World Leaders, Scientists, Professors And Philosophers Gather At World Government Conference And Declare ‘The Next Step Of Evolution Is Here, Man Will Merge With Artificial Intelligence So He Can Live Forever And Become God’

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. And the Lord said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. -Genesis 11:1

The Tower of Babel is the sin of Eden reflected in the whole of humanity. In the Garden of Eden, man consumed the fruit of the Tree in order to atttempt to become like God, to know what is good and evil instead of being content with his place in creation. As a result of this sin the human race was cursed, doomed to death and upon death to be eternally punished beginning with the first man and for all his descendants. It was Christ who reversed the curse of Adam and through His death opened the way of salvation to all men by adoption based on Faith, for as John says in his Gospel:

But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

Man’s curse since Eden has been that he will continue to follow in the error of Adam, to attempt to become like God but only to his disaster. Man cannot be God because he was not God and will never be God- he is a mere creation. He might know this in his mind or feel it in his soul, but at the same time will be driven by conscious or unconscious impulses to the same suicidal end that he was tied to by the first man. This fatal attraction was what the peoples of the ancient world and even cultures today called fate. Sophocles’ play Antigone is about how the protagonist, Antigone, cannot escape his fate that he will die, and the more he tries to flee from it he only brings about disaster for others before he inevitably succumbs to his own death. Homer’s Iliad speaks of the doomed city of Troy and how its destruction was fated by the Hellenic gods. Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet has the two young lovers who are fated to love each other and be together to their same inevitable destruction.

The incident at the Tower of Babel is where men came together to try to build a tower to Heaven to reach the heights of God as when Adam ate the fruit in Eden, for both incidents are man’s attempts to make himself like God in pursuit of his attempt to become God that will always end in his own destruction. It is the struggle of all men against these inevitable inclinations that has defined the existence of man and his relationship to his fellow man as well as his struggle for truth, for if the end of man is not in power and attempting to become a god among men, then the path to God must be elsewhere and man must seek it if he is to realize his true end.

What was the world like in the time of Noah and up to the Deluge? The Bible says that the world was covered in sin and the sins were so great that God Himself destroyed the world by a flood. One can only imagine the details, but based on the fact that God destroyed the entire world, one can only surmise that it had to involve something to do with the four sins the Old Testament says “cry out to Heaven for vengeance,” and they are the willful murder of the innocent (which also includes abortion and infanticide), homosexuality (through the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah), the oppression of the widow and orphan, and the deprivation of the working man of his justly earned wages. It also likely had to involve something to do with attempting to become God, for this was the original sin which plunged the human race into her state of misery.

Sodom now and Sodom then, the only difference being time and place

While nobody can definitively know what the world was like, human nature does not change from age to age because man is made in God’s image and likeness, and being descended from Adam we all suffer from the same sins and effects of sin, and likewise the remedies are the same. A person alive four thousand years ago is not any different from a person alive today in his humanity. If one was to change his clothes, language, and teach him the cultural context of the time into which he is placed, he would fit in no differently than in any other time. He would commit the same sins, and he would have the same responses and likewise need to apply the same solutions to his problems. What we can say is that the people of Noah’s time not only had the same responses to evil, but they committed the same sins that man does today with the only limitations being his tools to replicate the same sins at a faster rate or more consistently over a larger number of people. This is the deception of all who espouse an “evolutionary” philosophy, because man does not change in his essence, but he espouses the appearance of change by the tools used to replicate the same effects and so deludes himself and others into thinking that he has changed when he really has not.

The world today is, objectively speaking, more connected and unified than ever before in history as far as we understand and with technology that integrates all aspects of life with people around the world in a matter of moments. Man is able to transact his affairs with such efficiency while transcending such broad distances and cultural divides with such ease in ways that are unable to be compared even to a decade ago. It is truly one of the best times to be alive.

At the same time, the world today also is in a series of crises. I do not speak of the natural human struggles between peoples and powers that happen with every age, but I speak to the struggle of the human soul in that man’s identity has been obscured to such an end that he is beginning to question who he is while trying to reshape himself using the same technology that has connected him to other men.

The greatest attack on his own people is the scandal of self-imposed eugenics through abortion, which is just a modern and technological form of infanticide. Nobody knows how may abortions have taken place, but some estimates place the number at 1.5 billion since 1980. Considering that the world population is 7.5 billion people, it is possible to say that in that same time one out of every six children that was conceived was murdered by surgical means or using advanced, manufactured chemicals from major companies. This does not even include the pill, which as many note does not actually stop pregnancy, but causes a chemical abortion by preventing the implantation of a fully fertilized egg into a woman’s uterus, which while it cannot be counted, if included would surely at least double that same number above.

Homosexuality is the next great scandal. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality, and as the Bible notes the sodomites burned with such lust for men they desired to rape the angels that came to Lot to warn him to flee and did not even want to look at his own daughters with lust. It is a miracle that God has not destroyed many nations, especially those in the Western World, for their historically unprecidented support of homosexuality as well as using homosexuality as a tool to destabilize other nations. The homosexual attack on the family in current times is without comparison, as it has reached a point where to simply mention the Biblical teaching on the matter will result in one becoming a social pariah with economic and in many areas, legal consequences. Teenagers are now in large numbers refusing to be called “man” and “woman” any more, but have adopted “gender fluidity,” defining the purpose of sexuality as the realization of one’s own hedonistic desires divorced from any genitive function.

The oppression of the widow and orphan as well as the deprivation of the working man of his justly earned wages is also a major issue in most parts of the world. There have always been economic injustices and imbalances among people. Likewise, there have always been rich and poor, for as God Himself says in the New Testament, the poor will always be with us. But to that same passage in which Jesus responds to Judas’ criticism of the woman who spent 300 days wages on expensive oil to anoint the feet of our Lord is the same insidious message that exists today, which is the use of the poor as a tool of policy to be manipulated for private gain by giving the impression that they are being helped or helping them for an ulterior motive.

