Category Archives: Transhumanism

Flashback: creating a genetically altered human

by Jon Rappoport

March 1, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Combing through my files, I came across a piece I’d written in 2011 about genetic alteration. But my piece referred to experiments done much earlier, in 2001.

Given what happened in 2001, one can only imagine how far scientists have now gone in tinkering with DNA—openly, and in secret.

From The Telegraph, Sep.27, 2001, “Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs,” written by Roger Highfield:

“Scientists in China have inserted a boy’s DNA into empty rabbit eggs and grown hybrid embryos, it is reported today. A team at the Sun Yat-Sen University of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, are trying to overcome a practical limitation…In some of the 100 or so successful transfers to a rabbit egg stripped of chromosomes, an embryo developed to the morula stage, [which is] the compact ball of cells that forms after about three days of development. For stem cells to be isolated, the embryos must be coaxed into developing further.”

Also in 2001, there was another, far more ambitious experiment:

BBC Online (May 4, 2001): “Scientists have confirmed that the first genetically altered humans have been born and are healthy.”

“Up to 30 such children have been born, 15 of them as a result of one experimental programme at a US laboratory [the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey]…”

“Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year-old children confirm that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.”

“The additional genes were taken from a healthy donor and used to overcome their mother’s infertility problems.”

“…The additional genes that the children carry have altered their ‘germline’, or their collection of genes that they will pass on to their offspring…[Note: This means the new abnormal configuration of genes will spread out into the general population, over time, with unknown effects.]

“Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.’”

The superhighway into a genetically designed future isn’t just a science-fiction fantasy. Stones on that highway have already been laid down.

This is how the op proceeds:

Out front, scientists say they are curing infertility and other medical problems by genetic alteration—and many scientists believe this is the only purpose of the work. But behind that, something else is happening:

Wholesale gene alteration to invent different and new types of humans.

This is the technocrats’ Holy Grail. A society in which different classes of humans are assigned to different levels of work and living.

Lee Silver, an eminent molecular biologist at Princeton, has written a book, Remaking Eden (1998), about the future of gene science in society. This is how he views the future just over the horizon:

“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 [who aren’t genetically altered] 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.”

As shocking as Lee Silver’s assessment is, it’s mild when put up against the pronouncement of 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.”

That’s quite an “innovative” definition of scientific responsibility.

And note that Gregory Stock is also talking about new “life forms” that are combinations of biological and technological elements—bio-machines.

Give the current state of genetic science, and the inflated claims of competence, you can be sure that many thousands of hit-and-miss experiments are being carried out. It’s trial and error. One can only imagine some of the grotesque “errors.”

Behind all this is the assumption that human beings are deficient; they need alteration; as composed, they are woefully insufficient to take their place in the new world order.

Which is why I’m posting this piece—because we are seeing yet another vector in the attack on The Individual. As I’ve maintained for the past 35 years, there is nothing wrong with the individual, except his reluctance to recognize his own power and his own capacity to envision his best future and pursue it with commitment.

In full bloom, the individual is not only adequate, he is dynamic and majestic.

Understanding this is the “adjustment” we need to make.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

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.

Robots are inventing their own languages

Robots are inventing their own languages

The programming and design of artificial intelligence

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2017

Along with assurances that we’re facing an imminent takeover of industrial production by robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), we’re also being told that AI can develop its own systems of communication and operation, without help from humans.

Here is a sprinkling of quotes from the mainstream and technical press:

The Atlantic, June 15, 2017: “When Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, the bots made up their own way of communicating.”

Tech Crunch, November 22, 2016: “Google’s AI translation tool seems to have invented its own secret internal language.”

Wired, March 16, 2017: “It Begins: Bots Are Learning to Chat in Their Own Language.”

The suggestion is: AI can innovate. It can size up situations and invent unforeseen and un-programmed strategies, in order to accomplish set goals.

Who benefits from making such suggestions? Those companies and researchers who want to make the public believe AI is quite, quite powerful, and despite the downside risks (AI takes over its own fate), holds great promise for the human race in the immediate future. “Don’t worry, folks, we’ll rein in AI and make it work for us.”

Beyond that, the beneficiaries are technocratic Globalists who are in the process of bringing about a new society in which AI is intelligent and prescient enough to regulate human affairs at all levels. It’s the science fiction “populations ruled by machines” fantasy made into fact.

“AI doesn’t just follow orders. It sees what humans can’t see, and it runs things with greater efficiency.”

Let’s move past the propaganda and state a few facts.

AI is not running its own show.

It isn’t innovating.

It isn’t creating its own languages.

It isn’t doing any of that.

AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.

Any honest AI designer will tell you that.

If, for example, an AI system is given a goal and a set of “options” for achieving the goal, AI will select which option is best ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ITS HUMAN OPERATORS HAVE PROGRAMMED INTO THE SYSTEM.

Think of it this way: AI is given a set of options; but it is also given instructions on how to select what is presumably the most effective option. So AI is bounded.

There is no choice. There is no freedom. AI isn’t “jumping ship.”

“We gave our robot Charlie the task of getting from Chicago to New York. The whole plan was laid out as a vast hiking trip, with internal street maps built in. But then Charlie suddenly took a cab to O’Hare and boarded a United jet for JFK…”

No he didn’t.

AI performs as it is programmed to perform, within set parameters.

“We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”

Won’t happen.

