Breakaway Government: US “Cyber Command” moves closer to a major new weapon

via :

The Air Force issued a formal proposal earlier this month for the Department of Defense’s long-awaited cyber weapon system, known as the Unified Platform, sources tell Fifth Domain.

DoD officials have said the Unified Platform is one of U.S. Cyber Command’s largest and most critical acquisition programs to date. Industry officials have said it is necessary to conduct cyber operations and is critical to national security.

Just as sailors rely on an aircraft carrier, pilots need airplanes or soldiers need tanks, cyber warriors require a system to which they launch their attacks. Pentagon leaders have said the Unified Platform will house offensive and defensive tools, allow for command and control, situational awareness and planning. Industry officials have referred to the programs as a “cyber carrier” used to launch cyber operations and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

But details on what the Air Force, which issued the request on behalf of Cyber Command, wants in a Unified Platform are scarce….

Most likely details are scarce for two reasons: For one, they are making it up as they go along, as any self-interested self-perpetuating socioeconomic entity would:

Stuart Kauffman is a theoretical biologist who studies the origin of life and the origins of molecular organization. Thirty- five years ago, he developed the Kauffman models, which are random networks exhibiting a kind of self-organization that he terms “order for free.” Kauffman is not easy. His models are rigorous, mathematical, and, to many of his colleagues, somewhat difficult to understand. A key to his worldview is the notion that convergent rather than divergent flow plays the deciding role in the evolution of life. He believes that the complex systems best able to adapt are those poised on the border between chaos and disorder.

Kauffman asks a question that goes beyond those asked by other evolutionary theorists: if selection is operating all the time, how do we build a theory that combines self-organization (order for free) and selection? The answer lies in a “new” biology, somewhat similar to that proposed by Brian Goodwin, in which natural selection is married to structuralism.

Lately, Kauffman says that he has been “hamstrung by the fact that I don’t see how you can see ahead of time what the variables will be. You begin science by stating the configuration space. You know the variables, you know the laws, you know the forces, and the whole question is, how does the thing work in that space? If you can’t see ahead of time what the variables are, the microscopic variables for example for the biosphere, how do you get started on the job of an integrated theory? I don’t know how to do that. I understand what the paleontologists do, but they’re dealing with the past. How do we get started on something where we could talk about the future of a biosphere?”

“There is a chance that there are general laws. I’ve thought about four of them. One of them says that autonomous agents have to live the most complex game that they can. The second has to do with the construction of ecosystems. The third has to do with Per Bak’s self-organized criticality in ecosystems. And the fourth concerns the idea of the adjacent possible. It just may be the case that biospheres on average keep expanding into the adjacent possible. By doing so they increase the diversity of what can happen next. It may be that biospheres, as a secular trend, maximize the rate of exploration of the adjacent possible. If they did it too fast, they would destroy their own internal organization, so there may be internal gating mechanisms. This is why I call this an average secular trend, since they explore the adjacent possible as fast as they can get away with it. There’s a lot of neat science to be done to unpack that, and I’m thinking about it.”…

The other factor is the need to conceal the internal dynamics and objectives of the organism from the wider ecosystem that it seeks to colonize, to avoid infection and competition.   Sounds reasonable, until you realize that the ecosystem substrate is information itself, you are an emergent part of that ecosystem and a potential source of infectious ideas and competition giving rise to such national security threats as democratic governance and self-determination.

Just as the top of the intelligence bureaucracy pumps out domestically targeted disinfo to support the invisible puppeteers’ objectives (often over the objections of their rank and file btw) such as the perpetuation of the “war on terror”, by concealing the puppeted nature of al qaeda and 9/11, cyber-command is intended to redirect, suppress and kill non-conforming emergent ideas in the battlespace of information.

But in the same way that genocide is just a tool of culturecide ( )  information threats emerge from people and become economically viable in the context of communities, so information warfare will certainly encompass physical policing of  internal threats to the order which emerge from such entities, which means isolating and if necessary, killing the entities themselves.

Recent technological advances allow more precise targeting than gross genocide however.   Enemies will be selected based on actual information production.  This is just the logic of the system.   And those whose minds are embedded in it and whose bodies are physically dependent on it tend to be myopic about alternative viewpoints.   In a high-tech military context, it’s easy to see how even intelligent people can simply have no time for independent thinking.   The electronic metabolism of the emergent entity sweeps away the slower  biologically based ideas of its own participants, for the same reason that a redwood tree is no match for a guy with a  chainsaw.

This is the structure of a mind-controlled cult which has proven so successful in the context of satanism.

Needless to say, this is the stuff of nightmares.