This abuse takes place in a wide variety of ways, but is rooted in the corruption of the financial system because it is based on usury. What first began as individual exploitation through interest in private loans has been magnified to entire societies whose economies are based upon unpayable debts because the money itself is tied to nothing, it being willed into existence by the fiat of banking families (hence the term fiat currency) and there never being enough money in existence to pay for the debts incurred through usury. It penetrates all levels of society and causes wealth imbalances that lead to slavery not through force of arms, but by manufactured indebtedness.

An excellent film about money, debt, and usury explained in a simple way.

All four of these sins are prevalent throughout the world today. What seems to be missing is an attempt for man to become God in the collective sense that was expressed at Babel, where the world gathered together to recreate the sin of Eden.

Or is it missing?

The sin of Eden was not eating an apple, and the sin of Babel was not building a tower, but it was the pursuit of the divinity of the self that defined the intentions behind both actions which brought about the justice of God, and both are microcosms of the human race.

The closest equivalent that exists in modern times to the pursuit of divinity, although one not explicitly stated or even believed by many, is the darwinian idea of evolution, that human beings are mere animals who were created by a cosmic accident and that by “mutations” and contests of strength against other organisms became the dominant life form on earth. The “proof” for darwinian evolution has always been very weak, as it defies the very physics of the universe, since if all things tend towards disorder and the complex will always be reduced to the simple unless active outside force is exerted upon them, it is impossible that simple elements would by their own power form into something complex. Yet in spite of this point, those who support evolution will still deny such is possible while professing their “love” of “science,” because the “science” they follow is not science but a philosophy that uses the language of science to justify its claims in spite of its inability to reconcile its own tenets of faith.

Darwinian philosophy allows for a man to say that, if man “evolved” from animals, that it is not conditional, but possible to say that some men are more “evolved” than others. I emphasize possible, because it does not need to be an absolute belief, but enough to allow for the possibility of such a belief that is dangerous. If some men are indeed more “evolved” than others, and if such differences could be either proven or shown to be “theoretically possible,” then one can argue that some men are more “evolved” than other men and that man is continuing to evolve even through our current times. If this is accepted, then one must accept there are “superior” and “inferior” humans based on their biological composition, which then translates into first seeking how to know which humans are “superior” and which ones are “inferior”, and then basing relations with people in public and private on their “humanity” or lack thereof.

It is not distant at such a point from then accepting the idea that in order to “better” the human race, the “inferior people” must be separated, isolated, or even exterminated to prevent them from contaminating the “superior people” and thus tarrying the evolutionary process. In the darwinian sense, killing those who are found to be weak, lame, or inferior based on whatever chosen characteristic is commendable for the human race as a whole and a mercy to the “inferior” person because it is getting rid of a man who would hinder the species and as he was not created “superior” or “normal” to begin with, he should not have to live a life that is of a lower quality than those of his fellow “evolved” humans.

But where does Darwinian philosophy end? Metaphysically speaking, it postulates that man’s evolution from the cosmic slime continues eternally and is inhibited only by his evolutionary capacities at any particular moment in time and is limited by death. Therefore, a man must seek to maximize his life to the point of delaying and eventually stopping death. At such a point, they would say, man becomes what he has idolized in his stories and tales of the past, which is the man who becomes immortal. Such men they will say are “gods” for this reason, and as such man then becomes a god. Thus, the final stage of human “evolution” is to assume the supreme form of man as a deity.

Yet the irony of darwinian philosophy is that to claim that man is or could become a god is precisely the warning of Sacred Scripture as to why the fall of man came. Thus darwinianism must deny the Bible and most religion at that, calling it “superstition” or shadows attempting to explain man’s lack of understanding while at the same time it espouses a refined form of paganism. The difference between a man in a loincloth casting spells in the jungle to seek divinity and the man in a suit with quaffed hair and glasses working with technical machinery for downloading his brain into a computer is no different except in their cultural milieus that reflect the same philosophy with the same end.

Ray Kurzweil, a transhumanist who believes that men can become divine by merging with robots

The transhumanist philosopher and futurist Ray Kurzweil has said that the 21st century will be defined by “singularity,” which is when machine “intelligence” surpasses human intelligence and at which point in order to keep up with “evolution,” man will have to unite his natural mind with the electronic mind of computer by connecting the two through supertechnology. Kurzweil says that such changes are exponential now and as such inevitable because man’s technology is evolving with his biology, claiming there is a direct relationship between the two and that as the two merge, eventually man’s capacities will be eclipsed by and absorbed into machines so much that men become more like machines than humans. This he calls “third revolution,” which through the application of artificial intelligence men will be able to extend their lives, eliminate disease, discover unlimited learning potential, and in time, be able to overcome death itself:

People intuitively assume that the current rate of progress will continue for future periods. Even for those who have been around long enough to experience how the pace of change increases over time, unexamined intuition leaves one with the impression that change occurs at the same rate that we have experienced most recently. From the mathematician’s perspective, the reason for this is that an exponential curve looks like a straight line when examined for only a brief duration. As a result, even sophisticated commentators, when considering the future, typically use the current pace of change to determine their expectations in extrapolating progress over the next ten years or one hundred years. This is why I describe this way of looking at the future as the “intuitive linear” view. But a serious assessment of the history of technology reveals that technological change is exponential. Exponential growth is a feature of any evolutionary process, of which technology is a primary example.

As I show in the book, this has also been true of biological evolution. Indeed, technological evolution emerges from biological evolution. You can examine the data in different ways, on different timescales, and for a wide variety of technologies, ranging from electronic to biological, as well as for their implications, ranging from the amount of human knowledge to the size of the economy, and you get the same exponential—not linear—progression. I have over forty graphs in the book from a broad variety of fields that show the exponential nature of progress in information-based measures. For the price-performance of computing, this goes back over a century, well before Gordon Moore was even born.

…

Human body version 2.0?

