Category Archives: Transhumanist

from Humans Are Free:

Its become absolutely crucial to understand what were up against, globally, and whos responsible for the rising totalitarianism and their ultimate intention.

The COVID pandemic was a coup dtat by the technocratic cabal that is behind the global takeover agenda, referred to asThe Great Reset.

TRUTH LIVES on athttps://sgtreport.tv/

The Great Reset was introduced by the World Economic Forum, which is tightly coupled to the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Their agenda is to implement a global type of totalitarianism based on technocratic and transhumanist ideologies. Part of that plan also includes reengineering and controlling all life forms, including humans.

While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not an individual. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference.

In short, there will be no individual to blame or hold accountable. The dictator is an algorithm

Technocracy is an invented and unnatural form of economics that expresses itself as totalitarianism and requires social engineering to work. Technocrats in the past defined technocracy as the science of social engineering. Controlling the populace is crucial for the system to function.

Patrick Wood, a repeat guest, has spent decades studying technocracy an invented economic system that the global cabal is currently trying to implement worldwide. He was recently interviewed by The Defender, the Childrens Health Defense newsletter. You will find that interview below. I would actually encourage you to watch that one first, because it provides a really good background of Wood and his work.

This conversation also ties in with an interview I recently did with professor Mattias Desmet, author of The Psychology of Totalitarianism, which will air in a few weeks, so be sure to keep an eye out for that one. While technocracy and totalitarianism have many similarities, there are some differences in perspective, which we will unravel here.

I wish there was something else to talk about, but this is it, Wood says. This is the topic of the day. This is what people need to know and understand.

If we are going to fight back against this enemy, which previously has pretty much been unseen, we must recognize who were dealing with. Period. We cannot provide any defense or offense to push back on this unless we know who the enemy really is and what theyre thinking, whats in their head.

While the COVID crisis sent most into a state of confusion, Wood was not surprised by the chain of events that eventually took place. Hed been following the climate change alarmism and the sustainable development agenda for a long time, and as soon as the same people who were promoting climate alarmism jumped on the COVID train, he knew they were connected, and that COVID was going to be used to promote the technocratic agenda.

The same flawed computer models used to convince us climate change will kill us all were also used to incite panic about the lethality of COVID. These computer models are basically rigged to say whatever they want them to say. According to climate change alarmists, mankind should have been wiped off the face of the earth 10 years ago. Yet here we are. The COVID models also failed, missing the mark by miles.

Read More @ HumansAreFree.com

See original here:
Exposing The Agenda To Implement Global Totalitarianism Based On ...

by Rhoda Wilson, Expose News:

Its become absolutely crucial to understand what were up against, globally, and whos responsible for the rising totalitarianism and their ultimate intention.

The COVID pandemic was a coup dtat by the technocratic cabal that is behind the global takeover agenda, referred to as The Great Reset.

The Great Reset was introduced by the World Economic Forum, which is tightly coupled to the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Their agenda is to implement a global type of totalitarianism based on technocratic and transhumanist ideologies. Part of that plan also includes reengineering and controlling all life forms, including humans.

TRUTH LIVES on athttps://sgtreport.tv/

While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not an individual. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there will be no individual to blame or hold accountable. The dictator is an algorithm

Technocracy is an invented and unnatural form of economics that expresses itself as totalitarianism and requires social engineering to work. Technocrats in the past defined technocracy as the science of social engineering. Controlling the populace is crucial for the system to function.

By Dr J Mercola

Patrick Wood, a repeat guest, has spent decades studying technocracy an invented economic system that the global cabal is currently trying to implement worldwide. He was recently interviewed by The Defender, the Childrens Health Defense newsletter. You will find that interview below. I would actually encourage you to watch that one first, because it provides a really good background of Wood and his work.

This conversation also ties in with an interview I recently did with professor Mattias Desmet, author of The Psychology of Totalitarianism, which will air in a few weeks, so be sure to keep an eye out for that one. While technocracy and totalitarianism have many similarities, there are some differences in perspective, which we will unravel here.

I wish there was something else to talk about, but this is it,Wood says.This is the topic of the day. This is what people need to know and understand.

If we are going to fight back against this enemy, which previously has pretty much been unseen, we must recognize who were dealing with. Period. We cannot provide any defense or offense to push back on this unless we know who the enemy really is and what theyre thinking, whats in their head.

While the COVID crisis sent most into a state of confusion, Wood was not surprised by the chain of events that eventually took place. Hed been following the climate change alarmism and the sustainable development agenda for a long time, and as soon as the same people who were promoting climate alarmism jumped on the COVID train, he knew they were connected, and that COVID was going to be used to promote the technocratic agenda.

The same flawed computer models used to convince us climate change will kill us all were also used to incite panic about the lethality of COVID. These computer models are basically rigged to say whatever they want them to say. According to climate change alarmists, mankind should have been wiped off the face of the earth 10 years ago. Yet here we are. The COVID models also failed, missing the mark by miles.

At the time [in early 2020], I said this is technocracys coup dtat. Theyre finally making their major global move to do what they said they were going to do for a long time. Now, theyre actually putting shoe leather to it and theyre making it happen, so I called it coup dtat early on,Wood says.

Unfortunately, to quote Woods coauthor of previous books, Anthony Sutton, only 2% of people have critical thinking skills, 8% of people think they can think, and 90% would rather die than think. This willful ignorance explains why only 10% of a given population, on average, does not fall intomass formation hypnosis.

Wood, along with Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an international lawyer who cofounded the German Corona Investigative Committee have formed the Crimes Against Humanity Task Force. The first event will be held in Tampa, FL with guest speaker, Michael Yeadon, Ph.D..

