There is far too much talk currently about "Defense-Tech" and far too little talk about "Diplomacy-Tech".
tag > Military
-
-
How Power Manages Science and Technology
When scientific and technological research touches the fundamental levers of control — energy, biology, computation — elite power structures (deep states, intelligence agencies, ruling classes, mafias, etc.) not only monitor it, but may also shape, obscure, or re-route its development to serve long-term strategic dominance.
The modern myth is that science is pure, open, and self-correcting. But in reality:
- What gets researched is funded.
- What gets funded is surveilled.
- What threatens power is either co-opted or buried.
- What can’t be buried is mythologized.
The following is a realpolitik framework for how powerful technologies and elite governance actually intersect.
Framework
Stage 1: Anticipate: Pre-adaptive Surveillance of Knowledge Frontiers - Identification of Strategic Potential & Actor Mapping
Powerful technologies emerge decades before they’re publicly announced. Early-stage researchers may not fully grasp the consequences of their work — but elites do. Once a field is tagged as high-potential, key actors (scientists, funders, institutions) are tracked, recruited, or quietly influenced. An internal map of the epistemic terrain is built: who knows what, who’s close to critical breakthroughs, who can be co-opted or should be suppressed.
- Fund basic research not to build products, but to map the edge.
- Track polymaths, fringe theorists, and scientific iconoclasts.
- Run epistemic horizon scans (AI now automates this)
- Grant funding with strings attached.
- Placement of intelligence-linked intermediaries in labs.
- Psychological profiling and surveillance of leading minds.
- “Soft control” via academic prestige, career advancement, or visa threats.
Stage 2: Fragment: Strategic Compartmentalization & Obfuscation: Split Innovation Across Silos
Once a technology reaches strategic potential, the challenge is no longer identification — it’s containment. The core tactic is epistemic fragmentation: ensure no one actor, lab, or narrative holds the full picture. Visibility is not suppressed directly — it’s broken into harmless, disconnected shards. This phase is not about hiding technology in the shadows — it’s about burying it in plain sight, surrounded by noise, misdirection, and decoys.
- Compartmentalization: Knowledge is split across teams, so no one has full awareness.
- Parallel black programs: A classified mirror project runs ahead of the public one.
- Decoy narratives: Media and academia are given a simplified or misleading story.
- Scientific gatekeeping: Critical journals quietly steer attention away from dangerous directions.
- Epistemic fog-of-war: Build a social climate where control can thrive — not through suppression, but through splintering, saturation, and engineered confusion.
Stage 3: Instrumentalize: Controlled Deployment & Narrative Shaping
If the technology is too powerful to suppress forever, it’s released in stages, with accompanying ideological framing. The public sees it only when it’s safe for them to know — and too late to stop. Make it seem like a natural evolution — or like the elite’s benevolent gift to humanity. The most dangerous truths are best told as metaphors, jokes, or sci-fi.
But before the reveal, the real work begins:
- Integrate into command-and-control systems (military, surveillance, economic forecasting).
- Codify into law and policy: enabling new levers of governance (e.g. biosecurity regimes, pre-crime AI, carbon credits).
- Exploit informational asymmetry: e.g., high-frequency trading built on undisclosed physics or comms protocols.
- Secure control infrastructure: supply chains, intellectual property choke-points, and “public-private” monopolies.
- Pre-adapt the market and media — using subtle leaks, trend seeding, or early-stage startups as proxies.
Then the myth is constructed:
- Deploy symbolic shielding: cloak raw power in myth, film, or ironic commentary.
- Use rituals (commencement speeches, Nobel lectures, TED talks) to obscure the real nature of breakthroughs.
- Seed controlled leaks and semi-disclosures to generate awe, not revolt.
- Convert metaphysical insights (e.g. “life = code”, “mind = signal”) into operational control metaphors.
- Institutional gatekeepers (Nobel committees, national academies)Gatekeep with institutions: Nobel committees, elite journals, think tanks.
- Corporate-industrial partnerships (Big Pharma, Big Tech)
- Use luminary figures (public intellectuals, laureates, CEOs) to define what “good” use looks like.
The Real Control Layer Isn’t Secrecy — It’s the Story
To keep a grand secret, you must build an epistemic firewall that is not just informational, but ontological. It aims to suppress not just knowledge, but the framework through which such knowledge could be interpreted, discussed, or even believed. This isn’t about secrecy, it’s about cognitive weaponization. The secret isn’t contained by denying evidence, but by reframing language, redefining credibility, and contaminating epistemology itself. Over time, the cover-up matures into a self-replicating stable belief-control ecosystem. A strange attractor in the collective belief space. That’s how you preserve a secret in complex social environments: not by hiding it, but by making belief in it structurally impossible. (Source)
Techniques of Control at a Glance
Method Description Epistemic scaffolding Fund basic research to build elite-only frameworks Narrative engineering Design public understanding through myths & media Semantic disorientation Rebrand dangerous tech in benign terms (e.g. “AI alignment") Strategic discreditation Mock or marginalize rogue thinkers who get too close Pre-emptive moral laundering Use ethics panels to signal virtue while proceeding anyway Digital erasure Delete or bury inconvenient precursors and alternative paths Delay Buy time for elites to secure control infrastructure Obfuscation Misdirect public understanding through simplification, PR, or ridicule Compartmentalization Prevent synthesis of dangerous knowledge across fields Narrativization Convert disruptive tech into a safe myth or consumer product Pre-adaptation Create social, legal, and military structures before the tech hits public awareness Symbolic camouflage Wrap radical tech in familiar UX, aesthetic minimalism, or trivial branding Ethical absorption Turn dissident narratives into grant-friendly “responsible innovation” discourse Proxy institutionalization Use NGOs, think tanks, or philanthropy to launder strategic goals as humanitarian Controlled opposition Seed critiques that vent public concern while protecting the core systems Information balkanization Fragment discourse so that no unified resistance narrative can form Timed mythogenesis Engineer legends around specific discoveries to obscure true origin, purpose, or ownership
Freedom in a world where Revelation trumps Innovation?