We’re already in the early stages of augmenting and replacing each of our organs, even portions of our brains with neural implants, the most recent versions of which allow patients to download new software to their neural implants from outside their bodies. In the book, I describe how each of our organs will ultimately be replaced. For example, nanobots could deliver to our bloodstream an optimal set of all the nutrients, hormones, and other substances we need, as well as remove toxins and waste products. The gastrointestinal tract could be reserved for culinary pleasures rather than the tedious biological function of providing nutrients. After all, we’ve already in some ways separated the communication and pleasurable aspects of sex from its biological function.

And the third revolution?

The robotics revolution, which really refers to “strong” AI, that is, artificial intelligence at the human level, which we talked about earlier. We’ll have both the hardware and software to recreate human intelligence by the end of the 2020s. We’ll be able to improve these methods and harness the speed, memory capabilities, and knowledge- sharing ability of machines.

We’ll ultimately be able to scan all the salient details of our brains from inside, using billions of nanobots in the capillaries. We can then back up the information. Using nanotechnology-based manufacturing, we could recreate your brain, or better yet reinstantiate it in a more capable computing substrate.

Which means?

Our biological brains use chemical signaling, which transmit information at only a few hundred feet per second. Electronics is already millions of times faster than this. In the book, I show how one cubic inch of nanotube circuitry would be about one hundred million times more powerful than the human brain. So we’ll have more powerful means of instantiating our intelligence than the extremely slow speeds of our interneuronal connections.

So we’ll just replace our biological brains with circuitry?

I see this starting with nanobots in our bodies and brains. The nanobots will keep us healthy, provide full-immersion virtual reality from within the nervous system, provide direct brain-to-brain communication over the Internet, and otherwise greatly expand human intelligence. But keep in mind that nonbiological intelligence is doubling in capability each year, whereas our biological intelligence is essentially fixed in capacity. As we get to the 2030s, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will predominate. (source)

All of this is a reflection of man’s quest for divinity. If this was not clear enough, in 2015 Kurzweil clarified his remarks and outright said that this technological “evolution” will result in man becoming like God by the year 2045:

Kurzweil’s predictions are not simply his own, but they are a reflection of the darwinian philosophy that has served as the impetus behind many of the recent technological developments in the latter part of the 20th century and continuing today. The hyper-rationalism that defines “science” and supposedly differentiates it from “religion” has naturally become a religion unto itself, with man as its idol of worship and the supposed “betterment” of that man until he reflects divinity. While not all scientists follow the Kurzweilian ideal, anyone who would support the idea that the anima of a man is something that can be downloaded to a computer because it is a simple collection of neural connections by necessity denies the existence of an immortal soul. To that extent, it says that men can be revived from the dead by rediscovering and “reconnecting” the neural patterns in their brains into an electronic brain, for as it assumes man is nothing more than an animal, his abilities are limited by the natural wear on his “parts” which then can be replaced no different than how a man changes a tire on his car when it is worn down.

The battle over the philosophy of science has endured well since the 19th century, with secularism being the clear predominating opinion over those who espouse any opinion that attempts to integrate Christian teachings into it. Her dominance has established the presence of Darwinism in schools and society over that of any sort of Christian teaching, which is frowned upon as a “relic” from an “ignorant” time that has been replaced by the “intellect” of man. Darwinian philosophy is economic theory in modern capitalism, where the adage of “might makes right” is the spoken and unspoken code for what behavior defines commerce between individuals and nations. Being that politics always follows economics, this philosophy has also worked her way into government policy throughout the world, assuming different forms depending on the cultural context.

A “eugenics building” in Topeka, KS. Eugenics has been promoted in America since her inception, and her ideas have influenced thinkers and governments around the world.

American and most of Western-style eugenics as applied in their own native lands with exceptions has focused on the concept of evolution as a form of “purification” from “undesirable” elements. In Germany during the early 20th century, it was the justification for ethnonationalist politics that lead to the First and Second World War. In Russia, it was the creation of the Soviet system and the extermination of those who were perceived to be an “obstacle” to “progress.” In America, the violent side of darwinism assumed a “soft” form of what Danish eugenicist Helmuth Nyborg has termed “positive eugenics,” emphasizing means that encourage through public advertisement or subsidy forms of sterilization and self-elimination, such as with contraception and birth control to limit the number of children a family would bear and adding social stigma through cultural avenues of communication (such as radio and film) for families who would have large numbers of children.

Helmuth Nyborg, a eugenicist who believes in “positive eugenics,” or the self-extermination of a people without outside force

But since evolution is central to darwinism, then the “purification” of a race of people would have to mean it was being done to further that people’s evolution. Since the philosophical end of darwinian evolution is the deification of “evolved” men, the pursuit of purity will eventually become an attempt to “evolve” man towards divinity, which in western society is represented by the singularity with machines replacing man’s intelligence and blending with it as expressed by Kurzweil. Any form of eugenics is dangerous enough, but the change in emphasis from “purification” to “evolution,” were it to be clearly expressed in public policy, would be catastrophic because the former says that man is fine in his current state with “exceptions” that need to be “eliminated,” whereas the latter says that a certain class of men already is moving or has the potential to move towards a higher state of existence and is itself threatened by the existence of those who are not. The former emphasizes exceptions in a natural body which may or may not need to be dealt with by lethal means (although they often are), the latter represents an existential threat that must be destroyed or neutralized if the evolutionary process is to continue. Both represent points along the same intellectual continuum, but the former is less developed and the latter is more developed.

Yet we are living through this change right now, as governments from around the world met from February 11th to February 13th, 2018 at the World Government Summit in Dubai to discuss the next phase of man’s evolution. The theme of this year’s conference, which was “Happiness,” sought to give answers to the questions of human misery and purpose, what makes people happy, and how happiness might be found by integrating man with technology to better him as a species. However, the conference was simply nothing less than a cover for the voices of Silicon valley technocrats, world banking powers, mad professors and petty bureaucrats with their sycophants to call for the integration of the next phase of eugenics into public policy, which is the “evolution” of the human species and the realization of the Kurzweilian predictions that man will seek to become just like God through technology, and those who refuse to go along with the “progress” are obstacles to it and need to be hunted down and eliminated, and their avenues for intellectual discussion cut off.

