DEPOPULATION, GENETIC ENGINEERING, AND THE “NEW WORLD”
APRIL 1, 2011. Yesterday, I was on another radio show; a station in Oregon, AM 1440 KMED.
The host, Bill Meyer, has the number-one rated program in the Medford area. He and I had a very interesting conversation about human genetic engineering. He extended our segment, and we talked for nearly an hour and took calls.
This subject is hot. People want to know about it. They sense that researchers are willing to overstep legal and moral boundaries and try to design “an improved human being.”
They understand that promises and pretty pictures conveying “amazing genetic breakthroughs” in curing diseases are mostly PR, because the hard evidence is not there.
On my own radio show, which airs live every Wednesday at 4 PM
Pacific Time, at www.ProgessiveRadioNetwork.com, I did an hour of commentary this week on gene engineering and the connection to IG Farben, the infamous Nazi chemical cartel. You can catch it in the archive at that URL. (There are many shows of mine you’ll want to listen to there. Interviews with Peter Breggin, Peter Duesberg, Jeffrey Smith, etc.)
Bill, the KMED host, broached a very interesting question: are we nothing more than the sum total of our genes?
You see, this is where the discussion ultimately leads. People feel the gene researchers are really fronting for a materialistic philosophy that claims we are “particles and particles only.” Well, this is the great theme of 20th-century science.
And our experience tells us it is rubbish. We are aware. We are conscious, and this irreducible fact carries a message: you can’t make science out of the core of life itself. You can’t describe it in equations and technology. Consciousness isn’t a quality the world of science can capture.
It can pretend to surround it. It can pretend to ascribe it to the organ called the brain. But it fails. Consciousness doesn’t come in a bottle. It doesn’t arrive in a welter of formulas. It isn’t synapses and neurons.
Both the infamous CIA mind control program, MKULTRA, and the current gene-engineering mania are trying to make consciousness into a matter of pure conditioning—but it doesn’t work. We aren’t dogs waiting for Pavlov to ring the bell and feed us.
Some of you will remember two Nazi-like researchers, Jose Delgado, and psychiatrist Ewan Cameron. They were obsessed advocates of re-engineering society. They both stated that an individual human doesn’t have an intrinsic right to his own personality. For the good of all, that personality should be modified.
At the bottom of their heinous experiments was the belief that the human being is simply a collection of cells. An aggregate of atoms.
Therefore, re-arranging those particles would be no crime.
A car uses too much gasoline? Build a more efficient one. A human being doesn’t fit into the overall plan of “a better society?” Build a better human.
Those people who see a nasty globalist planet over the horizon should think very seriously about the long-range role of genetic engineering in that framework. It’s there. It’s part of the growing technocracy that wants to inject “the genes of Paradise” into favored individuals and slip other kinds of genes into “lesser people.”
Talk about depopulation? You’re talking about genetically canceling the ability of certain populations to reproduce. Quietly done over time, it’s a much more likely scenario than overt destruction.
Consider this quote from Psychology Professor Richard Lynn, director of the Ulster Institute for Social Research, and winner of the US MENSA Award for Excellence (1985, 1988, 1993, 2005-6):
“What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples…Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent.” (interview in Newsday, January 9, 1994, cited by the Center for Genetics and Society)
And how does this go down with your morning cereal:
“Many people love their retrievers and their sunny dispositions around children and adults. Could people be chosen in the same way? Would it be so terrible to allow parents to at least aim for a certain type, in the same way that great breeders…try to match a breed of dog to the needs of a family?” (Gregory Pence, professor of philosophy, School of Medicine and Humanities, University of Alabama at Birmingham, “Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning,” cited at the Center for Genetics and Society)
Here is one more:
“Some will hate it, some will love it, but technology is inevitably leading to a world in which plants, animals, and human beings are going to be partly man-made…Suppose parents could add 30 points to their children’s IQ. Wouldn’t you want to do it? And if you don’t, your child will be the stupidest child in the neighborhood.” (Lester Thurow, professor of economics and management, MIT, “Creating Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals, Companies and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy.”)
This last quote makes me want to coin a new mental illness: BLITHE INSANITY OF THE UNIVERSITY-CODDLED SUPER-PUNDIT.
JON RAPPOPORT
Visit the site, sign up for the email list, and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.