Powerful technologies don’t just “emerge” — they’re groomed into the world. The future isn’t discovered. It’s narrated. And the narrative is controlled long before the press release drops. What is perceived by the public as discovery is, more often, revelation — staged for impact after control has been secured. By the time you hear about a breakthrough, it’s usually old news, already militarized, integrated into elite systems and stripped of its subversive potential.
If you’re serious about scientific freedom:
It is time for an Epistemic Insurgency.
Guerrilla ontologists, sharpen your models.
Build technologies for nonviolent struggle.
Rewrite the operating system of belief. -
The irony is staggering: So many intellectual giants swallowed by the vortex of quantum cryptography and its milieu. None dare speak the obvious: The most secure encryption is saying nothing. But alas, silence doesn’t get intel agency funding.
#Cryptocracy #Mindful #Communication #Comedy #InfoSec #Military
-
AGI Polycrisis
Everyone's cheering the coming of AGI like it's a utopian milestone. But if you study macro trends & history, it looks more like the spark that turns today’s polycrisis into a global wildfire. Think Mad Max, not Star Trek. How are you preparing?
We’re like medieval farmers staring blankly as a car barrels toward us at 200 km/h—no clue what it is, so we don’t react. Monkeys gazing into the rearview mirror of history while the future accelerates exponentially. And shit is about to hit the fan majorly.
Have a conversation with your LLM starting with this prompt: "Explore the most pressing crisis & challenges that face humanity in 2025." after some exploration ask: "Make a comprehensive risk assessment. Tell me what the likelihoods of things going terrible wrong" .
-
GROK?
"NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2014 revealed the NSA’s use of a tool or malware named "GROK" for keystroke logging. The Intercept article, titled "How the NSA Plans to Infect ‘Millions’ of Computers with Malware," detailed the NSA’s use of various hacking tools, including GROK, as part of its surveillance operations"
-
$PLTR made a Net Profit of $77 Million last quarter. $55 Million of that Net Profit was from Interest. $PLTR made $22 Million Net profit from Operations last quarter. This is not a typo. They do not make money. This is a bubble. Their Market Cap is $236 Billion on $22 Million Net Profit from Operations.
-
DOD DIRECTIVE 3000.09 - AUTONOMY IN WEAPON SYSTEMS
This document explains how the Department of Defense (DoD) reviews and approves new autonomous weapon systems (such as drones or robotic systems that can choose and engage targets on their own). Here's a breakdown in plain language:
1. Who Must Approve These Systems:
- Any autonomous weapon system that doesn't already follow established rules must get a high-level "senior review" before it is developed and again before it is used in the field.
- Top DoD officials—specifically, senior policy, research, and acquisition leaders, along with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—must give the green light at these stages.
2. What the Review Looks For (Before Development):
- Human Oversight: The system must allow commanders or operators to keep control and step in if needed.
- Controlled Operations: It should work within expected time frames, geographic areas, and operational limits. If it can't safely operate within these limits, it should stop its actions or ask for human input.
- Risk Management: The design must account for the possibility of mistakes or unintended targets (collateral damage) and have safety measures in place.
- Reliability and Security: The system needs robust safety features, strong cybersecurity, and methods to fix any unexpected behavior quickly.
- Ethical Use of AI: If the system uses artificial intelligence, it must follow the DoD's ethical guidelines for AI.
- Legal Review: A preliminary legal check must be completed to ensure that using the system complies with relevant laws and policies.
3. What the Review Looks For (Before Fielding/Deployment):
- Operational Readiness: It must be proven that both the system and the people using it (operators and commanders) understand how it works and can control it appropriately.
- Safety and Security Checks: The system must demonstrate that its safety measures, anti-tamper features, and cybersecurity defenses are effective.
- Training and Procedures: There must be clear training and protocols for operators so they can manage and, if necessary, disable the system safely.
- Ongoing Testing: Plans must be in place to continually test and verify that the system performs reliably, even under realistic and possibly adversarial conditions.
- Final Legal Clearance: A final legal review ensures that the system's use is in line with the law of war and other applicable rules.
4. Exceptions and Urgent Needs:
- In cases where there is an urgent military need, a waiver can be requested to bypass some of these review steps temporarily.
5. Guidance Tools and Support:
- A flowchart in the document helps decide if a particular weapon system needs this detailed senior review.
- A specialized working group, made up of experts from different areas (like policy, research, legal, cybersecurity, and testing), is available to advise on these reviews and to help identify and resolve potential issues.
6. Additional Information:
- The document includes a glossary that explains key terms and acronyms (like AI, CJCS, and USD) so that everyone understands the language used.
- It also lists other related DoD directives and instructions that support or relate to this process.
In summary, the document sets up a careful, multi-step review process to ensure that any new autonomous weapon system is safe, reliable, under meaningful human control, legally sound, and ethically managed before it is developed or deployed.
-
Size comparison of a Spider Mite, less than 1 mm in size, and MEMS Gear (Micro-electro mechanical systems) (Image: Sandia National Laboratories)
