Trump and Aliens

Trumpets of Trump:

I hope Trump will provide the answer 

by declassifying the Roswell-1947 documents...

After Roswell-1947, why have the faces of all aliens been depicted as the same face of the "breastfeeding woman" statuette in the Ankara Archeological Museum? Was she an alien? The "breastfeeding woman" statuette was discovered in 1961 by archaeologist James Mellaart at the Çatalhöyük site. Today, this significant piece resides in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara, Turkey. The "breastfeeding woman" statuette, dated to the end of 3000 BC and made of bronze, was found during excavations at the Horoztepe Mound belonging to the Hatti civilization in the Erbaa district of Tokat province in Turkey-Central Anatolia.

 

The International UFO Museum and Research Center explores the July 3, 1947, incident and its evolving place in pop-culture.

Were aliens with us for millions of years?  

This is a serious non-science fiction question. Why were the allegedly found “alien” body’s face near Roswell in 1947 and the face of the "breastfeeding woman" statuette in Ankara Archeological Museum depicted similarly? Or, why are all drawings of alien faces similar to the "breastfeeding woman" statuette? Is it just because of the drawings of the 1947 incident and others replicating the breastfeeding woman statuette? It cannot be. Is there a link between aliens and breastfeeding women? There is no link except the depiction of the eyes of all aliens and the "breastfeeding woman's" eyes are the same. The statue, which is dated to the end of 3000 BC, was made with a casting technique. In many regions of Anatolia, there are many more of this statue with the same faces and body. Precious metal stones and terracotta samples of female figurines of this age, representing the mother goddess, were also often found in tombs, which also means a technique that was beyond the know-how of the Hatti period.

Here are some sources further to be investigated, FYI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzinHNSQbC8

https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/04/20/the-roswell-incident-what-really-happened-in-1947/#google_vignette

https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/04/20/the-roswell-incident-what-really-happened-in-1947/

On July 8, 1947, the FBI Dallas Field Office sent a teletype regarding a “flying disc” that resembled a high altitude weather balloon found near Roswell, New Mexico. This single page is a serial from the larger UFO release found at http://vault.fbi.gov/UFO.

The 1994 Air Force report concluded that the predecessor to the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Air Forces, recovered debris from an Army Air Forces balloon-borne research project code-named MOGUL. Records located describing research carried out under the MOGUL project, most of which were never classified (and publicly available), were collected, provided to GAO, and published in one volume for ease of access for the general public.

This report discusses the results of this exhaustive research and identifies the likely sources of the claims of "alien bodies" at Roswell. Contrary to allegations, many of the accounts appear to be descriptions of unclassified and widely publicized Air Force scientific achievements. Other descriptions of "bodies" appear to be actual incidents in which Air Force members were killed or injured in the line of duty.

Air Force activities that occurred over a period of many years have been consolidated and are now represented as having occurred in two or three days in July 1947.

"Aliens" observed in the New Mexico desert were actually anthropomorphic test dummies that were carried aloft by U.S. Air Force high-altitude balloons for scientific research.

The "unusual" military activities in the New Mexico desert were high altitude research balloon launch and recovery operations. Reports of military units that always seemed to arrive shortly after the crash of a flying saucer to retrieve the saucer and "crew," were actually accurate descriptions of Air Force personnel engaged in anthropomorphic dummy recovery operations.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Female+Statuette+Horoztepe&sca_esv=36c58403984e1bd9&rlz=1C1CHZN_trTR973TR973&udm=2&biw=911&bih=405&sxsrf=ADLYWIJ9rj-6Uk_6LBvJfB0D1ctj68-Djg%3A1737017586677&ei=8siIZ5j4KM_cxc8PsIKJ0A4&ved=0ahUKEwiYuePh7vmKAxVPbvEDHTBBAuoQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Female+Statuette+Horoztepe&gs_lp=EgNpbWciGkZlbWFsZSBTdGF0dWV0dGUgSG9yb3p0ZXBlSLlAUO4FWJ85cAR4AJABAJgBlwGgAYkMqgEEMC4xNLgBA8gBAPgBAZgCBaAC2gLCAgYQABgHGB7CAgQQABgewgIGEAAYCBgewgIGEAAYBRgewgIEECMYJ5gDAIgGAZIHAzIuM6AH3As&sclient=img 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Anatolian_Civilizations

Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 11:30 am

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth

Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation

National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

Witnesses and testimonies:

Dr. Tim Gallaudet

Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (RET.)
Chief Executive Officer, Ocean STL Consulting, LLC
Document