We believe there is a great case to be made that, indeed, crimes against humanity have been committed in the same context and sense that they were discovered at the Nuremberg trials that produced the Nuremberg Code, which is now embedded in the legal system in every nation on earth, [including] our country and every state as well.

Medical experimentation is verboten, period, and yet it has happened anyway, with no informed consent along the way. People are getting sick and dying, the same old drill. What went wrong? Were presenting this case to the American public in person, and I will say the dynamic of talking to a live audience today is a breath of fresh air for me, personally. I think everybody else would say the same thing.

While many resist this stance, I and Wood agree that the crisis is not over, and its not going to right itself. No. Itll get worse, and things will never go back to the way they were. Its important to realize that we shouldnt want things to go back to the old normal, however. Because the old normal is what precipitated the many crises were currently facing.

We can fully expect that the partially failed vaccine passport will be replaced by digital identity, which will progress to a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Most central banks in the world will be rolling out CBDCs within the next three to five years.

Digital identity and CBDCs are a disaster racing toward us like a freight train, and itll be extremely difficult to get out of harms way. The past two years will seem like a picnic compared to whats coming.

If my hypothesis is true, January 2020 was the coup dtat that started this war in earnest, the hot war, if you will, versus the leading up to it. Lots of bad stuff happened from 9/11 through 2020 that we could point to and say, it looks like somebodys orchestrating this, but it went into a hot war, literally, globally as well, in January 2020. Revolutions never stop with one attack. Thats obvious. Im sure its self-evident.

So, who instigated this global revolution? Whos pulling the strings? Whos the real enemy? Its not the populace. Its not even a specific nation. Its a conglomerate of wealthy and influential people all over the world. But they have a shared philosophy, ideology and agenda. Wood explains:

Whats going on is called The Great Reset of the planet. The Great Reset has become a catchphrase. Most people dont have a clue what it means yet, but its promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is tightly interlinked and coupled with the United Nations.

This elite group of people represent in mix all of the people that were originally in the Trilateral Commission back in the 1970s. Its the same kinds of people, the same agenda to transform the world into their vision, the way they think things ought to be. These are the people that have orchestrated this whole thing and theyre the ones that are pushing it right now.

Its easy to identify most of the people involved in this. You can look at the Klaus Schwabs and the Bill Gateses [of the world], and the thousand companies that belong to the World Economic Forum. They all have CEOs, board members, et cetera, that are part of the World Economic Forum. Its pretty easy to identify them today.

The idea of The Great Reset is complete transformation of society and individuals that live in this society. The World Economic Forum is boldly talking about both. They talk about this technocratic takeover on one hand, to reform society, that is the structures of society, the institutions, but they also talk about the restructuring of humanity itself.

That is, the merging of technology with the human condition, with the flesh, the changing of genetic code, Humanity 2.0, H+ is another term is used. This is mad scientist type of stuff. The average guy on the street has never been exposed to this.

Its hard to get your head around how evil this whole thing is, and its all uninvited. Nobody asked for it, they just did it. Thats another thing thats really important to understand: This didnt just come out of the blue or fall out of the sky from outer space. This has been in the works for a very long time.

In 1992, Agenda 21 was created. That was the genesis of sustainable development. Thats where that doctrine was openly described. The Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Convention that took place at the same time was the agenda for 21st century.

As explained by Wood, Agenda 21 was foundational in the sense that laid out all the events being rolled out and changes being implemented today. Its just that no one was really paying attention to where things were headed, the ultimate implications of it all. Of course, those who did see the writing on the wall were discredited as crazy conspiracy theorists.

There was a great book released in 1994 called The Earth Brokers. The two authors were scholars. They were also the original environmental crowd. They werent on our side necessarily, but they went to the Agenda 21 conference in good faith, figuring there was going to be some negotiation to dial back the development that was messing with the Third World and try to get the planet back together.

They went hoping to turn some things around, and they came away from the Agenda 21 conference completely disillusioned In that book, they criticized the Agenda 21 process. They started out by saying something like this: We argue that USAID the United Nations conference on economic development has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet and its inhabitants.

We see how, as a result of USAID, the rich would get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process. What can we say, but amen to that. Here we are today. Its exactly whats happened.

The Earth Brokers also reviewed what they learned from the Biodiversity Convention, which ran parallel with the Agenda 21 conference. It had the same participants, just two different thought tracks brought together at the same conference.

They wrote about the biodiversity convention, which has become incredibly important today to the United Nations. They said the convention implicitly equates the diversity of life, that is animals and plants, to the diversity of genetic codes. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate. It promotes biotechnology as being essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

They redefined the term biodiversity, for one, but they also said the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries. That was their assessment.

To which, today, we can say, Bingo! That is exactly what happened back then, and this is exactly the expression today that we see of the genetic takeover of life on planet earth. Theyve gotten the seeds, theyve gotten the plants, theyve gotten the animals.

Today, the technocrats are also moving in on the human genetic code. Chief medical officer of Moderna, Tal Zaks, for example, has stated that Moderna, a developer of the mRNA COVID jab, is hacking the software of life. He described the human genetic code as an operating system, and if you can change that operating system by introducing a new line of code, or by changing a line of code, you can change how the operating system functions.

Since 1992, legislation has been created to protect Big Pharma. You could say the 1992 Agenda 21 was a pre-coup. They laid the groundwork back then to protect the pharmaceutical and emerging biotech industries they knew were coming. And, today, the very genetic makeup of mankind is up for grabs.