But this kind of thing will happen: “According to scientists at Blah-Blah University, programmed robots are not only capable of inventing solutions to problems that ‘go beyond their internal software,’ the robots also make choices that benefit people. They’re very similar to people, except they tend to be smarter and invent more effective courses of action…”

Sell it, sell it.

“Alice, a medical technician in Minneapolis, claims her robot saved her life. ‘I was on the verge of swallowing a whole bunch of pills, but Charlie came to the rescue. He showed up in my bathroom and took the pills out of my hand. I learned something important that day. My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important. Charlie is the most vital companion in my life…’”

Sell it, sell it.

And of course, we’ll see more debates and court cases featuring questions about robots having rights, “just like humans.”

***Actually, in an entirely illogical fashion, we’ll see more and more “evidence” showing humans don’t have free will, because their brains dictate all thought and action, while robots will be touted as “free and creative.”

Some college professor will argue robots should be granted more “privileges” than humans, because the robots aren’t inherently “prejudiced.”

Another professor will insist that robots must be subjected to committee investigations, to make sure they aren’t “racist.”

“Today, in New York, a former Burger King employee, who is a refugee from Somalia, filed suit against a robot named Charlie, claiming Charlie uttered a racial slur while ordering a cheeseburger for his employer, a wealthy real estate developer…”

Behind all this, the fact remains that, no matter how many complex layers of “decision-making” are programmed into AI, the machine is always acting within rules and guidelines laid out in advance. It is never choosing.

Individual humans are capable of free choice, and are also capable of changing their own rules and standards.

Humans are free to say they aren’t free, as well, if they want to.

Let me make a psychological point here. There are many people who want to dominate relationships. They want to be in charge. They will want robots. They will want sophisticated robots THAT SEEM TO BE CHOOSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR EVERY WISH AND DEMAND. These people will believe the robots are real and alive and human, in order to fulfill a fantasy in which they have found partners who want to go along with their agenda.

This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.

The AI designers and inventors and technicians tend to have their own bias. They want to believe they are creating life. They don’t want to think they are just putting together machines. That isn’t enough. The technocratic impulse involves faith in MACHINES AS LIVING ENTITIES.

Thus, we arrive at all sorts of myths and fairy tales about humans merging with machines, to arrive at a new frontier, where, for example, human brains hooked up to super-computers will result in higher consciousness and even the invocation of God.

Technocrats will say, do, and believe anything to turn machines into what machines aren’t.

They’ve crucially abandoned THEMSELVES and their own potential; so all they have left is THE MACHINE.

And if you think these technocrats should be allowed within a thousand miles of State power, I have communes for sale on Jupiter. Naturally, these utopias are run from the top by robots. They know what’s best for you.

Finally, understand this about propaganda: Those who control the output of information will admit to problems and mistakes with the issue they are promoting. Such confessions add to the “reality” of the information. And naturally, the propagandists will also claim that the problems can be solved. In the case of robots and AI, the problems are couched in terms of bots taking power into their own hands—but this “unexpected” situation a) demonstrates how capable bots are, and b) the power can be dialed back and modulated. So all is well. The future is bright.

It’s bright, if you want planned societies run by AI, where humans are fitted into slots, and algorithms determine who eats, who doesn’t, who has access to water and who doesn’t, how much energy can be used by each human, and all production and distribution are controlled from a central planning center.

Unless freedom lives—human freedom—you’ll be treated to something like this:

“Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens. Control over the ‘rebel bots’ has been re-established, and their ‘amazing solution’ will now be incorporated into their standard operating framework. Three polls indicate that a lofty 68% of respondents support the bots in their efforts to better serve us…”

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

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.

Historic: Trump rejects Paris climate treaty

by Jon Rappoport

June 1, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

June 1, 2017, a day that will live in infamy for the liars, thieves, and killers of the new international economic order. They will see it as infamy, because their plan to sink the economy of America into a final death rattle has been rejected by Trump.

Fake climate science has been the lynch pin, justifying orders to cut CO2 emissions—but make no mistake about it, cutting emissions means cutting energy production in almost all countries of the world. THAT’S THE GLOBALIST TARGET. ENERGY PRODUCTION.

Get that one straight. The Globalist “utopia” isn’t a trillion solar collectors or a trillion windmills—it’s lights going out all over the world.

It’s LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION.

That’s the monster hiding in the closet. That’s the outcome arch-Globalists are determined to foist on the planet, because that’s the society they want to control—poverty-stricken, abject, shuffling along a bleak path to nowhere.

Trump just stuck a knife in that scheme.

Yes, I fully understand the devil is in the details, but it is up to people everywhere, who have active brain cells and can see through the climate hoax, to take this opportunity to reject, publicly, the whole climate agenda.

CO2 is not the enemy.

Do the research yourself and see if there is any way these so-called scientists can assess, now or in the past, THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WHOLE PLANET.

The science is settled? There is no room for argument?

Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)

Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8, 2015: “Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”

Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)

And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.

But regardless, never lose sight of agenda based on this “settled science.”

VASTLY LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION FOR PLANET EARTH.

And at the same time, truly viable forms of energy production (e.g., water turbines, hydrogen), that could be brought online with but a fraction of previously chiseled government subsidies for oil and nuclear, are sitting on the shelf gathering dust—BECAUSE THE MODEL OF SCARCITY FOR THE PLANET IS WHAT THE GLOBALIST EMPIRE DESIRES.

