Related: “Oracle E-Business Suite Zero-Day Exploited in Widespread Extortion Campaign”

The question isn’t whether Oracle is paying Tony Blair through his Institute (TBI) for lobbying and forcing top-down sales. The infamously untrusted and overtly political Palantir has proven lately that’s just a standard English breakfast fare for Big Tech deals.

Many feel that their professional judgement has been overlooked, and that this is yet another example of a top-down digital decision that lacks transparency and accountability.

Based on extensive evidence from multiple investigations and insider testimony, the real question should be: why are governments still taking meetings with Oracle’s TBI?

When a billionaire gives a whopping quarter-billion dollars to the former prime minister’s pockets, to gain extraordinary government capture of policies to benefit that billionaire, it’s not philanthropy.

As one technology writer has put it:

Tony Blair is really just a salesman for the tech companies, and flies around the world looking for naive Governments who want to believe in magical solutions.

This isn’t just a UK story. Former TBI employees describe similar dynamics in developing countries, with the institute acting as what insiders call a “tech sales & lobbying operation for Oracle”

It’s almost like we know why the company was named an “all seeing” Oracle. Was the brand “Orwellian” already registered? What about “Orwellison”? At the Dubai World Government Summit, the Oracle’s main man Ellison was explicit about a very villainous sounding interest, telling his audience:

The first thing a country needs to do is unify all of their data so that it can be consumed and used by the AI model.

Consumed?

People who need care are seen by the big Oracle as consumption, to be used.

The first thing?

Imagine a doctor saying first to the patient get in here so you can be consumed and used by me. Chilling.

The Oracle man is saying out loud that the first thing he thinks a country needs to do is centralize all citizen data for extraction. This “value” model of use is simply inhumane, a repeat of the worst tragedies – populations treated as raw material to be used in centralized power.

Will his government platform soon say “Oracle Macht Frei” on its landing pages?

The deception of Nazism was in treating human extraction as liberation, which seems to be the same false promise behind TBI pushing Oracle’s cynical “AI transformation” as population-level capture by elites without any representation or exit.

TBI infiltration of government to normalize the Oracle plan is precisely the kind of technocratic dehumanization that enables atrocities, by treating populations as data to be captured inside systems designed for inescapable control, unnecessarily privatizing central power over life and death decisions.

It is no exaggeration to explain how this pattern is straight out of history, such that we know waiting until it’s “bad enough” to call it out means TBI walks away with pockets full while claiming to “know nothing” about how they did it. And that means waiting until it’s too late to prevent mass tragedy.

One can only imagine how Ellison and Epstein would discuss moving humans to a digital island for high exit barriers. It sounds like something out 1600s colonialism to be honest, if you think about the huge buildings built around London as displays of extractive power. The devastation wrought on nutmeg islands hundreds of years ago would be lost on most readers, unfortunately, but everyone has heard of Epstein.

In that sense it really doesn’t matter whether Ellison also was on the “Epstein list” or not because we are talking about a modern metaphor to predict harms from certain billionaire behavior (private islands, capturing people with high exit barriers, treating humans as consumable resources). That’s a structural analysis for preventing measurable harms to the public.

So let’s fast forward, to how Britain’s NHS health records dating back to 1948 have an estimated commercial value of up to £10 billion. Oracle indeed has used capture of citizen data to reach £1.1 billion in UK public sector revenue since early 2022, with major government colonization worth hundreds of millions.

The concerning part, in other words, isn’t just a one time exposure, it’s the ongoing access – a form of colonnus. One investigation revealed that TBI staff were embedded directly in UK government departments while still on TBI payroll. Documents show that Technology Secretary Peter Kyle even instructed officials to work with TBI on the national data library project, writing plainly:

Attaching the initial scoping work from TBI here.

A bit on the nose. Which is why it apparently wasn’t hard for reporters to find 29 current and former TBI staff with damning accounts:

“When it comes to tech policy, Oracle and TBI are inseparable,” said one former senior adviser.

Another recalled:

I was being pulled into what felt a lot like tech sales and tech PR… We had an angle, and the angle was more tech, big tech, all the time.

Oracle staff reportedly began sliding into TBI employees’ calendars to schedule meetings and “scope out opportunities”.

I’m definitely getting Epstein vibes throughout the reporting—not because Ellison is connected to Epstein, but because the pattern is identical: private islands (literal and digital), captured populations with high exit barriers, humans treated as extractable resources.

TBI looks to be engaged in a centuries old extractive structure of dehumanization.

Going through the Oracle and TBI papers means learning about innocent and often powerless people unwittingly coerced and then digitally captured by a billionaire who promotes tech islands where citizens are stripped of rights so they can’t easily get away from his consumption, to be used by him.

I was reading a report about drones used in archaeology and it started to bother me.

AI-accelerated Nazca survey nearly doubles the number of known figurative geoglyphs and sheds light on their purpose

Specifically, as I reflected on what Wittgenstein taught the world, there’s a deeper philosophical point being completely missed in this rapid rise of robotic fieldwork.

Archaeology now has a genuine epistemological crisis when drone surveillance (accelerated observation) generates category confusion between reading symbols and measuring phenomena.

The Paradox of Geoglyphs

When people write that there are no written records found with the geoglyphs, I have to say the geoglyphs ARE the form of writing and recording.