Technocracy dates further back than the 90s, however. Handwritten letters dating to the 1930s reveal some of the originators of the technocratic movement had gotten into an argument with the Hearst newspaper empire, and because of that, they forbade journalists to discuss them or the technocratic ideology. Hence, technocracy went underground and got sort of buried for a few decades. Wood explains:

What happened was, Howard Scott, one of the cofounders of Technocracy Inc., was also the leader of the group at Columbia University when it was housed there in 1932. He had promoted himself as being a certified engineer and one of the intellectual guys that would fit in to Columbia University. He wasnt from Columbia, but he was heading the [technocratic] movement there.

It was discovered, while he was there, that he was a complete fraud. He had no engineering degree at all. He was just a blowhard. He was a promoter basically a con man and Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of Columbia flipped out, and drop-kicked Scott out of Columbia

By the same token, Howard Scott was out working in the media like crazy, and he worked the Hearst empire to get articles about technocracy published all across the country.

When Randolph Hearst discovered, as Butler did, that he had been taken for a ride and that his media empire had been manipulated, he freaked out and sent out a telegram-type memo to every newspaper in the country, saying, If anybody ever mentions technocracy again, youre fired.

Well, that took care of that. History books have a 25-year lag, typically. Historians dont go back and analyze stuff from last year to write in history books. They go back 25 years and they look around and they read the newspaper articles and whatever, and try and figure out what happened. Thats how they write history.

Well, theres this huge hole on the technocracy movement because it just got dropped out. All of a sudden, theres no newspaper articles. Its just like they disappeared into thin air. The big, highly credentialed scientist and engineers at Columbia who were crowing about technocracy the year before, now, all of a sudden, would not dare mention the word.

Wood eventually discovered a major university archive at University of Edmonton in Alberta, where all of the leaders of the Canadian technocracy movement had combined their papers in the 90s.

The documents were placed in a warehouse where they sat for years on end, until a catalog of them was finally published on the internet. It was a real jackpot. Wood and his wife drove to Edmonton and spent a week sifting through and copying materials. After that, it wasnt very difficult to break down how the technocratic agenda had been moved forward and was being implemented.

While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not a dictator. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there are no people behind the curtain pulling strings. Theres no individual to blame or hold accountable.

The dictator is an algorithm. Looking at Google over the past couple of years, in particular, we can see this in action. We can also see it in the censorship of social media, and in the social credit system in China.

The so-called artificial intelligence boom has created the possibility of controlling people by algorithm, rather than by political dictate,Wood says.There has been a battle between technocrats and governments ever since technocracy started. Back in the day, they hated government. They wanted to get rid of government. There is still that propensity today.

You see it at the World Economic Forum, you see it at United Nations. They want to dissolve the national governments of the world. Historically, fascism and communism have been instituted by national governments. These entities are on the hit list for technocracy. We saw this, by the way, just recently. There was a conference in Dubai, called the World Government Summit1[March 29-30, 2022].

Read More @ Expose-News.com

Link:
There exists an Agenda to implement Global Totalitarianism based on ...

What is truth? Truth is the revelation and acceptance of what is genuinely real.Time. What is Truth?

The public theologian needs an answer to the question, what is truth? Further, this answer needs to be intelligible. Why? Because of the relentless and merciless shelling against the theistic citadel by new atheist artillery. Believers in God, allegedly, cannot live in the truth because there is no deity. God does not exist. This makes all theistic claims not only false but unintelligible. It is time to ask this question: what is truth?

Despite the diversity of atheists, the American Atheists website makes clear that the common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of these atheists load their cannons with scientific ammunition. Is there a connection between science and atheism? Really?

Atheist Feldmarschall Richard Dawkins demands that the question of Gods existence be treated as a scientific hypothesis. If so treated, the evidence will show that no god exists, rendering the theistic hypothesis disconfirmed. Dawkins contends that religious belief is not true in the scientific sense. This makes religious belief one of the worlds greatest evils.

Not so, according to Cambridge University hybrid physicist and theologian, the late John Polkinghorne. Polkinghorne finds the natural world intelligible and celebrates this intelligibility. Polkinghorne also finds that the intelligibility of the natural world is enhanced when grasped as the creation of a loving and gracious God. God and the world are most intelligible when viewed together.

The universe is astonishingly open to us, relationally transparent to our enquiry.The most we can require is an interpretation that is coherent and persuasive. Theism provides just such a response to the meta question of intelligibility. If the world is the creation of the rational God, and if we are creatures made in the divine image, then it is entirely understandable that there is an order in the universe that is deeply accessible to our minds. Putting the same point in a different way, one could say that science discerns a world in which its rational beauty and rational transparency is shot through with signs of mind, and the theist can understand this because it is indeed the Mind of God that is partially disclosed in this way(Polkinghorne, 1998, pp. 72-73).[i]

In other words, the most coherent understanding of the many scientific propositions which disclose natures secrets requires a worldview inclusive of natures creator, God. A worldview that incorporates both God and what we learn about nature through science is more comprehensive and more intelligible than science without reference to God can provide.

So, when we ask, what is truth?, we are asking that genuine reality reveal itself to us.[ii] This happens in science, we trust. This happens in faith, we also trust. How might these cohere with one another in worldview construction?

Unless the claims of Holy Scripture and the Christian tradition are true, no one would want to believe them. The task of the public theologian is to make Christian claims intelligible, so that those within the church and outside the church can test them for their truth value.[iii]

What is truth? That was Pilates question to Jesus in John 18:38. Elsewhere, in John 14:6, we find Jesus saying, I am the way, and the truth, and the life What does truth mean here? And everywhere we use this word?