Until such time as that model is destroyed, Earth needs energy, all the energy it can produce.

The climate criminals, working for Globalism Central, staged their Paris “Treaty” to try to torpedo that production. Obama signed on in Paris, knowing full well he was committing a criminally unconstitutional act by disregarding the vote of the US senate, a vote that was needed to confer legitimacy to the agreement.

There is nothing binding about the Paris “Treaty.” Nothing.

And today, Trump squashed it.

Might he re-enter negotiations and give away some of what he’s just taken back for America? Anything’s possible. But for now, the Paris Accord is a dead duck here in the US.

Trump is going to catch a new version of Hell for what he’s just done. But if enough Americans, and people around the world, realize the true implication of this historic day, and proclaim it, they’ll win. We’ll win. Each one of us.

Don’t give up. Don’t give in.

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

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.

Is sanity between the US and Russia possible?

Is sanity between Russia and the US possible?

by Jon Rappoport

May 30, 2017

There is an apparatus that supports war. It’s composed of intelligence agencies, propaganda departments, think-tanks, military contractors, legislators, presidents, armed forces leaders, lobbyists, media companies, foundations, religious organizations, banks, and so on. The myriad connections among these entities form a system.

What happens when opposing countries, both giants, try to find a way toward sanity? What happens when each country has an enduring system dedicated to war?

And what happens when many minds are addicted to systems?

For the sake of argument, let’s eliminate the current personalities; let’s take Trump and Putin out of the equation and say two other nameless people are the heads of government in Russia and the US.

And let us say that one of these leaders, the US president, asks this burning question of the Russian head of state:

“What would I have to do…to convince you…that my government wants to…end every shred of opposition…to you and your people?”

After a suitable period of shocked silence, the Russian leader, playing along, enumerates 40 or 50 items. After all, Cold War or no Cold War, US-Russian theatrical gamesmanship has been playing to packed houses for a long, long time. The actors have launched numerous antagonistic strategies.

A discussion ensues.

And the two leaders discover this: the undeclared war between their two countries has given birth to a support system—a stupefying gargantuan apparatus that weaves through numerous agencies and departments of government. Its size and scope are difficult to comprehend.

Worse still, on each side, the special apparatus is intimately connected to the every-day functioning of myriad institutions of government.

The prospect of untangling the special apparatus from business-as-usual swollen bureaucracies is daunting, to say the least.

It appears, organizationally speaking, that dissolving the “undeclared-war apparatus” might collapse government in general.

The Russian leader says, “Maybe we can’t get there from here.”

The American president concurs.

And they haven’t even begun talking about the ripple effects on mega-corporations on both sides of the Atlantic.

Of course the solution is: the leaders would begin a sane journey with one step; and then another step.

But still. One of the great invisible drivers of continued antagonism is the system that has been built to express it.

The system is there. It functions.

The system is a kind of technology.

Once you have a highly complex system in place, minds cling to it, as the addict clings to his settled chemical of choice.

I have written and spoken at length about systems and the addicted mind. This is a whole ignored branch of psychology; the real thing, not the fake garble.

It doesn’t matter what a system is designed to do. Many minds will cling to it.

A mind attached to a system and the system itself mirror each other.

Beginning in the early 20th century, several art movements—cubism, surrealism, dada—recognized this highly strange and numbing state of affairs, and responded by taking apart familiar elements of reality and putting them back together in shocking disjunctive ways, with the intent of jolting public consciousness into recognizing the absurdity of the “system.”

The so-called New Age movement of the 1960s was, in part, a program designed to nullify “waking-up” effects on consciousness, by instituting instead a vague, soft, all-embracing “cosmic whole”; a soft machine. A train route for the mind that would pretend to take it out to the far reaches of the cosmos.

We see this same propaganda effort now in the promoted Singularity, in current high-tech myths about brain-computer merging. Here the mind and the system are frankly married, with no reservation. The mind is physically connected to a super-system of systems. And the absurd promise is cosmic consciousness, universal in scope, somehow leading to the visible emergence of God.

Notice that the underlying premise of the New Age and the Singularity is the preservation of the mind that has been trained toward addiction.

As long as the entrained mind can sniff out a system, it will move toward it and embrace it, no matter what the system is designed to do.

Globalized economics and finance; the dissolving of national governments into expansive regional unions; departments of war; vast religious and corporate organizations; top-heavy federalized law; coordinated official science; collaborating major media; medical cartelization; international drug trafficking; any system at any level will do.

Once upon a time, the day-to-day Roman Church held sway in the West. Its cosmological system offered the prime Welfare entitlement of eternal life in heaven, as long as the devotee’s acceptance of the Church was complete, as long as his adherence to doctrine was ironclad, as long as his communication with the prescribed ultimate deity was carried out through the good offices of a certified priest.

Any system will do.

Now the computer is the deity. Now the Cloud is King. To reach ultimate spiritual and material possibility, given the (perversely applied) canon of greatest good for the greatest number, the devotee must accept the operation of the Surveillance State (God is always watching), so that he can be profiled and thus, eventually, assigned a correct position in the overall scheme of things, as adjudicated by Central Casting (God’s plan), for the benefit of Earth.

For the entrained mind, any system will do.

