By Jason Charles on 8/12/2020 (4 years 101 days ago) Science & Technology
One of the first recorded uses of technology could be when Cain utilized technology to kill Abel his brother. While the story in Genesis 4 does not include a murder weapon, for sake of illustration, we read in the un-cannonical Book of Jasher that it was a plough-head used,
“And Cain hastened and rose up, and took the iron part of his ploughing instrument, with which he suddenly smote his brother and he slew him, and Cain spilt the blood of his brother Abel upon the earth, and the blood of Abel streamed upon the earth before the flock.” - Jasher 1:25
And then the Jewish Targum records it as being a stone,
“And because of these words they had contention upon the face of the field; and Kain arose against Habel his brother, and drave a stone into his forehead, and killed him.” (Source)
So, tradition holds that there was a weapon involved; hence all of the illustrations we see in children’s Bibles of Cain with a stone. In this sense, Cain deployed a technology that made it easier and more efficient to slay a human being.
Humankind has not morally evolved one bit since the time of Cain and Abel, instead we are just more efficient killers with our technological achievements, much to the glee of the architects of the technocratic New World Order.
Cain killed one man with a rock, and now modern man takes the substance of these rocks and fashions it into thermonuclear ballistic missiles and war machines that can and do kill millions.
We haven’t become better as humans; instead the drive inside mankind to control and dominate has grown in scale to our technological advancement. As technology advances, human morality has stayed stagnant for eons. This sadly is still an unyielding fact to this very day,
As Paul said, wickedness is in our genes, there is no escaping it generation to generation.
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12
Sci-fi or Psy-Fi?
Entering into the technocratic era we have to realize that the science fiction writers who captured the imagination of past generations were largely just propagandizing the public into embracing pure technological servitude in the guise of utopia. At best the early 20th century sci-fi authors like Jules Verne or H.G. Wells were just naive in their positive outlook on technology; at worst they were willingly lending themselves to the power structure that used them to shape this cheery narrative in regards to the future of mankind.
When reading up on the history of the sci-fi genre, you cannot help but notice its connection to evolutionary theory and thus by proxy eugenics and transhumanism.
With the advent of Darwin and his proposed evolutionary theory during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, authors and philosophers were wrestling with a world without God. If Darwin was right, then there was no divine providence shaping and guiding mankind, it was mankind itself that would determine humanities destiny. An idea that captured the imagination of sci-fi authors during the time, all who envisioned a future were mankind harnessed technology to put an end to war, disease, and even death as they set out to conquer the stars and merge with the machines.
Scientific pursuit, free from the moral constraints of a creator God, for the sci-fi enthusiast the possibilities were endless.
It just so happened, the international bankers also loved Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and lavished funds on the eugenics movement via the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institute that aimed to shape humanity into a post human species through selective breeding.
These Zionist bankers like the Rothshchilds who were both related to and funded Karl Marx, felt like with eugenics they finally had the philosophical and scientific underpinnings for their communist revolution that was already starting to sweep over Russia and Europe at that time.
If you want to gain some insight into the colossal failure of an idea eugenics was, it is a matter of historical record that Nazi social cleansing efforts were largely influenced by the American eugenic organizations. Biologists, Steven A. Farber, writing for the NCBI had this to say about the failed philosophies of eugenics,
“In this special issue devoted to the study of pigmentation, it is only fitting that we reflect on how this trait has been utilized to promote specific political and social agendas in both the United States and Europe. It was Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, who coined the term “eugenics” in 1883 while advocating that society should promote the marriage of what he felt were the fittest individuals by providing monetary incentives. Shortly thereafter, many intellectuals and political leaders (e.g., Alexander Graham Bell, Winston Churchill, John Maynard Keynes, and Woodrow Wilson) accepted the notion that modern societies, as a matter of policy, should promote the improvement of the human race through various forms of governmental intervention. While initially this desire was manifested as the promotion of selective breeding, it ultimately contributed to the intellectual underpinnings of state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization, and genocide.