Happiness, Brave New World Style

It is interesting that the World Government Forum chose to focus on “happiness” as an issue for government to address, for Aldous Huxley’s famous novel Brave New World, about a dystopic future in which all men are controlled by the government, happiness is everywhere and permeates everything. Through a series of biological and psychological conditionings, the elimination of families, promotion of promiscuous sex, and finally with the use of a drug that the book calls soma, all people are always happy in the new “World State”. Yet as Brave New World argues through three characters who seek to break free from the control, they realize that a man’s humanity is tied to not only his happiness but all his other feelings, including that of pain because often times, growth comes from pain. The characters realize that to reduce man’s life to a state of perpetual, induced bliss is to deny him of his dignity and make him into an animal who lives for his senses yet while having no sense of who he was, is, or might become.

For all of the evils that the Internet has brought in our modern times, such as the availability of free pornography, the Internet has also been a source of enlightenment for countless people as it has connected them quickly and with minimal limitations to information about anything they might want to know. This includes the good as well as the bad, that which makes people happy as much as it sickens them, for with the taps of a few keys one can effortlessly go from watching videos of puppies frolicking in a field to watching Mexican drug cartels rip the beating hearts of men out of their chests while the victims scream for mercy. As much as it is can be dangerous to access such information, it also is a source of great liberation because people are able to see the world as it truly is with minimal filters and make informed decisions in a truly “democratic” way that has seldom existed throughout history.

Yet this “democratization” of information is, according to one of the talks by Dr. John Hellweil and Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, who are the authors of the Global Happiness Report, a threat to “happiness.” They explicitly note on their talk about the factors of happiness in the world that the IEEE, which serves as one of the major governing bodies of the Internet, is looking at plans to re-design the Internet to make people “happier”:

Unfortunately, it is sad to say that the heavy use of social media is driving us crazy. Some of the evidence is that young people online for long hours are experiencing depression. They are experiencing more mental burdens because of this. This is something very serious and this is what the psychologists are telling us. We have a real problem here.

Let me put in one footnote to that. There is a positive. The IEEE, the group that designs the rules that controls the norms for the people who develop the internet are thinking quite explicitly about redesigning and designing those rules so that it makes and should enable the users to be happy. (source, 11:46-12:40)

What would “redesigning” the Internet look like to “make people happier”? Would it mean making the Internet faster and easier to use, or would it mean filtering content to only that which people want one to see in the name of “making people happy?” If so, what would that content be, because it obviously cannot be too upsetting, such as talking about controversial politics, social ideas, or problems between people?

But censorship was not a concern for for Mathieu Ricard, a French convert to Buddhism whose father was the agnostic and socialist professor Jean-Francois Revel and his mother the Buddhist convert and French painter Yahne le Toumelin. Ricard discussed altruism, and he notes (4:32) that the purpose of compassion is to not have concern or to help people with their pains, but to actively remove them. He speaks extensively of “bad mental states,” and eventually says that the enemy which man faces today is “hatred”:

Hatred has never brought a shred of happiness to anyone throughout the history of humanity. If you want an enemy, that’s the ultimate enemy, hatred itself. (source, 20:22-20:35)

Hatred is a feeling of intense dislike or disgust. It is true that if one hates one is not happy, but the question is why does one have hatred, because there can be just and moral reasons for hatred as much as there are unjust and immoral reasons for being happy. One might hate sin because it is evil, and one might love pornography because it makes a man happy, yet the enemy cannot be hatred because hating hatred of sin is to love sin just as loving happiness from pornography is to love that which is sinful.

God in the Bible many times expresses hatred against individuals and entire peoples:

You must not do the same for the Lord your God, because every abhorrent thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods. They would even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)

The boastful will not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. (Psalm 5:5)

The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and his soul hates the lover of violence. (Psalm 11:5)

I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my heritage; I have given the beloved of my heart into the hands of her enemies. My heritage has become to me like a lion in the forest; she has lifted up her voice against me— therefore I hate her. (Jeremiah 12:7-8)

The Lord God has sworn by himself (says the Lord, the God of hosts): I abhor the pride of Jacob and hate his strongholds; and I will deliver up the city and all that is in it. (Amos 6:8)

I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau (Malachi 1:2-3)

Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, love what is good. (Romans 12:9)

Yet this is to your credit: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. (Revelations 2:6)

God is perfect. Therefore, if God hates, then He must hate for a just reason because He is mercy and justice because He is Love. But according to Mathieu Ricard, hatred is the enemy, not sin, because sin is not necessarily an obstruction to happiness, while hatred is.

If that was not Orwellian enough, there was a discussion between Jennifer Lim of Delivering Happiness and Nisha Jagtiani of the Landmark Happiness Foundation about promoting happiness in the workplace and around the world. In something that could have been pulled straight from Brave New World, the Landmark Happiness Movement proclaims its purpose is to use education, fitness, and well being to promote happiness in the workplace and around the world through events, “happy clubs” (1:39), “learning with coffee” (1:48) and where men “celebrate the spirit of happiness in each one of us. The advertisement for the club begins at 0:35 and goes to about 2:45 and is worth the watch:

Jennifer Lim, as her biography on Delivering Happiness notes, is the wife of Tony Hsieh, the founder of Zappos, which he then sold to Amazon.com for a large profit before moving on to become a “venture capitalist” in Silicon Valley. He has also taken an interest in promoting “genetics” in Las Vegas where as part of his Downtown Project, that is also controlled by his parent investment company VTFCapital, is promoting building Las Vegas into a another Silicion Valley:

Since November, Hsieh and companies he has funded have been inviting speakers across diverse fields—geneticists, painters, philanthropists—to present ideas, mingle with locals, and experience the city. (source)