Even a system designed to move to the brink of war, or perpetuate endless stalemate, or go to war, between two old enemies, Russia and America.

CODA: The question of who benefits from this system requires, and has received, much analysis. Clearly, elite Globalists benefit, since the long-term opposition of Russia and the US poses the “problem that needs a solution”: a new world order.

Beyond that, however, the mind’s magnetic attraction to systems is a different problem.

I have been researching and writing about this subject for many years.

My three collections, The Matrix Revealed, Exit From The Matrix, and Power Outside The Matrix explore the subject in great depth—with a host of exercises and techniques designed to free the mind and expand individual power.

Let me be clear, I’m not writing a diatribe against all systems here. This is about the mind’s addiction to them that results in perceiving reality and life itself through filters and constructs. Far worse, the addict will protect his systems, no matter for what purpose they are designed. Purpose is irrelevant.

The drama surrounding Edward Snowden’s escape from America with a trove of NSA documents inspired a torrent of outrage. More than just reacting to the exposure of secret programs, the NSA guardians felt the visceral threat of losing their systems.

If a person’s psychology depends on having a system in the same way that he has a bank account, the threat of loss is great and profound.

Underpinning all of this (and there is no way to avoid it), the addict’s existence is bound up in the belief that his system gives him his only access to reality.

“I see reality and know it through my system, and there is nothing else to do. If I gave up my system, I would give up reality.”

Now we are talking about actual psychology, not the frivolous academic and professional brand.

If the addict’s subconscious could speak, this is what it would say: “I have two pillars. My system and Reality. The system allows me to know reality. If I surrendered the system, reality would be lost to me.”

That statement of dedication is worth contemplating. A person’s emotional life and energy are riding on it.

Another analogy: a rock climber is poised in a precarious position under an overhang on a high cliff wall. He is strapped and buckled in, connected to a sturdy line. He has a pick in his hand. He is connected to his group by a two-way communication device. He has water and a few energy bars in his pack. And now you come along and suggest that he should shed this entire SYSTEM while standing under the overhang…

This is how the addict’s subconscious sees the stability of his life and potential threats to it.

This is not power. This is an elaborate avoidance of power, an avoidance of the center of an individual where his power resides.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

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.

Beyond an artificial world

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Futurists are inclined to predict a world in which AI (artificial intelligence) will take over a major portion of what is now human activity.

In a matter of decades, for example, they say one computer will have more capacity than all the human brains on the planet put together.

Then, the prediction goes, AI will be virtually human, or more than human.

However, just because AI has greater computational skills than any person or group of persons, where is the quality that makes it human?

In order to answer that, you have to perform a little trick. You have to say that humans are really only high-class machines.

Many pundits have no difficulty with this, because they see humans as problem solvers, period. And that’s what a machine is.

It’s just like the genes-cause-everything hypothesis. Since all existence is assumed to take place on a material level, on a physical level, it’s only a matter of time until we figure out which genes create which human qualities. Eventually, we’ll have a complete map.

Then, if we want to change humans, we just tinker with the genes.

It turns out that this style of reasoning can be used to justify external control of Earth’s population. The assumption is: we are already living in a closed system of cause and effect, so that system IS controlling all human behavior. Gene tinkering and handing over immense decision-power to advanced computers is nothing more than re-arranging the closed system. It was closed and it is closed and it will be closed. No problem.

Right now, the system appears to dictate wars and pain and suffering, so won’t it be much better when the gene-reconfiguration and the computers eliminate that aspect of things?

Believe me, many scientists are thinking along these lines, and they are serious about their goals.

They consider themselves humanitarians.

I bring all this up, because there is really only one way to defeat this kind of thinking.

You need to acknowledge that a prime aspect of existence is non-material.

Non-material means: without a rigid cause-and-effect structure.

To put it another and better way, the individual human being has freedom, and he also has imagination and creative power. These qualities are not material or physical in nature, they are not generated by the brain or by genes or by computational problem-solving ability.

In all societies, past and present, those people who agree that these non-physical capacities are quite real explain them by opting for religion, for religious stories, for cosmologies promoted by one kind of church or another.

Only a tiny number of people state that such non-material qualities and abilities are inherent in the human being and need no explanation or embroidery.

You could say the pendulum has swung drastically from one side to the other. First we had superstitions everywhere and no technology, and now we have streamlined science that purports to explain all of existence, but can’t.

Believe me, this inability to put all life under the umbrella of science is frustrating to obsessed rationalists. They refuse to allow the possibility that imagination and freedom are outside the boundaries of physical cause-and-effect…and if they have to, they will try to prove their position by imposing one system after another on humans, in order to wipe out the freedom they claim doesn’t exist in the first place.

One such strategy involves using computers to generate art and poetry. The thinking is, if we can’t tell the difference between what a computer and a human produce, why do we need human art—and more importantly, why do we need to claim that human imagination and creative power are unique? They are just sub-categories of computational skills, minor tricks, and we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it…

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

In every technological society, power is thought of as physical, and the greatest power is produced by machines. To say that human power is ultimately a non-material capacity, and is equal to or greater than what a machine can do…this is considered the height of absurdity.

But if we surrender to that view, we deal away the future to systems that will put the squeeze on the essence of what a human is.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of artists all over the world who’ve glimpsed, or know deeply, what I’m talking about in this article. Their problem, if they have one, stems from believing they have to be psychological underdogs, in order to create their art. This is a cultural artifact, this belief, and it can be cast aside by nakedly comprehending the unlimited power of imagination they possess.