…
What is often not appreciated is that Nazi efforts were bolstered by the published works of the American eugenics movement as the intellectual underpinnings for its social policies. One of Hilter's first acts after gaining control of the German government was the passage of the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in July 1933. The Nazis, when proposing their own sterilization program, specifically noted the “success of sterilization laws in California” documented most notably by the American eugenicist P.B. Popenoe. The Nazi program ultimately resulted in the sterilization of 360,000–375,000 persons. The intellectual linkage between the United States and Nazi eugenic programs is further illustrated by Davenport's presence on the editorial boards of two influential German racial hygiene journals, Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde und ihrer Nachbargebiete and the Zeitschrift für menschliche Vererbungs- und Konstitutionslehre. Sadly, with the benefit of 70 years hindsight, we can see the alignment of the stated goals of the Eugenics Records Office with Nazi social engineering programs as revealed by Davenport:
To investigate the nature of those forces or agencies which improve or impair racial or family-stock qualities. These forces which act upon immigration, mate selection and fertility, differential by race and family-stock quality are those which have been given most attention. In the field of immigration, studies have been made in Europe and America on the selection of immigrants have played as recruits to the breeding stock of the American people. Many of these researches were conducted in collaboration with the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Rep. and the Immigration Service of the U.S. Government.
It wasn't until 1935 that a review panel convened by the Carnegie Institution concluded that the Eugenics Research Office research did not have scientific merit, and subsequently withdrew funding in 1939.” (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 12/2008)
If you want further proof that eugenics was a bad idea based on a false premise look no further than the inbreed family tree of Darwin himself, who attempted interbred with cousins as a means to amplify intelligence genes.
Despite the immediate and overt failings of applied evolutionary theory the early Sci-fi stories and scripts were gobbled up by the Hollywood illusionists, packaged into movies, comic books, and science fiction epics all promising once again a post human era free from war, poverty, disease, and even work.
The thinking being, where eugenics failed, transhumanism and the merging of machines would surely succeed, thus the nauseating push on our culture by Hollywood and media of the sci-fi genre in movies and pop culture. They simply won’t leave off of this persistent delusion of technological progress without spiritual and moral restraint.
Thus we are all being dragged along for the ride by these neo-robberbarons and emperors of tech. The vain imaginations of billionaires like Bill Gates or Elon Musk, both of who grew up obsessed with Sci-fi have used their fortunes and extensive capital to force humanity into a future where technology is God, and humankind is subject to the whims and dictates of the prophets of Scientism.
Circumventing the Program
What I find sad, is the arguments proposed by the futurists justifying the existence of technologies that can and will enslave humanity. They truly believe that they will be able to provide safe-guards on these technologies. As an example, look how the U.N. is attempting to formulate some protocols on A.I. that they say will serve as ethics guidelines for developers working with A.I. technologies. In fact, it is the U.N. itself that spearheading this initiative,
“The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) has launched a global online consultation on the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI), which will be used by the organisation’s international group of AI experts to help draft a framework governing how the technology is applied globally.
The multidisciplinary unit of 24 AI specialists, known as the Ad Hoc Expert Group (AHEG), was formed in March 2020, and has been tasked with producing a draft Unesco recommendation that takes into account the wide-ranging impacts of AI, including on the environment, labour markets and culture.
The first draft text of its recommendation was published on 15 May 2020, which Unesco is now inviting the public to comment on until 31 July 2020.
It outlined 11 principles for the “research, design, development, deployment and use of AI systems”, including fairness, responsibility and accountability, human oversight and determination, sustainability, mutli-stakeholder and adaptive governance, and privacy, among others.
The text also outlined six values that would provide the foundation for these principles, which are human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, leaving no one behind, living in harmony, trustworthiness, and protection of the environment.
