Category Archives: Eugenics

Genetic programming for the Brave New Utopia

Genetic programming for the Brave New Utopia

by Jon Rappoport

January 23, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

First, read these two quotes from highly regarded academic scientists, to catch the flavor of the genetic revolution. Be prepared for staggering pronouncements.

From Lee Silver, Princeton, molecular biologist and author of Remaking Eden:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…

“Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro[grammed]-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

Here is another gem, from Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

One scientist says we might lose half of all species getting where we “want to go,” genetically speaking, and the other says the process will inevitably be guided by wealth and the free market, thus creating two distinct classes of humans, the higher of which has far superior abilities—and they’ll run things.

Aren’t you thrilled? If your children make it through, they may turn out to be half-biological, half-technological.

Plexiglass head, two cameras for eyes, titanium feet. Whatever.

They were aiming to become the next Mozart? And instead they wound up burning down half the city? Just a glitch in the research. Take the long view. Don’t worry, be happy.

The debate comes down to who controls, yes, the philosophy. Not the science. Is each human merely and only a system, or is he something more, inhabiting a physical form?

We already know what the vast majority of brain researchers and geneticists believe, as well as the governments and corporations and universities and foundations that make important decisions.

Of course, these days, the college faculty department considered to be the least important, the most useless, a mere appendage waiting for those with wisdom to put it out of its misery and kill it off…is the philosophy department.

That leaves us to take up the philosophic argument.

Not Lee Silver at Princeton or Gregory Stock or Bill Gates or George Soros or David Rockefeller or the Pope or Stephen Hawking or Obama or the Clintons or Monsanto or Dow or the Bush family or PBS or FOX or socialists or Communists or liberals or conservatives or some wackadoodle at Harvard or MIT or UCLA.

Us.

The Matrix Revealed

Notice this: Nowhere in the scenarios for a brave new utopia do we see mention of the human creative impulse. That’s ignored. Instead, somehow, new genes will take care of the whole issue. Those who receive the right ones will suddenly spring full-blown, as Michelangelos.

This is sheer nonsense.

The truth is, thousands and thousands of genetic experiments will continue to be performed, in the dark, based on a very small amount of knowledge. The grotesque results will be cast aside as unfortunate casualties in the march toward The New World.

DNA isn’t the key to “a better human.” Individual freedom and power are, and they launch a process of living and thinking and imagining and creating that can’t be short-circuited. Can’t be synthesized or fabricated.

The philosophy of Scientism is the current paradigm. It extrapolates from the sciences and molds political, economic, and psychological norms that propagate totalitarian societies, based on an absurd materialist view of the human.

The awareness you have, at this moment, of being alive is not a function of DNA or the brain. Nothing contained in those structures can account for such awareness. Not the atoms, the electrons, the protons, the nuclei, the quarks, mesons, wavicles…

But genetic research can be used a cover story to demand a planet with one huge underclass and a few “enlightened” rulers. Which is what is happening now.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Now we come to vaccines and depopulation experiments

Now we come to vaccines and depopulation experiments

by Jon Rappoport

September 15, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“When the State offers and even insists on giving everybody something, you know you’re in trouble. Well, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Leaving the individual out of the equation. Treating the population like a single Blob.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Before we get to vaccines, I want to give you a quote about fluorides, just to set the stage.

Stan Freni is a researcher who, in 1994, wrote a paper about fluorides, the substances in many toothpastes, also pumped intentionally into the drinking water of many communities and cities.

Funny thing is, Stan Freni wrote his paper as an employee for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The title of the paper is “Exposure to High Fluoride Concentrations in Drinking Water is Associated With Decreased Birth Rates.”

It was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (v.42, pp.109-121, 1994). Freni writes:

“A US database of drinking water systems was used to identify index counties with water systems reporting fluoride levels of at least 3ppm (parts per million)…the annual total fertility rate (TFR) for women in the age range 10-49 yr. was calculated for the period 1970-1988…Most regions showed an association of decreasing TFR with increasing fluoride levels.”

Increasing fluoride levels, lower fertility rates. Depopulation here in the US, right in your water.

So don’t imagine depopulation is an esoteric subject.

Let’s move on.

You have to understand that every promoted so-called “pandemic” is an extended sales pitch for vaccines.