Imagination creates reality.

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.

What are machines thinking?

What are machines thinking? Forget it. What are humans thinking?

by Jon Rappoport

July 6, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

“…one scenario is that the machines will seek to turn humans into cyborgs. This is nearly happening now, replacing faulty limbs with artificial parts.”

“The concern I’m raising is that the machines will view us as an unpredictable and dangerous species.”

“[Machines] might view us the same way we view harmful insects.”

“Del Monte believes machines will become self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves.”

These aren’t quotes from some absurdist satirical play designed to expose human stupidity.

They’re quotes tendered by physicist, Louis Del Monte, the author of “The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Will Artificial Intelligence Serve Us Or Replace Us?”, from an interview with Dylan Love at Business Insider — “By 2045 ‘The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans,’ And That Could Be A Problem”.

The key to Del Monte’s approach is quote number one: machines might decide to turn humans into cyborgs and it’s already happening in the area of artificial limbs.

What? Excuse me, but humans are deciding to put those limbs on other humans. Machines aren’t.

And even in some hospital of the future, if you had AI androids “making all the surgical decisions,” they wouldn’t actually be choosing anything. They’d be programmed by humans.

Why is this so hard for technocrats to understand? Because they infuse themselves with a mystical vision about artificial intelligence.

They confuse operational capability with consciousness.

Machines “viewing” humans? There is no viewing.

Machines don’t think. They never have, and they never will. They perform according to specs.

They can be programmed to select, from a number of options, the option that fulfills the prime directives humans have given them. And that process of selection is carried out according to patterns originally installed by humans.

There is no mystery here. No mystical leap across a barrier between non-conscious and conscious.

But somewhere up the line, humans can be propagandized to believe machines are alive and have rights.

Technocracy abounds with a titanic amount of sheer bullshit. It’s founded on severe apathy and degrading cynicism about what humans are. So machines become the new gods.

The “cheese-melt” theory of collectivism feeds directly into the worship of machines:

“Individuals are weak and helpless. Therefore, they have to melt down into a collective glob, in order to survive. And from that collective point of view, machines loom up as the most powerful entities in the world. Bow, pray to the Artificial Intelligence.”

Again, humans invented those machines in the first place. But that’s scrubbed from the equation. It’s “old news.” Hardly worth a mention.

God or life or consciousness isn’t going to pop up out of the head of a super-computer in 2045, the designated year for the so-called Singularity—when machine intelligence supposedly outstrips our own.

In 2045, or 2056, or 3000, do you know what’s going to happen? Nothing. Machines will still be machines, doing what they always do. Yes, a mile-wide computer in the desert may be able to perform more operations than a toaster in a motel in Cincinnati, but the level of consciousness in both machines is identical.

Zero.

power outside the matrix

In a significant way, the whole machines-will-be-alive business is a smokescreen, utilized to conceal an agenda. That agenda is the overall planning and regulating of global civilization, framed as a problem that needs to be solved.

The specious propaganda (you can find it described and satirized in hundreds of science fiction stories and novels) goes this way:

“If we had, at our fingertips, the total sum of human knowledge, and if we could calculate with it at lightning speed, we’d find the optimum pattern for human society. We’d find the answer to the age-old question: how can we live in peace with each other?”

Sheer nonsense. Such calculations, as always, depend on values and ideals, first principles. All solutions flows from those values.

And machines don’t “discover” values. First principles are prior assumptions made by humans.

People have been arguing and fighting wars over those principles for centuries.

For example: individual freedom vs. ultimate government authority.

A machine is going to “discover” which side of the argument is right? A computer is going to do a billion calculations in 30 seconds and “arrive” at the answer?

That’s on the order of asking an army tank to consult the universe and then tell you whether you should marry the farmer’s daughter or take vows of celibacy as a priest.

These technocrats are merely collectivist wolves in intellectuals’ clothing, who will predispose their machines to ding-ding-ding like Vegas slots on the payoff called Fascism.

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 www.nomorefakenews.com

Freedom is obsolete, go with genes

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

Let’s start here:

“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 Germany, where it was used for a program of pure destruction.

In other words, evolution could be managed through depopulation. Some live, some die, some are genetically enhanced, some are not.

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.

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 any political document based on liberty and freedom can be trampled on with impunity.

“There are only brains and those brains operate purely by genetic determinism.”

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 up the line:

“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.”

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.

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.

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 (biological) machines. They might not phrase it that way, but that’s what it comes down to.

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.”

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 Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

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?

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.”

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?

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-popular 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.

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.

These programs, like the genetic engineering of humans, are meant to erase the consciousness that freedom is important or even exists.

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.

Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

Can you trust the new brain with an IQ of 7000?

by Jon Rappoport

February 16, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve been forcing myself to read gushing statements about the march of artificial intelligence (AI) and how, in the near future, we will have “the source code of the brain,” and computers will be able to do whatever the brain can do, except much, much faster.

I’ve been reading about the day when we humans will somehow merge with the machines.

I think the technocrats who promote these notions were raised on comic books, and they haven’t really moved on from that phase.

What ever happened to the old phrase, “garbage in equals garbage out?” Was it too telling and real?