If truth is propositional, then the assertionJesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the lifecould be either true or false. How would we measure the truth or falsity of this proposition? On the basis of what appears. On the basis of what has been revealed to be real. On the basis of what is yet-to-be revealed to be real.

In the Johannine passages cited above, note the Greek word for truth, aletheia. Philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) analyzed this term (Heidegger, 1947). He noted how aletheia means unveiling or uncovering or revealing, Entdeckung. Truth is an event in which something concealed becomes unconcealed, Unverborgenheit.

Curiously, the unconcealing of one truth sometimes requires the concealing of another truth, leading to an ongoing dialectic of revealing and hiding. In sum, truth is the unconcealing or disclosing of being (Water, 1969).

What modern culture loves about science is that scientific facts and theories are transcultural. Scientific claims are universal, according to Polish philosopher Jsef Tischner. The fundamental property of scientific truth is its universalityscientific truth is the truth for everyonebasic truths are the same for all people(Tischner, 1982, p. 33).

Scientific truths come in the form of propositions or assertions. Truth and falsity areproperties of propositions (Inwagen, 2009, p. 33). Propositional truth presumes a correspondence between what is thought or asserted via language with objective or mind-independent reality. So far, so good.

Yet, phenomenologically speaking, the truth of propositions is dependent on a more fundamental and more comprehensive human experience, namely, the ostensive self-revelation of reality. Only what has been uncovered or disclosed about natures mysteries can rise to articulation in assertions or propositions.[iv] Then, when propositions or assertions correspond with what has been unconcealed, they are said to be true.[v]

Here is the takeaway. A propositional claim is like a single Blue Gill hooked by someone fishing, reeled in, and landed in the boat. Even though this single fish is real in every respect, it is abstracted from the fishermans total experience with the entire lake and the unknown number of fish that have not been seen, caught, or reeled in.

So, we must grant with Stuart A. Kauffman that Science is not the only pathway to truth (Kauffman, 2008, p. xii). Or, perhaps more precisely, scientific truth is an abstraction. It finds its meaning within a more comprehensive horizon of truth as experienced.

This applies to true living as well, living in behalf of the common good. The truth is deeper than facts, contends Patheos columnist, Victorious Living. More important. More real, even. We cannot pursue truth while avoiding facts. But we cannot make sense of our facts while avoiding the deeper truths.

Let me tell you about Charles Townes (1915-2015). Charlie was a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Among his achievements was the discovery of a black hole in the center of our galaxy, designing the scientific agenda of the first astronauts on the Moon, and inventing the laser and maser. The final decades of his career were spent at the University of California at Berkeley, where I had an opportunity to get to know him and his vibrant wife, Francis. Charlie served on the board of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.

Charlie loved physics. Physics was his passion. Even as he neared the age of a hundred, he spent almost every day engaged in scientific research. I get to do physics all day. What could be better than that?, he once said to me with glee.

Now, heres whats startling. Charlie told me and then an audience that I assembled that the invention of the laser was due to a special revelation. The laser came to him as a vision. While sitting on park bench in Washington DC, a vision appeared before his eyes with the physics and engineering necessary to make the first laser. He copied on his brown lunch bag what appeared in the vision. And, thus, the laser was born.

Charlie did not describe the vision as supernatural. Yet, is was a revelation that came to him as a gift.

One evening, Charlie and Francis were visiting at my Berkeley condo. A number of students were seated around Charlie, eagerly asking questions. Ya know, Charlie began one of his rare pontifications, I believe all scientific discoveries are revelations. Oh, yes, discoveries come at the end of experiments. But, whats really happening is that nature is revealing itself to the human mind. Isnt it wonderful!

Before a scientist can enunciate a proposition, nature must reveal itself. Thats Heideggers phenomenological insight. Revelation as disclosure applies as much to science as it does to theology.

If you are motivated to harken to the call of truth, then you will want to understand truth. To understand truth, is to subject your mind and your will to the reality that is uncovered in a truth event. Understanding requires us to stand under the authority of truth.

Truth is self-defining. And truth compels us to respect it by submitting to it. Here is theologian Alan Padgett: I want to stand under the truth and receive (understand) what light it brings(Padgett, Alan 2006). Truth asks us for submission so that we can gain understanding.

Or, more completely: I will simply propose that we understand truth as the mediated disclosure of being (or reality). Sometimes that truth will be mediated through everyday experience, or common sense, sometimes through the specifics of propositions (Padgett, Alan 2006). In short, truth calls the human mind to humility. This applies to truth in all forms, especially theological truth.

Grace to Youproposes an understanding of theological truth.

Heres a simple definition drawn from what the Bible teaches: Truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God. Even more to the point:Truth is the self-expression of God. That is the biblical meaning of truth. Because the definition of truth flows from God, truth istheological.

Truth is alsoontologicalwhich is a fancy way of saying it is the way things really are. Reality is what it is because God declared it so and made it so. Therefore God is the author, source, determiner, governor, arbiter, ultimate standard, and final judge of all truth.

Now, we turn to hermeneutics. Truth is tied to interpretation.

Our human receptivity for revelation is conditioned by our personal past experience, our historically inherited culture, our linguistic capacity, and our willingness to learn new things. You and I come to every new experience with a pre-understanding, a Vorverstndnis, to use the terminology of Hans-Georg Gadamer(Gadamer, 1965). An open-minded person ready to learn avoids allowing this pre-understanding to become a prejudgment (Vorurteil) or prejudice. A prejudice prevents new learning. A pre-understanding is always necessary for receiving new truth. But, a prejudice is optional.