Luis Elizondo

Author, and Former Department of Defense Official
Document

Michael Gold

Former NASA Associate Administrator of Space Policy

and Partnerships; Member of NASA UAP
Independent Study Team
Document

Michael Shellenberger

Founder of Public

Published: Nov 13, 2024

Hearing Wrap Up: Transparency and Accountability Needed to Provide

Accurate Information on UAPs

to the American People

WASHINGTON—The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation and the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs held a joint hearing titled, “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.” Members discussed the Department of Defense (DoD) and the intelligence community’s lack of transparency regarding UAPs, including undisclosed spending on UAP-related programs and the national security implications of UAP encounters at U.S. military installations. Members emphasized the need for greater accountability from the DoD to share information with Congress and the American people.

 

Key Takeaways:

The DoD has failed to provide transparency on the existence and effectiveness of programs related to UAPs not only to Congress but to the American people.

·         Dr. Tim Gallaudet—Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)—emphasized the importance of transparency on UAPs: “There is a national security need for more UAP transparency as well. In 2025, the U.S. will spend over $900 billion on national defense, yet we still have an incomplete understanding of what is in our airspace…  The failure of the Executive Branch to share UAP information with Congress is an infringement on the legislative branch that undermines separation of powers and may be creating a constitutional crisis.”

 

Congress and the American people have fundamental questions on the topic of UAPs and incursions near sensitive military installations. Increased disclosure and transparency are needed to provide security and information.

·         Michael Shellenberger—Founder of Public—discussed the Executive Branch’s responsibility to be forthcoming with Congress on information related to UAPs: “There is, however, a growing body of evidence that the government is not being transparent about what it knows about unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), formerly called UFOs, and that elements within the military and IC are in violation of their Constitutional duty to notify Congress of their operations.“

 

Member Highlights:

Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation Chairwoman Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) discussed the need for transparency on the level of taxpayer funds dedicated to UAP research.

 

Chairwoman Mace: “I obviously would like to know how much taxpayers are spending on this. You have the right to know. And if we are spending money on something that doesn’t exist, why are we spending the money? And if it does exist, why are we hiding it from the public? Of course, national security is a big issue, and if there is technology that could harm us or our allies that is in the hands of our adversaries, we obviously want to stay ahead of that to the best of our abilities.”

 

The ones who know the best can get the rest…

         Dear Colleagues:

Digitalism is here… stabbing capitalism. It seems the musketeers of Trump, namely Musk and his friends, are the first stabbers. Capitalism will not die easily and quickly. Even communist China had become capitalist after Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 declarations. The social, economic, and political power that culminated in the hands of capitalists is enormous compared with that of the feudal lord, but the intelligence of the human has more historical accumulation and intrinsic and scientific potential to change things.

Walter Benjamin wrote in his article in 1935, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”:

“…When Marx undertook his critique of the capitalistic mode of production, this mode was in its infancy. Marx directed his efforts in such a way as to give them prognostic value. He went back to the basic conditions underlying capitalistic production, and through his presentation showed what could be expected of capitalism in the future. The result was that one could expect it not only to exploit the proletariat with increasing intensity but ultimately to create conditions that would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself. The transformation of the superstructure, which takes place far more slowly than that of the substructure, has taken more than half a century to manifest in all areas of culture the change in the conditions of production. Only today can it be indicated what form this has taken…”

There is no technological regression in world history, although social, economic, and political repetitions and U-turns are inevitable.

That is why, in the electronic age, Marshall McLuhan declared the social and economic "Global Village", asserted that world politics were turning into the Middle Ages, although the technology leaped forward to digitalism and politics regressed into ecumenism.

Intelligence is persistent; humans are volatile.

Intelligence is with us; humans are transient.

Let’s get into it:

Their Algorithmic Constitutions? On The Emergence and Functioning of Platform Governance

Prof Ignas Kalpokas, Vytautas Magnus University, May 12, 2023

While the idea of platform governance is not new, the complex nature of its functioning and the reasons for its emergence and entrenchment still lack holistic conceptualisation. While it is impossible to develop such a perspective in a single blog post, the considerations below are intended as a sensitising tool and a call to think about platform governance as simultaneously premised upon societal developments from which it has emerged and a pervasive force shaping contemporary societies.

In order to better understand the how and why of platform governance, at least two arguments are possible, although they are by no means mutually exclusive: a historico-political and an economic one.