And not just a vaccine against the “killer germ” of the moment. We’re talking about a psyop to condition the population to vaccines in general.

There is much available literature on vaccines used for depopulation experiments. The research is ongoing. Undoubtedly, we only know a fraction of what is happening behind closed laboratory doors.

Depopulation has several objectives. Along one vector, it is an elite strategy designed to get rid of large numbers of people, in key areas of the world, where local revolutions would interfere with outside corporations staging a complete takeover of fertile land and rich natural resources.

An astonishing journal paper. November, 1993. FASEB Journal, volume 7, pp.1381-1385. Authors—Stephan Dirnhofer et al. Dirnhofer was a member of the Institute for Biomedical Aging Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

A quote from the paper: “Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization).”

A birth control vaccine?

Yes.

A vaccine whose purpose is to achieve non-pregnancy where it ordinarily could occur. This particular vaccine was apparently just one of several anti-fertility vaccines the Task Force was promoting.

Yes. There is a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines at WHO. This journal paper focuses on a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin B (hCG). There is a heading in the FASEB paper (p.1382) called “Ability of antibodies to neutralize the biological activity of hCG.” The authors are trying to discover whether a state of non-fertility can be achieved by blocking the normal activity of hCG.

Another journal paper. The British Medical Bulletin, volume 49, 1993. “Contraceptive Vaccines.” The authors—RJ Aitken et al. From the MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

“Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials, involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered … incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides … Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG antibodies…”

The authors are talking about creating an immune response against a female hormone. Training a woman’s body to react against one of its own secreted hormones. The authors state, “The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”

Stop the female body from recognizing a state of pregnancy. Get the body to treat the natural hormone hCG as an intruder, a disease agent, and mobilize the forces of the immune system against it. Create a synthetic effect, an engineered effect, by which the mother’s “maternal endocrine system” does not swing into gear when pregnancy occurs. The result? The embryo in the mother is swept away by her next period—since hGC, which signals the existence of the pregnancy and halts menstruation cycles, is now treated as a disease entity.

The authors put it this way: “In principle, the induction of immunity against hGC should lead to a sequence of normal, or slightly extended, menstrual cycles during which any pregnancies would be terminated…”

Miscarriage would then be the “normal” state of affairs. These authors leave no doubt about who the target of this vaccine would be:

“During the next decade the world’s population is set to rise by around 500 million. Moreover, because the rates of population growth in the developing countries of Africa, South America, and Asia will be so much greater than the rest of the world, the distribution of this dramatic population growth will be uneven…”

Two other vaccine methods are described. They “aim to prevent conception by interfering with the intricate cascade of interactive events that characterize the union of male and female gametes at fertilization.”

The diptheria and tetanus vaccines would function as a social and political mask—to hide the sterilizing intent, as millions of women in the Third World would receive vaccines they’re told would protect them against infections and disease.

A letter to a medical journal, The Lancet, p.1222, Volume 339, May 16, 1992. “Cameroon: Vaccination and politics.” Peter Ndumbe and Emmanuel Yenshu, the authors of this letter, report on their efforts to analyze widespread popular resistance to a tetanus vaccine given in the northwest province of Cameroon.

Two of the reasons women rejected the vaccine: it was given only to “females of childbearing age,” and people heard that a “sterilizing agent” was present in the vaccine.

The late well-known journalist, Alexander Cockburn, on the op ed page of the LA Times on September 8, 1994, in his piece “Real U.S. Policy in Third World: Sterilization : Disregard the ’empowerment’ shoe polish–the goal is to keep the natives from breeding,” reviewed the infamous Kissinger-commissioned 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200, “which addressed population issues.”

“… the true concern of Kissinger analysts [in Memorandum 200] was maintenance of US access to Third World resources. They worried that the ‘political consequences’ of population growth [in the Third World] could produce internal instability … With famine and food riots and the breakdown of social order in such countries, [the Kissinger memo warns that] ‘the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized.’”

In other words, too many people equals disruption for the transnational corporations, who steal nations from those very people.

Does this remind you of what is happening in West Africa now, re “the Ebola crisis?” Lockdown. Borders sealed. Over the past five years, several vaccine campaigns—and who knows what other vectors for the transmission of toxic elements to the population.

