The internet, GPS, voice recognition programs like Siri – many of the technologies that we use today were developed with national security in mind. These inventions and many others began as projects of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Defense Department’s secretive military research agency. For more than fifty years, DARPA has held to a singular and enduring mission: to make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security. The genesis of that mission and of DARPA itself dates to the Cold War and the launch of Sputnik in 1957, and a commitment by the United States that it would be the initiator and not the victim of strategic technological surprises. Working with innovators inside and outside of government, DARPA has repeatedly delivered on that mission, transforming revolutionary concepts and even seeming impossibilities into practical capabilities. The ultimate results have included not only game-changing military capabilities such as precision weapons and stealth technology, but also major innovations in modern civilian society.
How do they do it? What makes this military organization such fertile ground for invention? What technologies with useful daily applications have failed to enter into civilian use? Can Silicon Valley learn from DARPA, or vice versa? Drawing on extensive interviews, declassified memos and inside sources, investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen will share insights into this top-secret organization.
Speaker Annie Jacobsen is an Investigative Journalist and Author [of The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top-Secret Military Research Agency].
The conversation is moderated by Andrew Becker, Reporter, The Center for Investigative Reporting.
Category: Scientific Dictatorship
by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, June 24, 2009
After 125-years of operating in the Dayton region, National Cash Register (NCR) abruptly announced plans to relocate to Georgia on June 2, 2009. Starting in July 2009, NCR’s worldwide headquarters will move to Duluth, Ga. Meanwhile, the company will transplant its manufacturing operation in Columbus, Ga. Overall, the move will cost Dayton more than 2,100 jobs. NCR’s decision to relocate came as a shock to the Dayton community, which had had very little discourse with the company in the months preceding the announcement. Shock swiftly turned to resentment as Ohio’s elected officials voiced their dissatisfaction with NCR’s apparent indifference.
“I know that local leaders as well as our own Department of Development had reached out to NCR over a period of months,” Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said. “The response from NCR was not very encouraging. They never really asked for any specific assistance from the state and their decision was made devoid of any serious dialogue or consultation with the local community.” (Strickland)
In an audio clip from his official website, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said, “I’m unhappy with NCR. They’re a 125-year-old Dayton company that always had community support. Hundreds of workers and their families had built this company in the Miami Valley and I was not at all happy, nor was the Chamber of Commerce and the Mayor and others in Dayton, with NCR’s executives’ unwillingness to even work with people locally and unwillingness to talk to people from the Governor on down” ( “Brown Expresses Disappointment in NCR Decision and Vows to Help Affected Workers”).
Yet, an even greater shock was the revelation that Georgia used money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to facilitate the NCR deal.
The Faustian Face of Modern Science: Understanding the Epistemological Foundations of Scientific Totalitarianism
by Phillip D. Collins, June 11th, 2009
Scientific totalitarianism is certainly not a new topic in the halls of political science and history. Given its bloody legacy of democide (i.e., state-sanctioned genocide, mass murder, and politicide) and its prolific spread throughout the world, scientific totalitarianism remains a preoccupying sociopolitical phenomenon of the 20th century. Yet, few researchers have examined the epistemological foundations of scientific totalitarianism. In turn, an understanding of scientific totalitarianism’s epistemological roots elucidates an occult conception of science, which edified the sundry Weltanschauungs of sociopolitical Utopians (e.g., socialists of either the communist or fascist ilk). In light of this core epistemological commonality, all forms of sociopolitical Utopianism could be considered the manifestations of a trans-historical occult counterculture movement.
To understand the occult conception of science, one must first establish a working definition for traditional science. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia, which means “knowing” or “knowledge.” Thus, there is an epistemological dimension to science. After all, epistemology is etymologically derived from the Greek word episteme, which also means “knowing” or “knowledge.” In recent years, science has been couched in the epistemology of radical empiricism, the theory that all knowledge is derived from the senses. Within such epistemologically rigid parameters, the gaze of contemporary science has been firmly fixed upon the ontological confines of the physical universe. Whether the modern scientist realizes it or cares to admit it, radical empiricism is the epistemological nucleus of the occult conception of science.
by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, Dec. 1st, 2008
In his 1940 book The New World Order, H.G. Wells wrote:
… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we [must] bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people. (The New World Order)
Wells’ prognostication was, without a doubt, correct. As the global government envisioned by the supranational elite is gradually instantiated, many voices of dissent will be raised and subsequently eradicated. Yet, not every dissenter may “die protesting against it,” but will die unwittingly embracing it instead. Some dissenters may, in fact, naively accept another form of global government being proffered as a viable alternative.