On the historico-political side – and for perhaps the most eloquent account, see De Gregorio – attention is drawn to the convergence in time between neoliberal deregulation policies adopted by states and the rapid expansion of the Internet and the associated digital technologies. The companies that have sprung from this development have not only benefitted from the lax regulation of their own business activities but have also stepped in to fill the regulatory and governance lacunae left by the retreating state.

However, there is an important caveat: platform companies have acquired quasi-public functions without the corresponding checks and mechanisms for public oversight. While the public is capable to exert democratic control over decision-making bodies (or, at least, that is the ideal anyway, subsequently enabling critiques of democratic deficit or opening up the space for more radical democratic alternatives) and the regulatory power of states is (or, at least, ought to be) limited by constitutional norms and international human rights commitments, that is entirely absent from platform governance. Crucially, even the normative ‘ought’ element is absent – although platform governance practices are typically premised upon sets of rules, norms, or guidelines, often framed in terms of ‘community’ or similarly popular (if not populist) references, they are, instead, sets of externally imposed demands, based upon the commercial interests of platform companies and/or the personal visions of tech entrepreneurs.

For the rest of the article: https://blog.politics.ox.ac.uk/their-algorithmic-constitutions-on-the-emergence-and-functioning-of-platform-governance/

 NOTE:

What Ignas Kalpokos rightfully puts forward against Yanis Varoufakis’ TECHNO-FEUDALISM and misses about digital social and economic platforms are both, in my book... Digitalism vs. Capitalism.

 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D9SJ3XSL

Trumppp, Tiki Tak Trak and Musk...

Humans want to be machine... 

Nazım Hikmet, 1923 

AI wants to be human... 

Stanislav Lem, 1961

Nazım Hikmet

I want to be machine…

Trump, rumble, rumble!
trak tiki tak trak!

Being a machine is what I want!

This originates from my skeleton, my brain, and my flesh!
I am frantically trying to subdue every dynamo, like a whirling dervish!

Auto-draisine locomotives are dashing through my veins as my salivating tongue licks the copper wires!

Trak tiki tak, trrrrump, trrrrump…

Being a machine is what I want!

I will undoubtedly find a solution, and I will only be pleased with it, really.

The day I attached a double screw to my tail and mounted a turbine on my belly!

Trrrrump!Trak tiki tak!

Being a machine is what I want!

Nazım Hikmet, 1923 [with contribution of Veysel Batmaz]

Nazım Hikmet Ran, the Turkish poet and political activist, is one of the greatest literary figures ever to emerge from Turkey. Not only a communist committed to revolution, but also a romantic who was passionately in love with his country and his people, Hikmet was repeatedly arrested for his political beliefs and sentenced in 1938 to twenty-eight years imprisonment. Although an international campaign helped to secure his release under an amnesty in 1950, he fled to the Soviet Union in 1951, where he died in 1963 stripped of his Turkish citizenship. The poem, "Makinalaşmak İstiyorum-I want to be a machine," he wrote in 1923 in the Soviet Union.

Scroll down for detailed information...

The Ontology of Digitalism

“I also invented for them numbers.”

Prometheus Bound (detail), begun c. 1611–18, by Peter Paul Rubens (Flemish, 1577–1640) and Frans Snyders (Flemish, 1579–1657)

Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound

….

§ 435

PROMETHEUS: Don’t think that it’s out of delicacy or willfulness
That I’m silent. My heart is devoured with anxiety
When I see myself being insulted like this.

And yet, who else but I completely determined
Their privileges to these new gods?
But that’s enough of that --- you know
The story I could tell you. Now listen to the plight
Of human beings, how they were childish before,

And I made them intelligent and possessed of mind.
I’ll tell you about them, not because I blame them at all,
But to explain the kindness I granted them.
First of all, though they could see, they saw to no purpose,
Though hearing they didn’t hear, but like

Shapes in dreams in their long life
They muddled up everything at random. They didn’t know
Brick-built sunny houses, or word-working;
But like ants that burrow, light as air,
They lived in the sunless corners of caves.

They had no reliable sign of winter,
Flowering spring, or fruitful
Summer --- they did everything
Without intelligence, until I showed them
When the stars rose, and their settings that are hard to tell.

I also invented for them numbers,
The most outstanding cleverness, and how to put letters together,
The recording of everything, working mother of the muses.
I first yoked the wild beasts
Enslaving them in harnesses and in pack-saddles, so that

People might have a relief from their heavy
Burdens, and brought under chariots rein-loving
Horses, the adornment of proud wealth.
And no-one else but me invented the sea-wandering
Fabric-winged vehicles of ships.