Cockburn notes that the writers of the Kissinger memo “favored sterilization over food aid.” He goes on to say that “By 1977, Reimart Ravenholt, the director of AID’s [US Agency for International Development] population program, was saying that his agency’s goal was to sterilize one-quarter of the world’s women.”

There were unconfirmed reports from the Philippines and Mexico that their 1993 tetanus vaccination programs—which were supposedly administered only to women of childbearing age—involved multiple injections.

Tetanus vaccine protocols indicate that one injection is good for ten years. Therefore, multiple injections would indicate another motive for the vaccinations—such as the anti-fertility effect of hCG planted in the vaccine.

My inquiries to Philippine officials went unanswered.

The Population Research Institute, in the November/December 1996 issue of its Review, published a report by David Morrison.

Morrison stated, “Philippine women may have been unwittingly vaccinated against their own children, a recent study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) has indicated.

“The study tested random samples of a tetanus vaccine for the presence of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a hormone essential to the establishment and maintenance of pregnancy … The PMA’s positive test results indicate that just such an abortifacient may have been administered to Philippine women without their consent.

“The PMA notified the Philippine Department of Health (PDOH) of these findings in a 16 September letter signed by the researchers and certified by its President. Using an immunological assay developed by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, a three-doctor research panel tested forty-seven vials of tetanus vaccine collected at random from various health centers in Luzon and Mindanao. Nine were found to contain hCG in levels ranging from 0.191680 mIU/ml to 3.046061 mIU/ml. These vaccines, most of which were labeled as of Canadian origin, were supplied by the World Health Organization as part of a WHO-sponsored [sterilization] vaccination program.”

Morrison’s article would seem to indicate that the vials of vaccine tested came from a widespread immunization campaign rather than from a small pilot study of a few women.

The Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation was created at the World Health Organization in 1973. Ute Sprenger, writing in Biotechnology and Development Monitor (December 1995) describes the Task Force:

“…a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D…such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG.”

Sprenger indicates that, as of 1995, there were several large groups researching these vaccines. Among them:

* WHO/HRP. HRP is the Special Progamme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, located in Switzerland. It is funded by “the governments of Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Canada, as well as the UNFPA and the World Bank.”

* The Population Council. It’s a US group funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Institutes of Health [a US federal agency], and the US Agency for International Development [notorious for its collaborations with the CIA].

* National Institute of Immunology. Located in India, “major funders are the Indian government, the Canadian International Development Research Center and the [ubiquitous] Rockefeller Foundation.”

* The Center for Population Research, located at the US National Institute of Child Health and Development [!], which is part of the US National Institutes of Health.

The Lancet, 4 June, 1998, p.1272: “During the recent National Immunisation Campaign (vaccination for childhood diseases and tetanus toxoid for pregnant women), in some villages [of Thailand] the women escaped and hid in the bushes thinking that they were going to be given injections to stop them having children.”

AP, Boston Globe, October 10, 1992, “Birth-control vaccine is reported in India”: “Scientists said yesterday they have created the first birth-control shot for women, effective for an entire year…[after which] a booster shot is needed.”

power outside the matrix

There are other citations from published medical literature—but you get the idea: vaccines as depopulation instruments.

And the hCG versions I refer to appear to be crude efforts. Who knows what levels of sophistication have been achieved in secret?

West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, Ebola—the real motive for promoting these “pandemics” is the follow-up: vaccines.

To a highly significant degree, the CDC and the World Health Organization are PR agencies, whose job is to convince the public that stepping up, rolling up their sleeves, and submitting to shots containing germs and toxic chemicals is the most natural and wise action possible.

Yes, and ignorance is strength.

The Matrix is designed inside out and upside down.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.

Manipulating evolution from now on

By Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

(August 2013 update: For TruthStreamMedia.com’s article entitled “DARPA to Genetically Engineer Humans by Adding a 47th Chromosome“, click here. For a pdf copy of the DARPA solicitation entitled “Advanced Tools for Mammalian Genome Engineering“, click here. See also Creating a genetic monster.)

“A study on rats published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology showed that sound waves could be used to [reversibly] reduce sperm counts to levels that cause infertility in humans…The concept…is now being pursued by researchers at the University of North Carolina who won a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.” — (BBC News/Health, Jan.29, 2012, reported at naturalnews.com).

After Darwin cast his view of evolution upon the waters, a notion that humans were naturally selected bio-machines gained increasing consensus.