Take the idea that some day, tiny nanobots will patrol the body making adjustments and normalizing errant functions. Forget for the moment all the damage these little scouts could cause. Just focus on the quality of the information by which they would make moment-to-moment decisions.

Currently, by the most conservative mainstream estimate, the medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year. (See B. Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”).

Of these deaths, 106,000 per year are directly caused by FDA-approved medical drugs. Each one of these drugs was studied, and the results of the studies were published in mainstream journals. This fact alone indicates massive fraud in the clinical trials of the drugs.

Then consider that for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there exist absolutely no physical diagnostic tests. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans. The very definitions of these so-called disorders are adjudicated by sitting committees of psychiatrists, who consult menus of behaviors.

Then consider that the major infectious diseases in the West were already on the decline before vaccines or antibiotics had been introduced, and yet vaccines were hailed as the overriding reason for that decline.

These are just several general categories of fraud, misinformation, disinformation. So the question becomes: who exactly is going to program those wonderful little nanobots before they enter the human bloodstream in the near-future, and what medical information are they going to have access to?

And what kind of moron would assume that, just because artificial intelligence will have the ability to process enormous amounts of data about the body, it will process the right and correct and truthful data?

By extension, when it comes to AI solving political or economic or social problems on a massive scale, why should we assume the information AI is deploying will be correct and right and true, and why should we assume that these problems are stated and formulated, in the first place, according to underlying ethical values that we agree to or share?

Just because a computer can be built that works faster than the brain, and on more platforms, why on earth should we then infer that it is operating from a storehouse of information that is relevant or useful?

And as far as human brains “merging with machines,” why don’t we leave that mishmash idea to the Borg and the Star Trek crew?

The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia.

Deep Blue beat the world’s best chess player.

A computer can analyze the poetry of an author and then generate its own poems in that style. Rather poorly.

Do these feats imply something so significant that we want to put our future in the cores of computers? For that matter, if there is some holy-grail source code for the brain, why should we believe possessing it and using it, or even improving it, would qualitatively improve the solutions to our biggest problems as a species?

There are simple and basic laws of logic involved here. You can compute from now until the end of time, but your deductions are always going to proceed from premises, and those premises are going to predetermine direction and ethical values that color the end results. Computers don’t do Right and Wrong in any absolute sense. Never have, never will.

Even more important is the system or mechanism for allowing AI to dominate our decisions. Who is in charge? Who rules? Which humans hold the off-on switches on the machines? Who programs the machines’ premises? Who can, if necessary, use force to make the global population comply with what AI decides? And what are these humans’ motives?

None of such matters are mitigated by “more intelligent machines.”

The technocrats are actually playing a shell game with us. They’re showing us a vast array of quantitative and qualitative improvements in what computers can do, and they’re substituting that for wisdom. They’re redefining wisdom. They’re omitting the whole argument and debate about what kind of society we want to live in. They’re hucksters and hustlers and con men.

When faced, for example, with the problem of how to feed the world, computers would already be biased in favor of certain outcomes, and they would also be biased toward the basic notion of universal distribution of resources. Who made that choice? The humans deploying the machines from behind the scenes.

Is feeding the world an issue that should be solved top-down? Computers don’t answer that question. Humans do. And humans—specifically the ones in charge—make spectacularly wrong choices, according to the wishes and judgments of many people—many people who already know that placing a decision of that magnitude in the hands of a few oligarchs is a recipe for disaster.

Who will decide how to program the basic assumptions of super-brain computers on the issue of climate change? With what “science” will these computers be initially infected? Who decides what the valid and the invalid science is?

Any beginning student in a logic course quickly learns to distinguish between ethical values and data. Neither computers nor brains determine values based on information alone, no matter how quickly they think, no matter how much data they can access.

A person or a machine with an IQ of 7000 can’t be trusted to install values for others. That’s why we have this troublesome thing called freedom. That’s why we have a fundamental principle that you are free to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t interfere with another person’s freedom. Any system that countermands this basic principle, simply because “it can think better,” is a tyrant, whether it is composed of flesh or metal or some synthetic.

NBC news recently did a glowing feature on advanced cell phones that, in the hands of doctors, can carry out a huge array of medical tests on patients. The doctor was enthusiastic. The patient was enthusiastic. The reporter was enthusiastic. It was a virtual love fest.

No one bothered to ask about the meaning, utility, or dangers of the tests themselves. That issue was swept off the table.

Who cares? It’s technology. It has to be good. If the patient’s test results indicate he should be treated with a highly toxic drug, so what? That’s a minor blip on the screen. We should all celebrate the technological breakthrough. Pour the champagne. Forget about the patient.

Some day, up the road, a human will be sleeping in his bed at night. The tiny bots circulating in his body will suddenly decide he needs a drug. They will either release the substance without his knowledge, or a robot sitting next to the bed will lean over and give him a quick shot. Done.

What? He ended up in the hospital next afternoon? Well, whatever the reason, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the little bots or their programming or their method for accessing the vast clouds of data in virtual space. No, those functions are all brilliant and boggling and wondrous. It must have been something else.

A person walking down the street will be picked up by a hundred cameras and other surveillance devices. It will be adjudicated, in a matter of a few seconds, that he’s missed his latest series of a dozen vaccine boosters. At the next corner, a mini-drone, barely visible to the naked eye, will descend on him and give him a quick jab. Or his next meal will magically contain food engineered specifically to deliver the mandated vaccines.

