The latest Corbett Report podcast ((Episode 405 Designing Humans for Fun and Profit (9 July 2021) at Corbettreport.com)) is essentially an update on the developments in genetic engineering, especially in combination with neurological research.
When genetic engineering was first introduced to the public I recall my abhorrence. Unlike many people I do not believe in “neutral” technology. For me a techne is always motivated and developed to transport interests. There are developments by humans that derive from general human needs and those which arise from specific activities. Moreover I believe knowledge and technology are principally derived from organisation and organisation is never neutral.
Genetic engineering — one of the speakers cited compares it albeit favourably with the development of the atomic bomb — is weapons technology and was from the very start. ((George M Church, credited as one of the founders of so-called synthetic biology, as well as his doctoral advisor Walter Gilbert, were entrenched in the transatlantic biological weapons research scene that still operates under cover of health research. Genetic engineering was funded by the State for the same reason basic atomic (weapons) research was supported—the development of weapons of mass destruction and/or control. (See: “The Health which I see is Disease (… if the Hierarchical Church so Defines)“, Dissident Voice, 5 March 2021.) As pertains to the genetic engineering of the SARS and its derivatives. See Dr David Martin, The Fauci/Covid-19 Dossier, available at truthcomestolight.com. Dr Martin shows on the basis of US Patent Office records that all the essentials of the SARS-CoV 2 were patented by November 2019!))
It becomes clear among these compulsive technologists that they are interested foremost in any and every kind of control over others. At the same time the entirety of the rhetoric is focused on perceived needs that this weaponry will satisfy.
Social organisation and technology to produce without polluting water, air, or soil is not the objective of these people or their projects. Nor are they interested in supplying safe housing or infrastructure to the masses of the population — all of which require less technology and, of course, less theft.
The best one could say about these people is that they are lazy and want solutions to problems for which they are paid but do not have to work. They spin fantasies of problems solved that only rich or middle class people perceive. The unstated assumption is that more equitable distribution of income and healthy living conditions would impede their own accumulation.
In fact, however, one can see the extent to which all this research has borne fruit in the course of the past two years. The success with which the bulk of the Western population has been induced to wage war on itself — not on the ruling class, of course — is amazing to say the least. The hysteria that launched the Great War was phenomenal; however, nowhere so saturated. Yet it was the Americans who perfected the war propaganda and policing methods essential to perpetuate the war and its profits for DuPont et al. ((Bigger Than Snowden – Neuro Weapons, Directed Energy Weapons, Mind Control, Targeted Individuals (video 23 minutes, 16 September 2019).))
There is a scene in Corbett’s presentation where someone tries to show that neural modelling technology can permit people who are completely paralysed to use their brain to perform physical tasks mediated by digital technology and high volume computing capacity. Aside from the hysterical nature of such a show — choosing an extreme medical case to promote the expansion of work for entirely other purposes — one has to ask how, given all the ostensible communication barriers, can anyone actually verify that this person actually is doing anything besides lying as a “dummy” to persuade the observer that she is driving the machine when, in fact, the machine is merely performing on its own.
Then there is another aspect, besides the impossibility of verifying whether the “dummy” is really thinking. The underlying assumption of all these demonstrations is that the “dummy” is thinking and the electromagnetic charges are translation of thoughts. The problem with this assumption is just as in the first case — the stimulus field is limited to peripherals or tools that have specific functions and purposes. Assigning the manipulation of a defined stimulus field as “thought” based on the ability to induce action from electromagnetic pulses just reflects the concept of thought, which these people have. One can reverse the argument and say that the researchers have done nothing but show that certain electromagnetic pulses can be used to drive a machine calibrated to operate on those pulses. Other pulses clearly cannot — or it would be irrelevant where the electrodes are placed.
Hence we return to the point Weizenbaum (Computer Power and Human Reason) made in his study of AI, namely that AI is only the modelling of intelligence based on the needs of operating machines. ((Joseph Weizenbaum (1923-2008) Computer Power and Human Reason (1976). This author had the privilege of hearing Weizenbaum speak in Berlin after he had returned to his birthplace in retirement. The moderator introduced him as a computer scientist who while teaching at Case Western Reserve University was told the university needed a computer and so Joseph Weizenbaum built one. Weizenbaum replied scathingly that “Case did not need a computer and in fact nobody needs a computer.” The focus of his talk was simple. Machines process data but they do not produce information—people do. Needless to say his critique of AI has been entirely marginalised and forgotten. This is due mainly to the propaganda of “progress” which leads people to believe that simply because something is young or new it is automatically better or improved. We only need to recall “planned obsolescence” to debunk this cultivated prejudice.)) Any intelligence that might exist but cannot be so used is discounted/discarded. Attention is deliberately focused on humans as beneficiaries but this is a distraction from the machines that are the real centre of activity. This attitude is not new. All warrior/barbarian states have had this focus on humans as mere vehicles for delivering violence. However, that is precisely the point: there is nothing humanistic about AI or genetic engineering. These are technologies rooted in the belief that the mass of humanity has no other purpose than as tools/machines for the benefit of the ruling class.
In short, behind all the flashy lights, song and dance, and pwogish rhetoric, AI and genetic engineering are concepts for reducing humans to the primitive notion of machines that the ruling class applies to valuing the bulk of the species.
Here we see the real damage done by the continuous destruction of the humanities as a component of education. Compulsive technology is fed by people who have been educated to see themselves as more or less efficient machines and not as spiritual beings. The Whitney Webb article ((Whitney Webb, A “Leap” toward Humanity’s Destruction, Unlimitedhangout.com. See also her other posts at this site on the military-industrial-financial complex (especially the intelligence sector) role in the events leading to 2020 et seq.)) on Wellcome’s LEAP surveillance program describes the degree to which the machine model of human beings is central to the oligarchy’s control objectives. Children in the thousands are to be monitored electromagnetically in order to generate models of human infant machine behaviour that can then be reverse engineered to produce digital control devices to mechanise children from birth. The reason for this is clear. The more sophisticated AI theorists know that digital control of anything requires very carefully defined parameters. The hyper-volume data is supposed to permit fine modelling to reduce randomness by recognising minuscule “subroutines”– something like photo resolution. There is nonetheless a risk of randomness since the only data that can be processed is that for which there is a device and a measuring parameter. Data, itself, is nothing more than what any given machine makes and as such is meaningless independent of the machine and its user.
Thus the creation of a massive repertoire of human developmental subroutines can only be useful once the new devices — new-born children — are calibrated within the limits of that system. Ideally this would lead to production of children who from birth are controlled by the ruling class ideological priorities and constituted as mere peripherals to the enormous data processing system the elite maintain in lieu of a society. Since they have no way of being certain, however, that this technology will only produce the kind of human machines they program, it will still be necessary to cull those who do not respond according to the user manual.
Only constant purging of the population to remove those who cannot be effectively controlled will assure the stability intended. That is the only purpose of any of this technology. Perhaps there are meanwhile — given the success of the past thirty-odd years of indoctrination — those who feel that their lives would be more fulfilled if they were better machines. Already there are many who believe that their fulfillment comes from having more comprehensive machines rather than a more mature self.