Such is the case with Zeitgeist: Addendum, the 2008 sequel to the pseudo-documentary entitled Zeitgeist, the Movie. The film was produced by Peter Joseph, a proponent of the inherently technocratic Venus Project. While the film presents a few valid critiques concerning the world monetary system, the military industrial complex, and America’s meddlesome foreign policy, it uses these political and social ills as a pretext for the presentation of counterfeit solutions. The movie’s prescriptions are posed within a distinctly Hegelian framework. In many instances, the solutions proffered by Zeitgeist: Addendum merely constitute dialectic extremes that produce precisely the same results as the problems that they allegedly address.
Moreover, Zeitgeist: Addendum either intentionally or unwittingly fails to recognize the problems for what they are: contrived grievances employed as polar extremes to perpetuate a dialectical climate. Instead, Zeitgeist: Addendum portrays the problems as the natural outgrowths of America’s constitutional republican system, thereby vilifying representative democracy and enshrining the technocratic paradigm. The film’s ultimate solution is little more than a Hegelian synthesis, as is evidenced by the dialectical commonalities between the Venus Project and the globalist forces that it purportedly opposes.
Bruce Collins Show – WWPR 1490 AM- Airdate: 1/16/15
Paul and Phillip Collins are the authors of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship and they frequently contribute to www.conspiracyarchive.com. They also write for Vexilla Regis Journal: Confronting Culture for Christ the King. Our topic tonight is Weaponizing the Arts, which is likely to become part of their forthcoming book, Invoking the Beyond.
by MAD, and Paul & Phillip D. Collins (May 10, 2007; originally published here on May 6, 2007)
MAD: Paul and Phillip, thank you so much for engaging in this discussion today, I’ve been looking forward to it. I recently had the opportunity to finish an e-book copy of your work The Ascendancy Of The Scientific Dictatorship (which you so graciously sent me), and it was a highly researched and impressive read. While we might have some differences of opinion regarding the religious aspect of things, I pretty much agree with the technical information you are providing, and think you’re right on the mark with the great majority of your conclusions. A highly recommendable book which deserves as widespread a readership as possible, it’s hard to argue with the copious amount of perspective you so articulately provide in this tome. Regular contributors at Conspiracy Archive and Raiders News Network, could you give us a little bit of background on some of those events which first gleaned your interest in the Scientific and Occult methodology that’s swiftly emerging today in the myriad forms of a New World Order?
Paul: My background begins in my late teens when we were living in Colorado. That particular state really rubbed off on us. At that time (the early 90s), Colorado was made up of people who were rugged individualists with a healthy suspicion of government. However, they were also real salt of the earth people who would give you the shirts off their backs. So, the whole anti-authoritarian environment really rubbed off on us. It was everywhere, including school. While we were in high school (we graduated in 1993), there was a sizeable anarchist crowd that was part of the school population. Cliques were frowned upon at our school and everyone was pretty close, your particular walk of life (e.g., metal head, hippy, preppy, anarchist, etc.) not withstanding. So, we were close to a lot of those anarchist kids. We didn’t really share all their views on how society should be arranged, but they did point out some very legitimate flaws with modern government (Clinton was President at the time, and they cut him absolutely no slack). Everyone at the time had a sense that something was not quite right, and that included myself. So, I got some books and began to read.
By Phillip Darrell Collins (August 1st, 2014)
Author’s note: The following is excerpted from the forthcoming book, Invoking the Beyond, which I am co-authoring with Paul David Collins.
In Romans 1:25, St. Paul pens the following comments concerning the practices of idolaters: “They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” St. Paul’s identification of the “creature” as the idolater’s surrogate for God elucidates a parallel between the ancient world and modernity. To understand this parallel, one must first examine the etymology of the term “creature.” “Creature” is derived from the Latin word creāre, which means “created thing.” The material cosmos qualifies as a “created thing” and, within the dominant cultural milieu of modernity, it is the material cosmos that tends to occupy the lofty status of divine. Today, the idolatry of the ancient world is expressed through the Weltanschauung of naturalism and enjoys pseudo-scientific sanctions with evolutionary theory.
Naturalism holds that nature brought itself into being without a Creator and continues to arrange itself through purely organic processes. Of course, structure and organization imply design, which, in turn, implies a Designer. Since the naturalist views nature as the originator of its own structure and organization, he or she is tacitly deeming nature a de facto designer. Essentially, the material world is hypostatized. Within the context of this discussion, the term “hypostasis” is being invoked to denote a fundamental, self-sufficient rational entity upon which all else is contingent. Ironically, those who advance the hypostatic depiction of the universe typically contend that their immanent surrogate for the Divine is anhypostatic. Yet, given the irreducibly teleological nature of their cosmology, such an anhypostatic characterization of the universe is not logically sustainable. Invariably, the elevation of the sensate cosmos to the status of the Divine results in the hypostatizing of the contingent universe, a reality tacitly underscored by the anthropomorphic terminology that scientific materialists tend to invoke in discussions concerning the material world. This hypostatic depiction of the universe provides the basis for the virtual apotheosis of material agencies and the enshrinement of immanentism.