Although I invented all these devices for mortals,
Alas! I myself do not have a clever means whereby
I can escape my present distress.

…

(From Seven Tragedies, translated by Herbert Weir Smyth (1857-1937), from the Loeb edition of 1926, now in the public domain, with thanks to www.theoi.com and the Perseus Project for making the text available online. https://topostext.org/work/15)

Characters:
PROMETHEUS, cousin of ZEUS, a Titan HEPHAESTUS, son of ZEUS, an Olympian POWER (Kratos) and FORCE (Bia), servants of ZEUS
OCEAN, uncle of Prometheus, a Titan (also uncle of ZEUS) IO, daughter of Inachus HERMES, Son of ZEUS, an Olympian CHORUS of OCEANIDS, daughters of OCEAN and cousins of Prometheus.

NOTE: The Ontology of Digitalism is the title of coming book by Veysel Batmaz ...

 

@ 

Via digitalism, are USA President Donald Trump & his digital musketeer Elon Musk facilitating to bury capitalism [= an upper layer above the market economy (*)] with the “USA coffin" to the graveyard of history, inadvertently or bluntly?

Let’s have a discussion...

Please first read Digitalism vs. Capitalism by Veysel Batmaz... But before you read, you have definitely and kindly to order it if you are interested. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D9SJ3XSL

(*) “Fernand Braudel explains that the 15th to 18th centuries offer very important theoretical insights to understand how and why capitalism is born in Europe. One of his main conclusions is that contrary to the common view that “capitalism” is synonymous with “free market economy," Braudel argues that these are not only different but also constitute two opposite poles. Capitalism emerged out of the market economy [via technology] but consolidated at the expense of it by bending the rules of the market. Market economy is the sphere of routine economic life. It is where exchange takes place with modest profits. Markets at every level are the vessels of economic life; they seize society from down to the top. Capitalism, on the other hand, is at the top of the pyramid. It is the sphere of “super” profits. It deals with the aggregates [accumulation] at the top. It has the power, flexibility, and superior access to information. Even though capitalists constituted only a minority of society, they accumulated huge wealth and soon began to control the rest of the society at the top of the social hierarchy. Where capitalism got stronger, the societies began to be transformed in the direction of the needs of capitalism. So, capitalist class and capitalism had an influence much larger than their absolute size and thus played a role of a “lever” for the transformation of the whole society.” (N. Tolga TUNCER, ESKİŞEHİR OSMANGAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ İİBF DERGİSİ, 2011, 6(2), 55‐69)

Go to Amazon and order it!

 

Four articles on “DIGITALISM” that pinpoint the core development in technology but miss the real substance of the new world of ecumenic economies and politics:

Digitalism is a mode of production and consumption; not a "new era," "fourth industrial revolution," different "institutional logic," "digitalization of economies," or "phase of capitalism." It is a novel mode, just like feudalism, which was killed by capitalism starting 500 years ago. After 500 years, now, digitalism is killing capitalism.

For Further Information 

See:
Veysel Batmaz, Digitalism vs. Capitalism Amazon KDP, 2024.

Go to Amazon and order it!

[1] Gamze Sart, Orkun Yıldız, “Digitalism and Jobs of the Future”, Istanbul, 2022

“The Fourth Industrial Revolution takes the automation used today to a higher level and uses technology to perform the tasks done by humans. Thus, the undeniable presence of technology is seen in every field, from biology to production, from logistics to education. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is different. First of all, people can constantly produce new information. People can realize the connection with each other without any limitation due to internet and mobile devices, which has required processing, storage, and image capacities because of technological advances by the fourth industrial revolution. At the same time, thanks to the developing technology, the relationship between the form of production and the elements of its processes have also been changing (Sun, 2018). Third and last, the Fourth Industrial Revolution [Digitalism] will give rise to a new economy form, the “sharing economy.” As a result, new technologies are being heard of globally, such as intelligent machines, the Internet of Things, and Neuralink, which aims to implant wireless computer chips into the brain to cure neurological diseases. …  countries’ economies are moving towards technology and automation, too. However, with the digitalization that came with industry 4.0, humanity will face an unprecedented revolution in the era of computers, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots, and radical changes will occur in every field. Labour and occupations are among the elements that this change will transform.”