Because each one of us lives within a specific context with its own horizon of pre-understanding, our experience with a truth event will be inescapably perspectival. A purely objective or absolute truth with no pre-understanding is not an option. All of our seeing is seeing-as. We must grant a certain level of relativity to our truth experience. What passes for objective truth is, for all practical purposes, an inter-subjective interpretation.

Theologian Catherine Keller acknowledges the inescapability of relativity in perspective. Relativity, which we must strictly distinguish from relativism, just describes the reality of a relational universe. The human observer belongs to that universe. Therefore all human truth-claims are relative to context and perspective(Keller, 2008, p. 4).

The truth of Godthe truth that brings knowledge, forgiveness, comfort, and joyis always pro me, says Martin Luther. The objective truth of God is revealed within subjective trueness for you and for me. To understand God is to stand under Gods Word addressed to you or me.

The uncovering of what is genuinely real is the essence of all truth. This applies to Gods emergence from hiding as well. God defines God-self in events of self-revelation. And because God is the ultimate reality, all truth becomes dependent on what is revealed by God about God. At least according to Calvinist philosopher Alvin Plantinga. There is such a thing as truth, and it is intimately connected with God (Plantinga, 1998, p.36).[vi]

This is the theme that runs through Karl Barths Church Dogmatics. The freely acting God Himself and alone is the truth of revelation. (Barth, 1936-1962, p. I/1 15). According to Barth, the Bible mediates Gods Word through the human words on the pages.

T.F. Torrance, a scholar quite concerned with the interaction between theology and science, elaborates with regard to Scriptural truth.

When all is said and done in biblical interpretation and theological formulation, the ultimate criterion to which appeal is to be made is the Truth itself, that Truth independent of themselves too which the Holy Scriptures direct us and to which they themselves are subject. All faithful interpretation must allow the Truth to assert itself in its own intrinsic weight and majesty and to maintain its own ground over against us and our prejudices, for in the last resort we have to reckon with the fact that God alone can name himself and bear witness to himself and prove himself to us (Torrance, 1982, pp.118-119).

On the one hand, what we assert in propositional or second order form derives from what is uncovered in first order experience. Reality comes out of hiding and becomes unconcealed at the level of first order experience. Then, when we formulate an assertion about what has been revealed, we abstract from the embedded first order experience. In sum, propositions are second order discourse reporting on the first order experience of disclosure.

One task of the systematic theologianalong with the public theologianis to press for coherence between what has been revealed to us by God and what has been unconcealed for us by our scientists. But, constructing coherence requires distinguishing prejudice from pre-understanding.

Here is the late Wolfhart Pannenberg on overcoming prejudice in constructive theology.

The truth of Christian doctrine cannot be maintained where Christian proclamation gives priority to adaptation to the secular mentality. It has to challenge that mentality and its prejudices.Since secularism produces meaninglessness, the human person suffers from the lack of meaning. There is a need, then, for the Christian message, perhaps more urgently so than in other periods of human history. But the message can reach its addresse only if the prejudices of secularism against Christianity can be overcome (Pannenberg 2002, 1).

Pannenberg advocates a coherence theory of truth, not a correspondence theory of truth. Coherence provides the final criterion of truth, and it can serve as such a criterion because it also belongs to the nature of truth: so that truth is only one, but all -embracing, closely related to the concept of the one God (Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology 1991, 6). How coherence works should become clear in what follows.

Belief in God requires belief in the truth. No rational person would place his or her or their life in the hands of a God who does not exist. It all depends on truth, says Pannenberg when asking why a non-Jew might believe in the God of Israel. If we suppose that the God of Israel and of Jesus is the one and only true God, then and only then is there sufficient reason for believing in that God, even if one is not a Jew (Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology 1991, 4-5). Belief includes confidence and trust in truth. And, truth depends on revelation. Did divine revelation take place in Israels history?

Revelations from God about God always leave some residue, some dimensions that resist codification in assertions or propositions. This is because God remains mysterious even in unconcealment. The more that God reveals, the more we become aware of the divine mystery. Religious propositions, then, must convey the dialectic of concealment with unconcealment. Religious propositions must be symbolic at their most fundamental level.

A holistic self-disclosure of reality rises to articulation only in symbolic speech. Binoy (Jacob) Pichalakkat, mathematician and theologian in Pune, India, makes this observation. In symbols reality becomes aware of itself and mirrors itself (Pichalakkatt, 2006, p. 26). Note the direction of movement: reality discloses itself, and we mark the event of this disclosure with a symbol. Symbols both reflect and participate in the reality they disclose.

Please get this point. Propositional truths are literal assertions that intend a single meaning. Symbolic truths are multi-valent with two or more levels of meaning. We live in a worldview with both.

Austrian philosopher Eric Voegelin reminds us of the distinction between symbols and propositions. Truth is not a body of propositions about a world-immanent object; it is the world-transcendent summum bonum, experienced as an orienting force in the soul, about which we can speak only in analogical symbols (Voegelin, 1956-1987, p. 3:363). Symbols point to and even participate in the reality they uncover; but symbols cannot exhaust the meaning of what they reveal in propositional form. Symbols come first. Propositions come second.

As double-valent, symbols connote concealment and unconcealment simultaneously. Religious symbols are pre-propositional in character. Symbols participate in the truth, to be sure. Yet, first order symbols stop short of reducing truth to proposition. Second order propositions interpret first order symbolic experience. Scientific propositions interpret experience in the form of empirical evidence and experiment.

Do religious people believe in literal truth? No. Scientists do, though.

Well, wait a minute! Some evangelicals and fundamentalists pridefully exclaim that they stand on the literal truth of the Bible. Patheos columnist Vance Morgan was born into a fundamentalist family. He has since become a Progressive Christian. Morgan explains what it means to believe in literal truth.