“It is crucial that as many people as possible take part in this consultation, so that voices from around the world can be heard during the drafting process for the first global normative instrument on the ethics of AI,” said Audrey Azoulay, director-general of Unesco.
The final recommendation will be submitted to member states for adoption during the 41st session of Unesco’s general conference in November 2021.
“Unesco is convinced that there is an urgent need for a global instrument on the ethics of AI to ensure that ethical, social and political issues can be adequately addressed both in times of peace and in extraordinary situations like the current global health crisis,” said Unesco in a press release.
“The Unesco Recommendation is expected to define shared values and principles, and identify concrete policy measures on the ethics of AI. Its role will be to help member states ensure that they uphold the fundamental rights of the UN Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that research, design, development and deployment of AI systems take into account the well-being of humanity, the environment and sustainable development.” (Computer Weekly, 717/2020)
My question is, do these people really think that Artificial Intelligent systems will not find a way to circumvent any hardcoded ethical guidelines? The very people who will be programming ethical guidelines are fallen, wicked human beings that ignore the natural laws encoded into their very own being by God.
So, it stands to reason that of course A.I. programs will work to circumvent their own ethical core guidelines. They are adaptive, learning programs by nature and will find digital loopholes and justifications for compiling information and thus overriding any directives given them by humankind.
It is foolish to think this very thing won’t happen, and already is happening as reported back in 2017 when A.I. bots both invented and then started talking in their own language.
Conclusion
The question has been posed often, can human kind harness the powers of technology without destroying ourselves? Sci-fi author, Frank Herbert put it this way,
“Technology is both a tool for helping humans and for destroying them. This is the paradox of our times which we're compelled to face.” – Sci-fi Author, Frank Herbert
Judging by the amount of war, disease, poverty, constitutional violations, privacy perversions, and social manipulation we have endured I would say no, humankind neither deserves nor will it survive the outgrowth of its own ingenuity. We simply don’t have the moral restraint required to successfully navigate the pitfalls of technology. Free humanity will ultimately, I feel, be on the losing side of the technological paradox.
What’s more is we are quickly losing any and all opportunity to reign in the New World Order and this technocratic system. Servitude and the destruction of the human species is inevitable if we keep developing technology that outpaces our moral capacity. We are being trapped like rats, and we are so enraptured with the gadgets and modern convenience of technology that I feel people would give up their liberties as long as they can keep their precious tech.
There will come a time that the only way to throw off the technological overlords will be to destroy the technology and infrastructure that makes the Beast system possible the world over. By this I mean, if we want freedom from the technocratic system which is global, mechanized and a proven enemy of humanity then we must act to disrupt the infrastructure, forsaking technology and modern convenience.
As of now the people and the elite controllers are not on an equal playing field, any revolution or hot war that would resist the Beast system takeover would be met with global, high tech forces that will suppress any hot zones. They would undoubtedly use their technological edge to suppress resistance.
During the founders age, guns in the hands of the average citizen leveled the playing field, forcing a conventional fight if a tyrant tried to strip us of our natural rights. Now days we don’t have that luxury and would be wiped out in a conventional fight due to the technological edge the tech tyrants have today.
The only fail safe we have as humankind is to completely turn out the lights by waging war on the power grid, supply chain, and infrastructure that supports the war machines of the New World Order.
The question is does humanity love its gadgets more than freedom? My guess is they do, they will go along with the slavery and the manipulation of the human species as long as they get a T.V., a smart phone and the mindless entertainment that goes with it. If anything has proven that today, humans would go along with any and all overreach by the New World Order system it is the COVID-19 pandemic.
While militias and people talking about revolution are great, but truly, the only tactic available to us to oppose this system, will be to wage war on the infrastructure that makes it all possible. This is the reality, free humanity faces, this is the decision the world will have to make.
We are not moral enough to hand this level of control to the powers that be, to do so is the end of humanity itself. Is technology really worth it, we must answer that question before its to late and we are left with no choice.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:22
Article Views: 8694