If Science could understand how a human was built, it could not only cure illness, it could change the inherent pattern of the body and brain. Evolution was merely a history of changes in the bio-machine.

Eventually, this position was taken to the full extreme. The Eugenics movement sprang up in America, and it was exported to Nazi Germany, where it was used for a program of pure destruction the American advocates could only dream of.

Now, the population is being softened up for another version of The Human as Bio-Machine. Through movies, through the press, through heavily promoted speculation— “we are on the verge of enormous breakthroughs in genetics”—the population is being primed for a pseudo-philosophy of selection: some people should live, and some people should die, or at the very least, not reproduce.

On the one hand we are fed “highly positive” assurances that designer genetics will enable the creation of smarter, more talented, stronger, healthier people of the future. On the other hand, we are told that the exigencies of “public health care” make it necessary to differentiate between “viable and non-viable” patients.

These two threads are woven together, and in the confusion people are giving in, more and more, to the idea of a New Eugenics.

At bottom is the un-debated question: IS A HUMAN A BIO-MACHINE AND NOTHING MORE?

Most academic philosophers will tell you the question itself is meaningless. That’s their way of skirting the issue of free will.

And it’s one reason many academics believe the Constitution is a badly outmoded document: it asserts that every individual can be free. Claiming that the existence of free will is preposterous, academia determines that any political document based on liberty and freedom can be trampled on with impunity.

“There are only brains and those brains operate purely by electrical/chemical inputs and outputs.”

And THAT opens the door to various versions of Eugenics. Because who can object to experiments on machines?

Lee Silver, an enthusiastic molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden, about the future of gene science in society. This is how he sees things playing out:

“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class… .

“Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.

“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”

It’s interesting that Silver mentions the value of individual freedom. Would he be willing to discuss his view of the human being honestly? Does he claim the human is a bio-machine and nothing more? And if so, where does this freedom come from? Sub-atomic particles changing their minds every so often? Or does he have a different view of the human?

If we could bring these bio-ethicists and geneticists and academic philosophers out into the light of day, where the issue of free will would be discussed in depth, some very interesting things might happen.

For example: “Well, why shouldn’t we experiment on human beings to see what we can produce genetically? The human is merely sub-atomic particles in motion that have somehow acquired the delusion they have Identity and Free Choice.”

Yes, let’s get it all out into the open, where we can see the underlying assumptions and look at them straight on.

Ideas do move the world, even if the bulk of humanity is disinterested or unwilling to grasp them. To infer that such underlying ideas are a waste of time and should be discarded altogether is exactly the kind of default that leaves the playing field open; open to those who DO have ideas and are willing to act on them—to the detriment of all of us.

Thirty years ago, biotech companies looking for seed money began to hire scientists to shill for them. These pros began promising the moon, in terms of what the research in genetics could deliver in short order. Of course, the promises were completely overblown, but the stage was set for a major PR campaign that would add grants and research funding to the coffers of geneticists—and convince the public that the Brave New World had arrived.

That PR has grown to this day. The man on the street is now blithely ready to attribute all sorts of human behavior to genes and DNA. He’s an expert. He knows. He can repeat the latest promises about genetic cures for disease.

This, despite the fact there is NOT a single gene-treatment for a disease that works across the board. Can someone prove otherwise?

Go into a university department of genetics/molecular biology, or a department of philosophy, and try to find a real discussion and debate about whether humans have free will, whether the human being is only a bio-machine. Good luck.

The very basis of the American Republic, individual freedom, has been cut out of the equation.

But no one at the university level deems this a significant or disturbing fact. Teachers are far more interested in “group values” and “consensus” and the deconstruction of all ideas into an analysis of who benefits from having the ideas.

The rearranging of genes in humans has, for some time, been discussed openly in academic journals. The cat is out of the bag. Geneticists, biologists, social scientists, bio-ethicists are all weighing in. One typical argument: once upon a time, people were horrified at the prospect of doing in vitro fertilization; people said it wouldn’t work, it would produce monsters; now it’s accepted as normal and natural.

And THEREFORE, “we should look at genetic manipulation as the next stage of our self-directed evolution. We should try it. We should be ready to deal with failures, because the pursuit of the goal is good and valuable.”

All this presupposes honorable motives and humane objectives. Who cares about a realistic assessment of what scientists will countenance and promote?