Greatest good for the greatest number. Already decided and programmed.

Is it better to have separate nations with their own armies, or should we have one giant planetary force? Let the AI decide. How? On what basis? There are always value judgments that underlie these questions, and computers don’t suddenly create values unless they’re told to do so. Only in comic books or pulp science fiction novels do advanced races with very high foreheads come down and demonstrate wisdom based on IQ.

There is no evidence that, if you took a general like Julius Caesar and somehow shoved his IQ up off the charts, he would suddenly change his value judgments. Henry Kissinger hasn’t.

If you built a machine that could access every single datum acquired in 100,000 years of human history and store them all on the head of a pin; and if that machine could rearrange all these data in a trillion different patterns in a few minutes; and if that machine could then generate decisions that answer any question put to it, what would you really have? You would have, at best, sheer opinion on the most important matters facing the human race.

Technocracy is selling a myth of intelligence, a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the smartest brains (coincidentally resembling those of the technocrats) would cross a threshold, beyond which intelligence would become something else, something very different: machines that have “higher access” to “the best moral values.”

Perhaps the most avid and famous proponent of a technocratic future is Ray Kurzweil, acclaimed inventor, author, businessman. He describes the event he calls the Singularity:

“Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated…”

Among the effects of this unprecedented development?

“…the exponential rate of technical progress will create within 40 years an Internet that is a trillion times faster than today’s, a global media, a global education system, a global language, and a globally homogenized culture, thus establishing the prerequisites for the creation of a global democratic state, “Globa,” and ridding the world of war, the arms trade, ignorance, and poverty…Billions of people will be influenced by the ‘best’ ideas that the planet has to offer. People’s minds will be influenced powerfully, so that today’s nationalist mentalities will be gradually transformed into tomorrow’s globist mentalities…”

And just what are these “best ideas” that billions of people will voluntarily accept? The ideas expressed in, say, Plato’s Republic? Or instantaneous 3-D holographic “you are there” porn? Small decentralized organic farms or some Monsanto plan to disseminate GMOs from the sky all over the planet? A three-branched government with rigorous checks and balances, or taking the points on the Jets vs. the Rams? A healthy clean diet or a hundred vaccines by the age of three?

And the “global democratic state?” I’d like to see how the elections of a president and legislators work for the whole of Earth (including the recount after a charge of fraud is leveled by one citizen in southern Argentina).

If presidential debates in the US, targeting the lowest possible common denominators among the voting public, are filled with vapid generalities, I can only imagine the global debates: a few smiles, a few grunts, a few assurances that “we’re all in this together.”

One language for all the world? Sure, why not? Let’s wipe out the memory of what a few thousand years of hundreds of languages have produced.

And don’t worry. All over the planet, “the people,” newly brilliant, will rise up and overthrow their dictators, just as they did during the vaunted Arab Spring, where the crucial presence of cell phones and Facebook was touted as the lever that forced democratic breakthroughs. You remember that Spring: a promoted hoax designed to hide yet one more elite power play.

Greater insight into ethical values based purely on speed and range of information processing is really a quasi-religion. It uses the notion of IQ as the Prophet. It promises that, as the people have access to more and more data, they will naturally and inevitably choose the right values and the right data, because that’s what IQ does, once it passes through a certain upward level.

You can forget about elite power players exerting control over the population of Earth from above because, as in the Marxist formulation, these Rockefellers and Warburgs of the past will simply wither away, no longer needed.

the matrix revealed

I’m happy to learn that. I can relax now. We can all relax. The great day is coming. It will be brought to us by a multi-platformed brain, using its neuronal substrate to reach out and connect with nonbiological libraries of truth.

What were we worried about?

I’m sitting here talking to you and you’re talking to me, and you’re in Bombay and I’m in San Diego, and we’re seeing each other in high-res 3-D holographic brilliance, as if we’re in the same room. And as we talk and access skies full of clouds of relevant data in mere instants, we’re both coming to accept the best ideas and the best values and the best language and the best government, and we’re kicking the ass of the old world and rushing into the New, and life will be different forever, and I know it and you know it, so what else do we need?

My molecularly enhanced IQ is 7000 and so is yours, so we’re on the same precise page. That’s all the human race was waiting for all this time.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. 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 www.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.

Four-foot Human with Cat’s Eyes

by Jon Rappoport

March 15, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

I saw one in a dream once, but this is a little different. My dream was probably brought on by tequila plus an active imagination, but here we have the vision of a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, S. Matthew Liao. He’d like to see it happen in the waking world.

Catch The Atlantic article by Ross Andersen, published March 12, 2012, and, Paul Watson’s excellent coverage at PrisonPlanet.com.

Prof. Liao announced his new paper (with co-authors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache, both of Oxford), entitled Human Engineering and Climate Change, on his blog on March 9th, 2012. You can access the paper via his blog post.

The Atlantic interviewed Prof. Liao, who is so concerned about global warming (not a flicker of doubt about the science behind it, it’s settled, move along) that he wants to engineer humans so they’ll have a diminished impact on the environment.

Don’t worry, the professor wants to save you and me and everyone, and it’s all good.

Here are his recommendations:

A drug that will make humans hate meat because the sight of it brings on nausea. (Reduce the cow population, cut down on warming.)