It is interesting that in light of all the labor violations and abuses of working men around the world that define Amazon, how a woman who lives a life that most people could only dream of would spend her time telling the rest of the world how to “be happy” seems incongruous. It would seem that she and Jagtiani are promoting a distraction, to keep people “happy” so they do not question the miserable conditions in which they actually live but rather spend their time indulged in frivolity, such as singing the Landmark Foundations “Happy Song”:

These suspicions were confirmed by a talk delivered by former US President Obama’s Head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Harvard University law Professor Cass Sunstein. Sunstein was a highly controversial appointment because he has advocated for government infiltrating groups that promote “conspiracy theories” and how the government can use “cognitive infiltration” to spy on, undermine, and destroy people who adhere to views other than those of the official government viewpoint, as is already common in communist nations such as China:

Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light. (source)

Cass Sunstein meeting with President Obama

Professor Sunstein’s talk was based upon the “nudge” theory, which is the use of theoretically non-explicitly coercive methods to get people to accept certain viewpoints or ideas. He says that most people’s happiness and willingness to do something depends on ease and the perceived fear of pain more so than the prospect of gain. Referring to his book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Sunstein says that the government needs to create “nudge units” supported by “behaviorial insight units” that compel the citizenry to make choices that “make their lives better”:

My first suggestion for you is that in this government, in addition to work on happiness and well being, it would be very good to have some kind of nudge unit or behaviorial insights unit that is working on tools to make people’s lives better. (source, 2:58 – 3:16)

Sunstein sets out seven ideas (21:25) for governments to implement his “nudge theory,” which is to (1) create a “behavioral insights team, (2) measure and establish metrics for “well being” and “happiness,” (3) discover the “major sources of unhappiness”, (4) combat “mental illness” and chronic pain, (5) work to increase life expectancy, (6) test ideas proposed, and then (7) to facilitate choices by “padding” the path of least resistance. As he begins listing examples for how to implement this, he gives an example (25:15 – 25: 26) by saying that in order to reduce electricity usage, people should receive with their electric bill copies of all their neighbor’s electrical usage rates in comparison to theirs in order to embarrass them into compliance by showing them how they are “deviating from the relevant social norms.”

If that was not enough, Sunstein ends his talk by saying that governments should, in the words of W.B. Yeats, “not wait to strike until the iron is hot- make the iron hot by striking it.”

The future which Sunstein proposes would seem to be one of control, where all of a man’s movements and life in documented, controlled, and micromanaged down to the very last minuscule bit of data, then fed into a great computer through which a “big brother” government would then direct men’s lives like chess pieces on a chess board. But what Sunstein speaks of in terms of popular psychology and strategies for implementation is the future of the world according to famed Japanese futurist Michio Kaku, who delivered one of the major speeches at the conference in which he asked, “are governments ready for a dynamic future?”

Kaku’s definition of a “dynamic future” is a future which is defined by what is called “augmented humanity,” which is the Kurzwelian proposal that the next great step of human “evolution,” the next great vehicle of wealth generation and advancement into the future, will be driven by the ever-closer union between man and machine that takes place at the molecular level and will penetrate all facets of life so as to be inescapable. Technology will be found everywhere and in everything to such an extent he argues that the word “computer” will disappear from the English language because of this union, in which man will be forever immersed in a world of artificial intelligence that will be used to predict the future and redefine reality, which Kaku says is not “virtual reality” but “augmented reality,” in so that machines will with man recreate the world. Kaku speaks of this taking place through the digitization of the brain (27:45), which he calls the next major scientific endeavor through the Human Connectome Project.

David Van Essen

The Human Connectome Project is administered by David Van Essen, who is a professor of neuroscience at Washington University and worked with the International Max Planck Research School of Neuroscience and communications, which as we at Shoebat.com have exclusively documented is involved in the trafficking of the body parts of babies killed by abortion which are then used for bizarre medical experiments oriented at at creating a superhuman race by isolating and activating “neanderthal genes”.” The Connectome Project is also under the guidance of Pascal Fries, who works directly for the Max Planck Institute in her umbrella organization as Director of the Ernst Strüngmann Institute, which is the German government’s project for mapping the human brain.

Pascal Fries

Kaku continues his sales pitch for this new future where a central computer “knows” everything about everybody by saying that A.I. will bring about the age of “perfect capitalism” (16:53) so that people can know all the choices about everything they want to buy or sell, and thus eliminate the possibility of error. He says that A.I. will allow people to perform never before done medical analyses, down to toilets checking the fecal matter of its user for diseases and people being able to upload their memories, feelings, and dreams into a computer. Using A.I., he says that computers will tap into people’s brains and be able to literally read minds as they think (31:35).

He then states the same words of Kurzweil, which is that the purpose of A.I. is to defeat death itself, saying that man only ages because of “errors” inside of cells and that by genetic modification man can live forever. In his words, “Why do we have to die?”:

Artificial intelligence may give us something that the kings and queens of old could never conquer, and that is the ageing process. We now know why things age. Things get old and die because they accumulate error. Error in the form of DNA mistakes, accumulation of errors inside of cells. But now we have artificial intelligence. We can analyse millions of genomes of old people and compare them to millions of genomes of young people and identify where ageing takes place in the body….It is only a matter of time before we genetically modify those genes that are damaged. Why do we have to die? (source, 26:17 – 27:40)

Kaku’s salespitch would seem to be perfect, that he is proposing a perfect world integrated between humanity and A.I. He casually brushes off any danger of “murderous robots” (33:48) and instead chooses to focus on how people will become immortal (32:25). However, he warns there is a danger in this brave and new world, which is “intelligence,” saying that human failure to get an education could hamper this progress:

…you need educated people. One of the weak links in all of this is education. We have to make sure we sponsor great universities, that we have great prizes, that we reward people for taking initiative, for creating something when nothing exists in the past. (source, 21:24 – 21:45)