We’re looking at intentional symbolic communication. Yet researchers somehow treat them as physical artifacts to be analyzed rather than texts to be read.

Imagine a pile of bones arranged to say SOS and a team of robotic archaeologists saying “we found all the bones and recorded all the designs but there were no written records to explain what SOS stands for on this mountain top.”

Genius. They might be the ones making the unfortunate next pile of bones.

A Wittgensteinian Cat

Wittgenstein would say we don’t need the cat to write “cat” for the word “cat” to have meaning. Similarly, we don’t need the Nazca people to provide a written explanation for their geoglyph of a cat to be meaningful records of a cat.

What scientists have been doing in the past is going to be creating problems when it is turned up to drone levels of discovery speed. These researchers present interpretations as hypotheses because that’s been proper scientific method: present findings and let others verify them through independent analysis.

But here’s the new visible tension: fleeting symbolic interpretation of a huge static sign isn’t the same kind of claim as a repeatable empirical measurement.

“This compound has X molecular structure” needs lab verification.

“This stop sign means stop” has verification demonstrated through observable use, which is what is reported in the first place. So scientists need to stop, otherwise they are overthinking the sign to stop.

The paradox: all the sign interpreters are transient (each generation comes and goes, their readings shift), but these hidden geoglyphs of unknown meaning sat for 2000 years basically saying the same thing with a reasonable level of certainty: cat.

“Everything flows” thus meets a giant stone message that doesn’t flow at all, and simply needs to be interpreted. The tension is treating an interpretation as the unstable thing requiring verification, when actually the sign is the stable thing and has been communicating continuously. The instability is in observation, not the observed.

Right, Heraclitus? Maybe we should put this into Plato’s cave and take a survey.

The uncertainty isn’t about what the drones found. It’s epistemological uncertainty about whether successfully interpreting symbolic communication counts as knowledge. The researchers read the text but won’t claim they’ve read it, as they only claim to have a “compelling hypothesis” about what the text might mean.

This is treating interpretation as shadow rather than direct perception of meaning.

What They Actually Found

The researchers demonstrated:

1. Relief-type geoglyphs depicting humans, domesticated animals, and decapitated heads appear along walking trails (average 43m distance)
2. Line-type geoglyphs depicting wild animals appear near ceremonial centers (average 34m distance)
3. The two types differ systematically in scale, motifs, and spatial associations

From this they conclude relief-type geoglyphs were for “sharing information about human activities with individuals or small groups” while line-type were for “community ceremonial purposes.”

That’s reading. That’s interpretation. That’s understanding meaning through use.

The Problem With Data Integrity Hypotheses

When you frame symbolic interpretation as scientific hypothesis requiring verification, you create an odd situation:

The geoglyphs were made to communicate. The researchers have understood what they communicate. But scientific protocol apparently requires framing a successful reading as tentative hypothesis about the success of reading.

It’s like finding a book, reading it, understanding it, then saying “I hypothesize an object with markings may have been for communication, pending verification by other researchers. Please read my book about what is a book.”

AI Archaeology Issues

The “intelligent” system found 303 new geoglyphs in six months with “certainty” nearly doubling the known examples. This should have meant interpretation became MORE certain by revealing clear patterns.

Instead, the scientific framing makes it sound like more data only equals more uncertainty and doubts:

“We found way more examples and must share expanded reading as only hypothesis pending distributed verification.”

The geoglyphs ARE the writing. The researchers CAN read them. Scientific protocol just won’t let them say so without the hedging generated by higher certainty in discovery methods.

Maybe that’s appropriate caution. Or maybe it’s overly STEM-centric, applying wrong epistemological frameworks to human symbolic communication in order to avoid signaling execution (while literally reading execution symbols).

Either way, I hope the next expedition doesn’t end up as bones spelling SOS while debating the meaning of north and south.

It’s counterintuitive and genuinely problematic: AI bringing better discovery methods paradoxically undermines the integrity of stating what is being discovered.

But let me dig deeper. A woman who had to flee authoritarian demands for ideological conformity spent decades documenting Nazca geoglyphs. She directly read and interpreted these ancient communications. We are in the shadow of “discovery” by a woman who spent her life freely expressing her views on ancient symbols in the desert, erecting liberal interpretations.

Reiche did fieldwork the old fashioned way, walking the desert, measuring geoglyphs by hand, making interpretations based on embodied experience. She could say “this is a monkey” or “this represents a calendar” with confidence born from humanist engagement. She sought truth in a remote region of the world far away from her home country, which by 1933 made such simple acts of confident reporting illegal.

Modern AI archaeology thus operates as an interesting regression with imposed distance overhead, using imposed pattern recognition algorithms and learned statistical analysis. This means epistemological weakness creeps in that makes its researchers less willing to claim interpretive certainty, all the while its adherents are more willing to claim superiority over human analysis.

Both Wittgenstein and Reiche trusted direct observation and pattern recognition. Wittgenstein said look at how language is actually used. Reiche said look at how desert glyphs are actually used. Both had confidence in stating what was observable.

Modern AI archaeology automates observation to gather MORE data faster but ends up with LESS confidence in stating what it shows, which means intentionally withholding any reading beyond tentative hypothesis.