For full article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356191391_Digitalism_and_Jobs_of_the_Future

Istanbul Cerrahpaşa University

[2] Metin Gürler, “The effect of digitalism on the economic growth and foreign trade of creative, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and high-tech products in OECD countries”, Istanbul, 2023

“Digitalism refers to the increasing use and integration of digital technologies in many areas of the economy, and ICT has had a profound impact on economic growth and foreign trade in the creative and high-tech industries. With the emergence and rise of digital technologies, new sectors such as ecommerce, digital media and social networking, which create new job opportunities and drive economic growth, have led to the creation of new business opportunities and sectors. The development of these industries has also led to the creation of new jobs and increased demand for highly skilled workers, further spurring economic growth. In addition to all this, digitalism has facilitated the internationalization of ICT, creative, and high-tech industries, thanks to the increasing use of digitalism, it has become easier for companies to collaborate by communicating with partners and customers from around the world. In this way, businesses have been able to expand their operations globally, and foreign trade and economic growth have increased thanks to their entry into new markets. Digitalism has also had a significant impact on the nature of commerce in the ICT, creative and high-tech industries. The development of digital technologies has made the cross-border trade and exchange of digital goods and services easier and cheaper, resulting in growth in the digital economy. In this way, businesses were able to sell their products and services globally without needing to be physically present in each different market, thus creating new opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to participate in international trade. As a result, the impact of digitalism on the economic growth and foreign trade of ICT, creative, and high-tech industries has been quite significant. Digitalism has created new business opportunities and industries, facilitated the internationalization of businesses, and transformed the nature of business in these industries. There are four skills which will be needed in the workplace of the future. These fastest-growing, highest-demand emerging skill sets are: • Artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML). • Cloud computing. • Product management. • Social media (WEF 2023a).”

For full article: https://doi.org/10.56038/ejrnd.v3i2.267

Istanbul Medipol University 

[3] Mohammad Alkarem Khalayleha, Dojanah Baderb, Fatima Lahcen, Yachou Aityassinec, Ayat Mohammadd, Majed Kamel Ali Al-Azzame, Hasan Khaled AL-Awamlehf, and Anber Abraheem, Shlash Mohammad, “The effect of digitalism on supply chain flexibility of food industry in Jordan." Amman, 2022

“The importance of digitalism is to keep pace with the development of global technology that has changed the ways of thinking and behavior of beneficiaries and consumers. The digital transformation also accelerates the daily way of work so that technology is exploited at work to be faster and better, which reduces work effort and saves time to think about development and innovation. Digital transformation has become the ultimate way in which organizations work. Digitalism refers to "the change in people’s communication and behavior in society as a result of the widespread use of digital technologies" (Gimpel and Roglinger et al. 2015). Digitalism creates opportunities for organizations and supply chain practices. Many organizations have started digital transformation because they have noticed the importance and value of digital technologies to help them M. A. Khalayleh et al./Uncertain Supply Chain Management 10 (2022) 1551 in their business performance and development, and organizations have also increased their administrative support for such technologies (Bughin et al. 2015).

 

For full article: Growing Science /doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2022.6.001

Al al-Bayt University, Amman College, Al-Balqa Applied University, the World Islamic Sciences and Education University, Yarmouk University, Balqa Applied University, Amman University College, Petra University 

[4] Lars Erik Kjekshus and Bendik Bygstad, “The Institutional Logic of Digitalism”, Oslo, 2021

“The concept of institutional logic has proven to be fruitful for understanding institutional change and in IS research. An important assumption in the understanding of institutional logic is that interests, values, professional norms and identities are embedded in the competing institutional logics within an organisation. Decision behaviours result from how these interests, norms and identities are enabled or constrained by these institutional logics. The starting point of our study was the observation of unwanted inertia after implementing large scale ICT (Information communication technology) systems in hospitals. How are large scale ICT systems related to organizational development and management? In this article, we show how ICT in organisations could be seen as an institutional logic in itself. We suggest digitalism as a term for a new institutional logic, as opposed to other, more well-known logics in organizations, such as managerialism and professionalism. Applying an institutional logic way of understanding ICT allows us to unfold a pattern and to explain the impact of change and stability that ICT has on organisations. To develop our argument, we combine organisational change research and institutional theory with information system research on enterprise architecture, and large-scale ICT systems. The institutional perspective unfolds the institutional features of large-scale ICT and contributes to the explanation of strategies, which encompass organisational change and development, in a dialectic manner of both deterministic and voluntaristic perspective.