I was born into the fundamentalist Protestant worldand I am thoroughly familiar with how literalists read the Bible. I was taught that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God, dictated by divine inspiration to specially selected human beings, then assembled into the Word of God that we call the Bible. The Bible is Gods final word to us, I was taught; all the guidance a Christian needs to live a life pleasing to God can be found between its covers. Many of the vehicles in our church parking lot sported a bumper sticker expressing the appropriate attitude toward Scripture: God Said It. I Believe It. That Settles It.

Because the linguistic expressions of Holy Scripture include deliberately non-literal formspsalms, aphorisms, parables, metaphors, and suchit would be irrational to treat all biblical texts literally. Contrary to common belief, Protestant fundamentalists do not believe in the dictation theory of the Bible.

The predominant view of Scriptures inspiration within fundamentalism derives from the late 19th century Princeton Theology. According to that Princeton Theology, the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament writers who then mediated Gods Word through their own language and experience along with the their own writers agenda. In the heat of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the 1920s, fundamentalist Clarence E. Macartney announced in his famous sermon, Shall Unbelief Win?, the following. Those who hold the New Testament idea of inspiration, that holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, have never thought of the Holy Ghost dictating to Moses, Isaiah or St. Paul. What could be more clear! There is no warrant to believe that the words of the text were dictated by God, even for a fundamentalist. So, what Morgan reports here seems a tad extreme.

Biblical speech is fundamentally symbolic and double-valent. Biblical speech connotes invisible realities while it denotes ordinary experiences. This is why Jesus strained to convey truths about God through parables. We today must always treat Holy Sculpture hermeneutically, soliciting the Holy Spirits inner witness when we apply scriptural truth to our own daily lives.

Not so with scientific propositions. The laboratory scientist swims in eddies of experiment, fact, data, hypotheses, theories, and revisions of theories. Then, with corroboration and caution, the scientist tenders a proposition. That proposition is intended to be a literal assertion. It is intended to denote a fact. And only a fact. Thats it. Nothing more. No meaning. No significance. No metaphysical implications. Just a fact.

Keep clear: it is science that communicates literally through propositions. Not religion.

Do theologians ever make propositions? Yes, indeed. The Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed are collections of propositions. To theological propositions we now turn.

Theological propositionscalled dogmasare hypothetical assertions about ultimate reality. They are hypothetical because their truth depends upon confirmation or disconfirmation by Gods future actions. Drawing from the multi-valent symbols found in Scripture, dogmas point prophetically to truths about divine promises yet awaiting fulfillment. Only future fulfillment can determine the truth or falsity of such Christian theological claims.

Such dogmatic propositions are also doxological. That is, the reality yet to be revealed will be far more glorious than these propositions can convey. Even if a theological proposition gets confirmed by God, its literal meaning will be engulfed with a penumbra of glory that will bring an unanticipated fullness. Here is Pannenberg on dogmatic statements requiring eschatological confirmation to determine their truth value.

Dogmatic statements have a proleptic tendency in that they have all of reality, history as a whole, in view, since in Christ, the consummation of history, the future of us all, has already begun.Thus, the doxological element in the dogmatic statement is founded upon the proleptic, and both are interrelated through the universal meaning that inheres in this particular event(Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology, 2 Volumes, 1970-1971, p. 1:205).

Right now, the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed are statements of faith awaiting divine confirmation or disconfirmation eschatologically. These collections of Christian propositions about God are abstractions from more robust multi-valent biblical symbols. Even in propositional form, dogmas still resonate with symbolic meaning that is suprapropositional. Historically, creedal collections of dogmas are frequently called, symbols.

Creedal symbols remain second order discourse, still subordinate to the first order discourse of Holy Scripture. The more basic biblical symbols articulate what our ancestors experienced in revelatory events where truths about God were disclosed. Today we look forward to the eschatological future anticipated by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12: For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

The scriptures themselves tell us that the universal recognition of Gods glory will not occur before the eschaton. Until then, the truth of his revelation continue to be in dispute. (Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology 1991, 17)

Not everyone is dedicated to standing under the truth in coherent form. Wikipedia management, for example, holds that multiple truths exist without cohering with one another. We all have different truths. We all have different biases. We need to listen to voices other than Western white men. We should share power. Rather than talk about the truth, then, we should focus on what we believe and what we can agree on. What is important is that we all get along, according to Wikipedias Katherine Maher. Yet, despite this well-intentioned gesture toward social harmony, my question here is still this: what is truth?

In this Patheos post, we have been asking: what is truth? In addition, we have been asking whether a theological worldview could be intelligible when coherently incorporating scientific knowledge. Standing under the truth requires the theologian to strive not only for coherence but also intelligibility.

No theologian need answer atheist shelling with a counterattack. Rather, the theist may simply live truly within the symbols which participate in Gods self-revelation. Then, of course, the theologian should formulate intelligible propositions. Such constructed propositions will be hypothetical. They will turn out to be proleptic assertions, awaiting divine confirmation or disconfirmation in the eschaton.

Every searching soul welcomes truth whenever an event of unconcealment makes something invisible visible. Scientific truth along with personal truth and divine truth belong together in a single worldview. Pannenberg rightly reminds the public theologian: The question of the truth of Christianity cannot be enquired into without also enquiring into the question of the truth of all areas of human experience, including scientific knowledge about the natural world (Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, 1976, p. 255).

Ive been working with the following hypothesis: truth is the revelation and acceptance of what is genuinely real. If God is the ultimate reality, then all truth must come from the one God. All truth, no matter by whom it is uttered, comes from the Holy Spirit (Omnis veritas, a quoquo dicitur, e Spiritu Sancto est). Ascribed to St. Ambrose of Milan.