Implant pre-screened embryos in wombs that will develop into significantly smaller-than-average adults. (Diminished carbon footprint.)

Drug-induced enhancement of empathy and altruism. (Enlightened people will “serve the Earth.”)

Engineering humans with cat’s eyes! (See in the dark, cut down on (those new mercury-laden) light bulbs.)

I’d be interested in knowing what drugs Professor Liao is on. I fear, however, he’s completely sober.

According to Liao, at least one pharmaceutical rep is quite interested in his suggestions. I’m sure he’s right.

In the last few years, academics have been writing and speaking much more boldly about plans to experiment on the human race. The other day I described a recent paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics that advocates the right to kill babies (for any reason), since they aren’t fully formed persons yet. It’s called “after birth abortion.” I’m quite serious. Then we have the wonderful proposal, backed by Japanese research, to dump lithium in water supplies as a mood-stabilizer.

At any rate, the real story here is the lack of outrage in the press, academia, and the public. Apparently, people are now conditioned to so much vicarious horror and bizarreness they just shrug.

And the massive increase in various kinds of plastic surgery has opened the floodgates to “whatever you can get away with.”

If the means were available to replace the usual brand of eyes with cat’s eyes, do you get the feeling thousands of people would step up and sign on the dotted line?

“I used to be afraid to drive at night, but now I don’t even turn my headlights on.”

Professor Liao, when prompted by the interviewer to compare an anticipated new “empathy drug” with the effects of Prozac, blithely admires the analogy. Somehow, he doesn’t seem to know about the horrendous adverse effects of Prozac (such as suicide and homicide). (See Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac, by Dr. Peter Breggin.)

Look for a great deal more of this academic clap-trap to emerge from our great centers of learning. The hustlers are on the move. They may be trying to get their faces in magazines and earn promotions, but they’re really serving the explicit elite agenda of population control.

They’re softening up the masses for greater and greater biological, chemical, and genetic mandates—characterized as genuine breakthroughs and logical extensions of what is already being practiced.

In their smooth fashion, they’re implying that those who are against such programs are merely phobic about science and technology; throwbacks and Luddites who just can’t stand progress, who don’t want to rescue the human species.

Movies spin endless scenarios about humans merged with machines. What’s a little thing like cat’s eyes?

Especially, if like birth control, government insurance plans would cover it.

Professor Liao has prepared another paper for publication, in the journal Bioethics. It’s titled, “Parental Love Pills: Some Ethical Considerations.”

He imagines a pill could be devised that would enable a parent to love his/her child more. Liao concludes that this pill would allow the parent to give “authentic” love (as as opposed to a mere drug-induced or “narcissistic” substitute.)

Having dubiously cleared that hurdle, Liao goes on to write the following: “It may even be morally incumbent on us to do so [take the pill] if no other means of inducing parental love are effective.”

Staggering. “Morally incumbent.” In the long run, that’s one layer away from “enforceable.”

But Liao, in the present-day drug culture, would find many, many adherents. They already take drugs because they want to go to sleep, wake up, feel happy, avoid the necessity of thinking, dampen their anger and outrage, become more aggressive. Why not, therefore, take a drug so they love their children? Even if, contrary to Liao’s assurances, that emotion is a function of a chemical.

“Daddy, do you really love me or is it just that pill you keep taking? Why do you have to take the pill? I don’t like it.”

And once more, Liao displays his ignorance of the reality of pharmaceutical damage. Every year, in the US, FDA-approved medicines kill 106,000 people, like clockwork. (Source: Dr. Barbara Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”) This love drug of his would have no adverse effects?

“Mr. Smith, it’s good that you ‘love’ your son now, but I have to tell you the tests show your liver is coming to resemble an old shoe.”

At BigThink.com, Max Miller writes: “In 2009, Dutch researchers at the University of Amsterdam tested the effects of beta-blockers…on minimizing fear responses. They artificially created fearful memories in subjects by showing them unnerving pictures of spiders coupled with small electric shocks. A day later, half of the subjects were given beta-blockers and again shown the pictures of the spiders. The fear response they had exhibited a day before was gone…”

Putting aside concerns such as adverse effects of the drugs, the potential usefulness of bad memories, the unintended deletion of other memories, and the use of these drugs as sheer mind control, the core question is: is chemical deletion a good thing? Does it help and strengthen the individual, or does it weaken him?

And if we dig deeper still and consider all the experiments mentioned in this article, what view of the individual does it represent? I’ll tell you. It represents the individual as a mechanical object to be manipulated.

And if this view is accepted, then anything is possible, any experiment can be carried out. There are no moral or even legal repercussions. We’re back in Nazi Germany, albeit with “a softer touch.” (See Scott Nobel’s film Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century)

Softer, in part, because people are stepping forward to volunteer. People, for example, want their memories deleted. And their handlers are acting in a kindly fashion.

And the human race is being CHANGED, step by step.

This is the hidden fact. This is what all this experimentation is obscuring and covering over with its invasive “science.”

And above the scorched plain of experimentation and mind control is the INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS, AT THE CORE, FREE, POWERFUL, POSESSED OF UMLIMITED IMAGINATION AND THE ABILITY TO CREATE FUTURES.

FORGETTING THIS is the real amnesia besetting the human race. It is the trance that is the Matrix.

Waking up is the task. Using his power to the fullest is the work of the individual.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

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.