We are told there are laws against dangerous gene experiments, and there are medical ethics panels ready to rule out potentially harmful practices. But among the experts, a tide is rising in favor of the overall goal of engineering our genetic future.

And this is quite understandable, because not only do scientists tend to have a sense of their own superior entitlement and intelligence, they believe they’re tinkering with machines. They might not phrase it that way, but that’s what it comes down to.

The Matrix Revealed

David King, writing at Human Genetics Alert, states:

“The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we want to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these developments are inevitable.”

Inevitable. That’s the key idea. “There’s nothing we can do now. The march of progress is underway.”

King continues:

“One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Anderson’s proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes will be ‘inadvertently’ altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of their body.”

But the gene enthusiasts don’t care about what happens up the line to the descendants. It’s all part of the grand experiment. Spin the wheel, take a chance. If “we” don’t like the outcome, spin the wheel again and see what happens. Eventually, we’ll get it right.

One of the most enthusiastic proponents of human genetic engineering, Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine, has written:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost, enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The Nazi elite, obsessed with the idea of creating a Master Race, serving that goal, were willing to try any horrendous experiment on any prisoner; they were willing to breed their “ideal” men and women to produce offspring that would fit their definition of “superior.”

Now we are being sold a soft version of Eugenics as the next step in evolution. It’s a kinder, gentler roulette. And why should individual free will be an obstacle; that’s just a superstitious fantasy; freedom was never real; there was always and only The Experiment; natural selection, intentional selection—what’s the difference?

Some who look at the future see Orwell’s 1984. Others see Huxley’s Brave New World. I’m here to tell you the scientific/medical/technological elitists are sitting at the table with many chips to play. They’re betting that, in the long run, they will win, because they are touting hypnotically entrancing “imperatives” of the Religion called Science.

And if by chance, they discover a reliable way to utilize gene insertion to produce sterility and infertility, they will see a path to quiet depopulation. And then who will control the technology? Wide-eyed futurists who teach at universities, or calculating operatives who work for the hardest-line Globalists?

Despite Gregory Stock’s advice to think only in the short term and disregard the broader future, I suggest you consider the implications of government-controlled and funded healthcare. Up the road, the prescribed list of treatments for all diseases will become mandatory. The doctor offers, you accept. You obey. He advocates gene therapy, you fall into line. You’re in the system.

Meanwhile, the current generation of scientists and academics who want to move full speed ahead on engineering evolution aren’t the old crusty scowling researchers from days gone by. They’re enthused, they’re daring, they look and dress like ex-hippies who’ve moved to the suburbs. They’re happy sociopaths spreading cheer. And they talk like software designers operating on the bright cutting edge.

What could go wrong?

And to cement in the argument for engineering humans, there is the ever-powerful fairness argument. Professor Julian Savalescu, of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics:

“Nature allots all sorts of abilities and talents in a random way. It’s not fair, and I don’t see why we should let people’s lives be determined by the throw of a dice.”

Unless throwing a pair of scientific dice results in multiplying catastrophes, or the use of workable genetic technology (if it really is workable) raises an unending roar and riot from millions, even billions of people who claim they’re being denied their right to be Equal.

A man on his way out of a restaurant trips on a stair and sues the owner; and he’s going to stay quiet when his rich cousin can suddenly play a Beethoven piano concerto?

I asked a retired professor of biology about the social effects of human engineering. His comment was: “These younger geneticists who see paradise over the hill? If they’re living over the hill in big houses, they’re going to need the Army to protect them.”

And will the Army protect them? I asked.

“Look,” he said, “this whole business of inserting genes to create talents is a fantasy (emphasis added). But assuming at some distant time it could come true, the soldiers would have their own synthetic genes, which would presumably make them follow orders to the extreme. The soldiers would do whatever the people who run things want them to do. It would be a tight world.”

When individual freedom is no longer discussed in great depth by people who should know better, when it is left to wither on the vine, many programs and structures are built to take its place. When freedom is not understood beyond a superficial level, the question, “WHAT IS FREEDOM FOR?”, goes begging. For the past 15 years, I’ve been exploring the question, and I believe, in the answer, we find the imagination and creative power that can allow us to enhance ourselves, without the need to desperately hope for genetic reprogramming.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.