Thank God that our minds hunger and thirst for truth. Thank God that truth comes to us. Thank God that truth satisfies that hunger and slakes that thirst.

Ted Peters directs traffic at the intersection of science, religion, and ethics. Peters is an emeritus professor at the Graduate Theological Union, where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, USA. He authored Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom? (Routledge, 2nd ed., 2002) as well as Science, Theology, and Ethics (Ashgate 2003). He is editor of AI and IA: Utopia or Extinction? (ATF 2019). Along with Arvin Gouw and Brian Patrick Green, he co-edited the new book, Religious Transhumanism and Its Critics hot off the press (Roman and Littlefield/Lexington, 2022). Soon he will publish The Voice of Christian Public Theology (ATF 2022). See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.The fictional spy thriller, Cyrus Twelve, follows the twists and turns of a transhumanist plot.

[i] Truth cannot contradict truth(Pope, 1998).

[ii] No religion is genuine unless it be joined with truth, according to John Calvin(Calvin, 1960, p. I/v.3.50.).

[iv] Fuller systematic theologian Veli-Matti Krkkinen promotes the dialogue between theology and the natural sciences, because the doctrine of creation itself requires the access to reality provided by science. Specifically, the scientific worldview differs from previous worldviews within which theology worked. This engagement happens under a radically different worldview from that of the past: ours is dynamic, interrelated, evolving, in-the-making(Krkkinen, 2015, pp. 10-11).

[v] Lets compare correspondence with coherence. Scientific propositions rely on the correspondence theory of truth, according to which propositions correspond to reality as revealed. The coherence theory of truth, alternatively, relies on the coherence of one proposition with others in a web of claims. Borrowing the metaphor of the web or net of beliefs formulated by logician W.V.O. Quine, Nancey Murphy at Fuller abandons the correspondence model of truth in favor of a coherence model. Truth is found in coherence, where beliefs require one another is a web or net. This new picture of knowledge is salutary for religion scholars, she writes. No longer is there a need to find an unquestionable starting point, a theological foundation, before we can begin the task of theology proper(Murphy, 2018, p. 71).

[vi] Truths from God belong together with truths from science. The task of the systematic theologian is to make them all coherent. A limited rational validation of the truth of the Gospel is possible.Negatively the Gospel must and can be validated by exploring the limits of historic forms of wisdom and virtue. Positively it is validated when the truth of faith is correlated with all truths which may be known by scientific and philosophical disciplines and proves itself a resource for coordinating them into a deeper and wider system of coherence(Niebuhr, 1949, p. 152).

Barth, K. (1936-1962). Church Dogmatics, 4 Volumes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Calvin, J. (1960). Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Volumes. Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox.

Dawkins, R. (1997). Is Science a Religion? The Humanist, https://web.archive.org/web/20121030144700/http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1965). Wahrheit und Methode. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Heidegger, M. (1947). The Essence of Truth. Berlin: UNKNO.

Inwagen, P. V. (2009). An Essay on Free Will. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

Krkkinen, V.-M. (2015). Creation and Humanity. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Kauffman, S. A. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion. New York: Basic Books.

Keller, C. (2008). On the Mystery: Discerning God in Process. Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press.

Murphy, N. (2018). A Philosophy of the Christian Religion for the Twenty-First Century. London: SPCK.

Niebuhr, R. (1949). Faith and History. New York: Scribners.

Padgett, Alan. (2006). I am the Truth. An Understanding of Truthe from Christology to Scripture. In e. Alan G. Padgett and Patrick r. Keifert, But Is It All True? The Bible and the Question of Truth (p. Chapter 6). Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Pannenberg, W. (1976). Theology and the Philosophy of Science. Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox.

Pannenberg, W. (1991).An Introduction to Systematic Theology.Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Pannenberg, W. (2002). The Task of Christian Eschatology. In e. Carl E. Braaten and Robert Jenson, The Last Things: Biblical and Theological Perspectives (pp. 1-13). Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Pichalakkatt, Binoy (2006). Dialoging with Symbols Exploring Zero, Sunyata and Trinity for a Holistic Reality,Omega: Indian Journal of Science and Religion,5:2: 25-41.

Polkinghorne, J. (1998). Science and Theology: An Introduction (1 ed.). London and Minneapolis: SPCK and Fortress.

Pope, J. P. (1998). Evolution and the Living God. In e. Ted Peters, Science and Theology: The New Consonance (pp. 149-152). Boulder CO: Harper/Westview https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM.

Schleiermacher, F. (1960). The Christian Faith. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark.

Tischner, J. (1982). The Spirit of Solidarity. New York: Harper.

See more here:
What is Truth? | What is truth? - Patheos

This is the story of how one man challenged the system.

Real News & Commentary for Patriots: https://www.redvoicemedia.com/

Join our Community: https://redvoicemedia.net/community

Support Our Efforts To Keep Truth Alive: https://www.redvoicemedia.com/support-red-voice-media/

Get Dr. Vladimir 'Zev' Zelenko M.D.'s Z-Stack Protocol, use code RVM for discount: https://redvoicemedia.net/zstack

Sign the petition: No Direct U.S. Military Action In Ukraine! https://redvoicemedia.net/notroops

Get Official RVM Apparel: https://redvoicemedia.net/apparel

Get massive discounts and support Mike Lindell and MyPillow with discount code RVM

Emergency Preparedness, Food Storage & Supplies: https://redvoicemedia.net/prepare

Get the new America First Coffee and more from the Ranger Candy Coffee Company: https://redvoicemedia.net/coffee

Don't Go to Jail over a Gun! Get This State Gun Law Guide 100% Free: https://redvoicemedia.net/stategunlaws

Bitcoin = Freedom! Easily buy and sell crypto today: https://redvoicemedia.net/crypto

Advertise with us: https://theardent.group/redvoicemedia-advertising/

View original post here:
Dr. Zelenko Crimes Against Humanity and the Transhumanist Agenda - Ben Stein ...