Digitalism represents a new way of understanding organisational development and adaptation and it challenges the mainstream understanding of organisational behaviour as well as the established IS literature. Our research aim is to analyse the implementation of ICT systems in healthcare organisations according to this theoretical framework. In the last part of the article, we give a discussion of the impact of different blends of institutional logics and why it is useful to understand ICT as an institutional logic in itself. The practical result of ignoring digitalism and instead only seeing ICT as a tool is unwanted inertia and organisational dysfunctionalities. We illustrate our arguments with examples from a case of ICT implementation at a large Norwegian hospital where digitalism was not acknowledged.

Digitalism represents a new set of regulations, values, integrations and perspectives on the co-ordination of organisations. Introducing large-scale systems, such as DIPS, brings digitalism into healthcare organisations. Does digitalism apply outside the healthcare field and in smaller organisations? We believe that the answer is yes, but this should be investigated by further research.”

For full article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352076955_The_Institutional_Logic_of_Digitalism_Exploring_The_Aftermath_of_Large-Scale_Technology_In_Healthcare_Organisations

Department of Sociology and Human Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, and Department of Informatics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo

Daron Acemoğlu's Speech at UBS, February 2025

What do you think? 

February 2025

July 2024

February 2025

Did Daron Acemoğlu reply to me, plagiarize from me, or copy me? Which one happened at the UBS Speech in Zurich, February 2025?

Above you saw that I have included two screenshots of his video and the cover of my book Digitalism vs. Capitalism, printed by Amazon KDP on July 28, 2024, which has a part criticizing Daron Acemoğlu’s approach to institutions and technology, beside the Harari, Suleyman, the Economist, and Varoufakis approaches. Is DA following me?

Daron Acemoğlu gave a speech about technology and said that whoever controls the technology controls the world. Not exactly he mentioned technology in this sentence, per se, but he said, "Whoever controls Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), controls the world." His whole speech was devoted to technological progress and how it made the world miserable, defending capitalists who tried much to spread out the prosperity despite technology. Some highlights of his speech were groundless and an imitation of what I had written in my book Digitalism vs. Capitalism and very opposite to what he has theorized before, which gave him the Swiss Central Bank’s Nobel Prize.

He is fond of banks. The UBS Center for Economics in Society, or UBS Center in short, is an Associated Institute at the Department of Economics of the University of Zurich. It was established in 2012, enabled by a founding donation by UBS, which the bank made on the occasion of its 150th anniversary. In view of the generous donation, the university named the UBS Center after its benefactor.

In his speech, he did not mention INSTITUTIONS as the controlling agents to prosperity; instead, POWER was. CHOICE seems to have lost its aura in Daron Acemoğlu's paradigm... All of a sudden he became a technological determinist, as a recent Nobelist. Alfred was one of the technologists, wasn't he?

Acemoğlu was announced by UBS as such: “Artificial intelligence has lately been reshaping nearly every sector of the economy, raising profound questions about the future of work, wealth, and power. Will these advancements enhance the intelligence and performance of human beings, or will they deepen inequality and keep on establishing power among a privileged few? In his lecture at UZH, Nobel laureate Daron Acemoğlu highlights the necessity of implementing suitable AI regulations to benefit society.”

First of all, technology does not enhance “the deepening inequality or keep on establishing power for a privileged few.” These are done by capitalists (or kingdoms, empires, states), not by technology. Secondly, technology is the extension of human intelligence towards space and time; it is not controlled by the capitalists, states, or hegemonic classes. Thirdly, the power classes use technology and reproduce it as they see appropriate to exert their power. Hammer and Abacus were two of the first artificial intelligences of HOMOFABER. No wonder why China produced Deepseek, which might end capitalism into a deepsheet.

All human gatherings took a radical phase after capitalism. This industrial revolution (technology), starting around the 1500s with mechanical textile spinning wheels and steam engines and ending today with artificial intelligence, marks the beginning of digitalism. Capitalism is now withering away with intrinsic ways of production sealed with digital outputs and changing the capitalist commodity/“exchange value” into "use value of goods and services." In digitalism, there are and will be abundant goods and services that only have use value and no exchange value. Also, accumulation of capital which enables exploitation from surplus value is now phasing away. This is the end of the "capitalist mode of production." We are entering the "digital mode of production and consumption." This is why the main reason I equate the recent revolution as the digital hunter-gatherer revolution. History always repeats itself in a higher form, technology.

(See: Karl Marx, Value, Price, and Profit, Ed. Eleanor Marx Aveling, International Publishers 1974, and Karl Marx, Wage, Labour, and Capital,  Intro: F. Engels, International Publishers 1973.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISEDCbGsOcE&t=9s https://www.ubscenter.uzh.ch/de/index.html

Scroll down and see other criticisms of Daron Acemoğlu, et al.