer said.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came under intense criticism for a vaccination project in India in 2009.
During the year, several schools for tribal children in Telangana became sites for observation studies for a cervical cancer vaccine, which was administered to thousands of girls aged nine – 15. The test subjects were administered Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil in three rounds under the supervision of state health department officials. In all, 16,000 girls in the district, many of whom stayed in state government-run hostels meant for tribal students – months later, many started falling ill and by 2010 five died.
A standing committee on health and family welfare that investigated the studies in India tabled its report in 2013, finding consent for conducting the studies wasn’t properly secured, in flagrant violation of medical norms – in many cases, children gave ‘fingerprint’ consent for the tests despite having no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine. In others, consent forms were simply not secured at all.
According to MIT, (Edited to add: the website where this paper is hosted is now offline) there now exists technology that can beam a voice right into your head from a distance.
What? That’s crazy!
While it sounds like the wild claim of a person suffering from a mental illness – “The government is telling me to do stuff and only I can hear them!” – it’s all too real.
In a paper published on Friday in the journal Optics Letters, the MIT team describes how it developed two different methods to transmit tones, music, and recorded speech via a laser.
Both techniques take advantage of something called the photoacoustic effect, which is the formation of sound waves as the result of a material absorbing light. (source)
But…is this technology really new? Or are we just now finding out about it? Watch the video. Read the rest of this entry »
A recent survey conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) revealed a chilling discovery: a majority of Americans are apparently agreeable to preemptively nuking other nations, knowing that millions of civilians would die… Read the rest of this entry »
MCViewPoint 