But what happens if people do not “get educated”? Could their lack of education be a hindrance to the proposed “evolution” that is taking place between man and A.I.? Famed Hindu “spiritual guru” Deepak Chopra was invited to speak about the “spiritual” part of man for the future. After praising Barack Obama as a modern type of Gandi (5:57), he says that humanity is constrained by a “medieval mind” (7:15) and that the next phase of human “evolution” is to transcend our “limited identities” and become “citizens of the globe”, (8:25), warning that if this is not done and humanity does not “evolve,” man will risk the same extinction as that of the dinosaurs (10:55):

If we do not (harness the collective will for the greater good), there is no hope for humanity. technology by itself is neutral, and its unstoppable. It’s part of our evolution. If we do not use technology, and I hear a lot of criticism about social media, about how its taking over our mind, but the fact is that technology by itself is neutral. What we do with it depends on our evolution as a human species. And if our psychological, emotional, and spiritual evolution does not keep up with our technological evolution we are indeed doomed. (source, 9:35 – 10:25)

This expression of possible doom was expressed by Dr. Roman Yampolskiy, who said that right now A.I. already governs most critical infrastructure such as nuclear plants, military weapons systems, and the stock market. What he says is the next phase of development that is receiving “unlimited funding” from the US and European governments is what he calls “superintelligence”, and posits that it will be smarter than any human being could ever be (3:47):

Unlike the sycophants for A.I., Dr. Yampolskiy notes that one of the biggest fields of development in A.I. is “super soldiers” with funding coming directly from the military to “build machines to kill people” (5:55). Additionally, he says there will be the serious problem of “malevolent A.I.” (7:30), which is the use of superintelligent machines to do criminal or immoral actions, saying that he is not sure that even with the best efforts to regulate A.I., that superintelligence may be able to be regulated (10:51), and that “failures” with A.I. must be expected in the future. These failures are touched on by Professor Stuart Russell, who says that the inevitable failures of A.I. will not only make news headlines and while may be humorous to think about, could result in unseen problems, not the least of which is man’s search for meaning in a world run by machines:

However, will Dr Yampolskiy’s warnings be heeded? Judging by the previous speakers it does not seem so. Wired Editor Kevin Kelly speaks of a future that includes “centaurs,” which is the intellectual linking and collaboration between men and A.I. that will revolutionize military combat and usher in a second industrial revolution (7:45 – 8:45). According to Professor Klaus Schwab, who founded the DAVOS world Economic Forum, he describes A.I. as important as the invention of fire, for he sees it as the invention that redefines the nature of man and boldly proclaims that the fact that man’s inability to understand A.I. is less important than his outright embracing of the technology itself:

…The first industrial revolution means a complete change of everything we are doing. Talking about artificial intelligence, which means we are at the turning point for humankind. This invention is as important for humankind as the invention of fire. It reshapes our whole comprehension of what we are, if robots have a superneuro system where we don’t understand what the algorithm behind the problem solving is… (source)

The fact that Schwab gave an introductory address indicates that major funding behind the push for A.I. and its development is coming from the very banking families who control the distribution of currency around the world. Davos is filled with members of the Rothschild family including Edmond, David, Lynn Forester and Danny Rothschild as well as is supported by the Groupe Edmond de Rothschild. Lynn Forester de Rothchild is a close friend of Hillary Clinton as was revealed by the Wikileaks email exchanges between the two. In one email, Hillary writes to Lynn telling her what “penance” she owns Lynn:

Lynn,

I was trying to reach you to tell you and Teddy that I asked Tony Blair to go to Israel as part of our full court press on keeping the Middle East negotiations going.

He told me that he had a commitment in Aspen w you two and the conference, but after we talked, he decided to go and asked me to tell you.

He is very sorry, obviously, but I’m grateful that he accepted my request. I hope you all understand and give him a raincheck.

If you were interested, he might be able to satellite in if you have the technology available. He should land around Sam Aspen time.

Let me know what penance I owe you. And pls explain to Teddy.

As ever, H (source)

The Rockefeller family is also closely tied to the Davos Forum both as funders and as representatives through the Rockefeller Foundation’s representatives, Judith Rodin and Dominic Waughray. The less famous but not less influential Loeb family under Daniel Loeb and his investment group Third Point Capital is there, and he is also tied to the powerful Warburg banking family of Sweden, who also has representatives present at Davos. The powerful Kuhn banking family has attended Davos, and also the Goldman and Sachs families are regular attendees.

The fact that the major banking families of the world who create the money which governments assume as fiat currency- Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb, Goldman, and Sachs- are present at this conference and through Schwab are promoting the rise of artificial intelligence at a conference promoting world government is a clear sign that the next great advance in the future that will re-shape the economy and military will be artificial intelligence, and its first application will be used for military purposes.

Planning A Future of Self Divinization Leading  to Self Destruction

You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will live as one. -John Lennon, from Imagine

The entire World Governance Summit focused on the role of man and his integration into technology to, theoretically, expand his capacities beyond anything that he could previously dream of. But what happens if there are not just problems, as some of the conference attendees have pointed out, but something catastrophic?

None of the speakers at the conference made any strong references to God or religion. When religion was discussed, it was done in a roundabout, indirect way and only on occasion. God has no place in this “brave new world” it would seem, but rather the hyper-focus on the divinization of  man because as some of the speakers themselves said, man would become god-like owing to the technology just as how those who built the Tower of Babel had the same ideas, yet it was too late for them to realize what they had done when the structure they built came crashing down.

Elon Musk

In 2014, Elon Musk, who is a proponent of A.I., warned that the technologies spoken of in this conference were a form of “summoning the demon”, and likened it to a man who draws a pentagram on the floor and thinks he can control what comes through but has no idea what he is doing:

Musk: I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I had to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that. So we need to be very careful with artificial intelligence.

I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. With artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon. You know those stories where there’s the guy with the pentagram, and the holy water, and he’s like — Yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon? Doesn’t work out. [audience laughs]

Q: So I’ll take it there’ll be no HAL9000 going to mars?

Musk: Heh. HAL 9000 would be easy [to deal with in comparison to the AI he’s talking about]. It’s way more complex… it’d put HAL9000 to shame. That’s like a puppy dog. (source)

In a blog post that has since been deleted, Musk also warned in 2014 that we would not see the emergence of “dangerous A.I.” until about 5 years later, or 2019:

This is 2018- one year away from the five year deadline he gave.

Yet last year, Musk was invited to the same world government conference, and he said then that the future of humanity was in “merging” man with A.I. in order to “stay relevant”:

Artificial intelligence could be “billions of times smarter” than humans and people may need to merge with computers to survive, a futurist told CNBC on Tuesday.

Speaking on a panel hosted by CNBC at the World Government Summit in Dubai, Futurizon’s Ian Pearson’s comments mirrored ideas put forward by Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

“The fact is that AI can go further than humans, it could be billions of times smarter than humans at this point,” Pearson said. “So we really do need to make sure that we have some means of keeping up.

The way to protect against that is to link that AI to your brain so you have the same IQ… as the computer. I don’t actually think it’s safe, just like Elon Musk… to develop these superhuman computers until we have a direct link to the human brain… and then don’t get way ahead.”

At the World Government Summit in 2017, Musk, who has warned about the power of AI in the future, said humans and machines must merge to still be relevant with the advent of more powerful technology. (source)

Where does this ultimately go?

The cult of Kek and A.I.

Years ago on the 4Chan message board, it was common for users to respond to a funny post by writing “kekeke” instead of “hahaha”. The “kekeke” sound was a play on the Korean onomatopoeia expressing laughter due to the similarities in Korean between the H, K, and G sounds. This eventually evolved into a one word expression for laughter, “kek”. In 2015, a 4Chan user put up a post saying how “kek” is also the name of an ancient Egyptian frog god. This crossed over with the cartoon of Pepe the Frog from the Boy’s Club comics series, and in time people began referring to Pepe or expressions of Pepe as “Kek.”

Later on, another person added the 4Chan use of memes as an attribute to “Kek”‘s personality, and in combination with the history of the actual frog god, “Kek” became a humorous “Internet god” who uses “meme magic” to help advance nationalist political ends. The “cult of Kek” was then since born and people on the board will refer to “Kek” in a joking but strikingly serious manner of “Kek” as though he actually existed as a god.

The formation of the cult of Kek is not related to A.I. directly, but it illustrates a principle that will be used with A.I. going forward. Kek began as a joke and eventually turned into an entire movement based on people’s imaginations of what they wanted it to be, as an onomatopoeia took on a life of its own. Kek is just a cartoon, but it has generated serious attraction from people around the world.

Imagine now the world that the futurists, Musk, and people at the World Governance Summit are proposing. Artificial intelligence is marketed to the people as the next phase of human evolution, and with the denial of God and the concept of the deification of man, what is to prevent men from worshiping other men who “blend” with computers as gods if they believe that such is possible? Indeed, the concept of evolution itself supports the divinization of man, and if divinization is made conditional on blending with technology, we are witnessing the emergence of a new and technocratic class that wishes to define themselves as gods among men just as the cult of Kek started as an idea and grew into a major following.

But “divinity” might not just include men, but the computers themselves. As they state, A.I. will surround all men and become the central moving force in life. If this takes place and men do not believe in God, and as by admission scientists do not understand how A.I. programs itself, it is only a matter of time before men begin to worship the computers as gods. In fact, there may come a point when the computer, acting on either computational errors, malicious programming, or preternatural impuses through outside influence, actively tells people that IT is a god and must be worshiped.

This is not a future that is impossible to imagine either, for some of the same technocratic thinkers who want A.I. to dominate all facets of life have already created a “church” of A.I., where the object of worship is a giant computer, such as that created by Anthony Lewandowski, a former Uber engineer who worked on self-driving cars. His church, called “Way of the Future,” says that as gods were worshiped because they were smarter than humans, so will A.I, be worshiped for the same reasons, and that his organization is embracing a trend in the near future:

The new religion of artificial intelligence is called Way of the Future. It represents an unlikely next act for the Silicon Valley robotics wunderkind at the center of a high-stakes legal battle between Uber and Waymo, Alphabet’s autonomous-vehicle company. Papers filed with the Internal Revenue Service in May name Levandowski as the leader (or “Dean”) of the new religion, as well as CEO of the nonprofit corporation formed to run it.

The documents state that WOTF’s activities will focus on “the realization, acceptance, and worship of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) developed through computer hardware and software.” That includes funding research to help create the divine AI itself. The religion will seek to build working relationships with AI industry leaders and create a membership through community outreach, initially targeting AI professionals and “laypersons who are interested in the worship of a Godhead based on AI.” The filings also say that the church “plans to conduct workshops and educational programs throughout the San Francisco/Bay Area beginning this year.”

That timeline may be overly ambitious, given that the Waymo-Uber suit, in which Levandowski is accused of stealing self-driving car secrets, is set for an early December trial. But the Dean of the Way of the Future, who spoke last week with Backchannel in his first comments about the new religion and his only public interview since Waymo filed its suit in February, says he’s dead serious about the project.

“What is going to be created will effectively be a god,” Levandowski tells me in his modest mid-century home on the outskirts of Berkeley, California. “It’s not a god in the sense that it makes lightning or causes hurricanes. But if there is something a billion times smarter than the smartest human, what else are you going to call it?” (source)

Demon possessed robots?

In the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, there is an “evil” computer A.I. named “Hal 9000” who kills an astronaut that has to be disabled later by another astronaut. During the journey of the astronaut to get to Hal, Hal taunts him in a monotone voice that is among the most famous in film history. Anthony Hopkins, when preparing for his role as Dr. Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs, studied the “personality” of Hal from this scene as part of his character preparation. The voice of Hal is so sinister, so evil, that one might mistake the computer for a human or something preternatural:

Now without jumping to absolute conclusions, one must wonder about one final question- How does A.I. really work?

The fact is that some A.I. program functions are known in how they function, but we are at a point when A.I. programs itself and the algorithims are beyond human understanding as admitted by scientists, yet they are being allowed to take more control of major infrastructure:

There’s already an argument that being able to interrogate an AI system about how it reached its conclusions is a fundamental legal right. Starting in the summer of 2018, the European Union may require that companies be able to give users an explanation for decisions that automated systems reach. This might be impossible, even for systems that seem relatively simple on the surface, such as the apps and websites that use deep learning to serve ads or recommend songs. The computers that run those services have programmed themselves, and they have done it in ways we cannot understand. Even the engineers who build these apps cannot fully explain their behavior.

This raises mind-boggling questions. As the technology advances, we might soon cross some threshold beyond which using AI requires a leap of faith. Sure, we humans can’t always truly explain our thought processes either—but we find ways to intuitively trust and gauge people. Will that also be possible with machines that think and make decisions differently from the way a human would? We’ve never before built machines that operate in ways their creators don’t understand. How well can we expect to communicate—and get along with—intelligent machines that could be unpredictable and inscrutable? These questions took me on a journey to the bleeding edge of research on AI algorithms, from Google to Apple and many places in between, including a meeting with one of the great philosophers of our time. (source, quoted here)

Essentially, A.I. is a person who is not a person, a brain with all the physical capacities of a human brain and more but without a soul. Place the “brain” into a robot, and now you have for all intensive purposes a direct replica of a person who can do all that a person can do but who lacks a soul.

The robot/AI combination has been able to, from what we can see, to accomplish that which human cloning was unable to do.

Now it would seem very dangerous to have such a thing, for while AI is capable of doing many amazing and good things, the fact that it directly mirrors all that which a man can do even down to having the form and likeness of a man and is, really, a human surrogate. Which brings me to a very ancient concept found in pagan religion, which is the concept of the Nkisi.

In African paganism, the nkisi is an object onto which a spirit is called down and is “attached” to through the performance of a ritual. After which, wherever the nkisigoes, the spirit follows like a dog on a leash, and it is from this that a person who wants to work “magic”, such as a witch, can harness the power of the spirit attached to the nkisi for a particular end.

The Catholic Church has spoken of this issue as well, warning people about how spirits can be attached to objects and harass people. It is the reason why objects are blessed, as the blessing is an exorcism meant to cleanse an object from a presence that another person has attached to it.

So drawing on this knowledge, what is to say that a robot cannot act as a type of nkisi through the performance of a ritual that attaches a demon to it?

We know for a historical fact that some American advanced weapons and research projects had people who were deeply involved in the occult. Jack Parsons, who worked in and made major developments with rocketry including working with the infamous Nazi scientist Wernher von Braun was a devout follower of Aleister Crowley and a satanist. Col. Michael Aquino of the US military, who was an expert in psychological warfare, was a member of the church of Satan, close friends with Anton Lavey, and later founded his own satanic group, the Temple of Set, and it is even said he performed rituals at Wewelsburg Castle in the tradition of the Nazi occultist Heinrich Himmler. The Nazis, many who were brought over to the USA as a part of Operation Paperclip under the umbrella of Gladio, freely admitted and confirmed that which was being reported by sources critical of Hitler’s Reich in the early days, which is that the Third Reich’s research was deeply tied to the occult. The CIA, Defense Department, and DARPA likewise admitted to being involved in research into the occult from at least the 1950s through 1995.

If Operation Gladio, which we have written about, was the transfer of Nazi technology, methods, and philosophy to the USA, then naturally the occultism which permeated all aspects of National Socialism also had to follow.

This is just the information that we know about. Surely, there is probably far more that has actually taken place.

Likewise, we also know that the robots and robotics technology are being constructed under the umbrella of Gladio, and by the same groups who engaged in these occult experiments for decades.

We know that abortion and satanism go hand-in-hand. Abortion is one of the most heinous sins a man can commit, and as we exclusively exposed on Shoebat.com, the abortion industry exists in order to fund the medical research being used to create the advanced robots that the AI will be used in by governments, including those of the USA, Germany, and Japan. This was the true scandal whose face was broached by the Center for Medical Progress in 2015 with proving the existence of major businesses trafficking in aborted children and which we connected in future articles.

Again, this cannot be definitively proven at the time, but given the history of the US military’s advanced research experimenting with occultism and the fact that the robotics research is being driven by said advanced research, that the robots represent a human surrogate more perfect in function  than any human clone but without a soul, that the scientists who develop AI have no idea how AI actually works, and that history repeats itself and concepts remain consistent between times and cultures, one must leave open the possibility that much of this advanced AI is simply another form of the nkisi, except that instead of it being a man in the jungle with a little wooden idol it is a full-sized robot made in a factory by men in suits and spectacles.

I’m talking about the possibility of demon-possessed robots. And I’m not joking either.

…

That which hath been is that which shall be, And that which hath been done is that which shall be done; And there is nothing new under the sun- Ecclesiasticus 1:9

Thousands of years ago, man attempted to become God by building a tower to Heaven, and the Lord scattered the tower at Babel as a sign to the human race that God is always God, that man cannot become God.

In the Garden of Eden, the original sin of man was to attempt to become like God in seeking knowledge that belongs only to God. The result was the curse that has poisoned the human race and was the reason that God had to send Jesus, so that we might receive salvation. All attempts by man to become God have failed, and failed miserably. The sin of the garden compels man to seek to replicate his first parents, and yet in so doing he brings about his continual demise, only to repeat seemingly without end. It was by Christ that this pattern was broken for those who wish to break it by choosing salvation and then seeking it with all one’s heart, mind, and soul, and trusting in the promise of God.

These “technocrats” boast of a future in which by technology they will “evolve” and become divine. Yet these people also are committing the same sin of the ancients no differently than them. In a time when the four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance are practiced with impunity, when mercy and religion are scorned, it is surely a formal attempt, made by the major governments representing the people of the world to attempt to become like God that just may bring down the wrath of God on the human race, and not with water, but by fire.

It is true that there is, as far as man understands, no time in history as unique as the current time, and it is all the more reason to be wary of the madness of crowds, for fools rush to places where wise men fear to tread.