If our world is not on a direct path to the fulfillment of Revelation 13:16-18, the only alternative is to assume that something with a striking and most uncanny resemblance to the mark of the beast will appear in the not-too-distant future.

In other words, if what the transhumanist propose for our world is not the prelude to the mark of the beast, then I do not know what would be. Their plans for the future fit like a glove with what the apostle John wrote about the mark of the beast.

The words of Revelation 13:16-18 represent a specific, detailed prophecy and that cannot reach its full fruition until after the antichrist begins his reign of terror during the seven-year tribulation. Even so, we already see Satans evil and deadly end-of-days design for humanity at work in the plans of those who seek to impose transhumanism upon us.

Why do I say that this prophecy is already in play? Continue reading as I make my case in this post and those that follow.

Transhumanism is the combining of machines and human beings.

David Tippett, a contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF) website, described transhumanism in this way:

It is rooted in the belief that humans can and will be enhanced by the genetic engineering and information technology of today, as well as anticipated advances, such as bioengineering, artificial intelligence, and molecular nanotechnology. The result is an iteration of Homo sapiens enhanced or augmented, but still fundamentally human.

The central premise of transhumanism, then, is that biological evolution will eventually be overtaken by advances in genetic, wearable and implantable technologies that artificially expedite the evolutionary process.[i]

The globalists of our day propose to fundamentally change humanity through means that include the changing of the human DNA (i.e., nanotechnology). Contrary to what the WEF would have us believe, the end result of this artificial biological evolution will be something far different than what God created as well as what Jesus died on the cross to redeem.

Dr. Carrie Madej, in her April 19, 2021 video, defined transhumanism in a similar way as in the above quote, but also warned of its many dire consequences for our future as the elite of the world seek to exercise complete control of our behavior.[ii]

In November of 2017, an article appeared on the Forbes website with this title: Transhumanism and The Future of Humanity: 7 Ways the World Will Change By 2030. Here is a quote from the introduction of this article:

This transformation will be messy, complex, and sometimes scary, but signals already point to a future of humanity that will blur our identities into transhumanism.[iii]

Several disturbing statements regarding transhumanism emerge from this Forbes 2017 article. The assertion of the author that transhumanism will blur our identities, however, shocks me the most. It confirms the planned merging of machines with our bodies would remove what makes us human.

Lest you think that transhumanism is just the aspiration of a few mad scientists, please know that many of the most powerful and wealthy people in the world openly support the combining of humans and machines as the next step in the evolutionary process. This concept finds its most fervent and outspoken support in the WEF. Its website contains an abundance of information on the combining of humans with machines.

Please know that the WEF is not some obscure fringe group. President Biden ran for office under the theme of Build Back Better; a slogan he took directly from the WEF as an indication of his support for its agenda. John Kerry, a prominent member of Bidens administration, has pledged the full support of the Biden administration to the Great Reset championed by the WEF.

An article on the New American website ties together the Great Reset advocated by the WEF and the Biden administration with the push for transhumanism:

Under the new world order envisioned by the proponents of the United Nations-backed Great Reset, humans will be merged with machines and technology. Literally. Perhaps most incredibly, the Deep State globalists behind the efforts are coming out of the closet. These days, they are openly and literally proclaiming their intention to abolish private ownership of property and even fuse microchips into peoples brains that will be able to read and manipulate individuals thoughts.[iv]

Please read the preceding quote again. It aptly summarizes my research and correctly connects the Great Reset of the WEF with its push for transhumanism through which it will read and manipulate the thoughts of those under it domain.

Notice also the reference to the deep state in the United States in the preceding quote; this refers to those in the U.S. who put Biden in office and now control his presidency. These elite globalists in the U.S. and throughout the world talk openly about their plans for both transhumanism and the Great Reset.

Consider this quote from the WEF website regarding the changes they plan for our world under what the WEF calls the Fourth Industrial Revolutions, their term for transhumanism:

The Fourth Industrial Revolution represents a fundamental change in the way we live, work and relate to one another. It is a new chapter in human development, enabled by extraordinary technology advances commensurate with those of the first, second and third industrial revolutions. These advances are merging the physical, digital and biological worlds in ways that create both huge promise and potential peril. The speed, breadth and depth of this revolution is forcing us to rethink how countries develop, how organisations create value and even what it means to be human.[v]

Though it may sound benign on the surface, the purpose of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is not to benefit humanity, no, not at all. Its the vehicle through which the WEF, along with globalists at the United Nations and in America, hope to force people into accepting a tyrannical and Marxist government through which they intend to control the lives of everyone on the planet.

The Great Reset agenda necessitates augmenting humans in such a way that will allow those in power to monitor and control their behavior via external computer networks and artificial intelligence.

How will these powerbrokers augment the makeup of human beings so as to merge them with machines? To answer that question, we begin with the words of Klaus Schwab of the WEF. In a January 10, 2016 interview, he explained that human beings will soon receive a chip in their body in order to merge [them] with the digital world. Below is another excerpt from this interview:

Schwab: And at first, we will implant them in our clothes. And then we could imagine that we will implant them in our brains, or in our skin. And in the end, maybe, here will be a direct communication between our brain and the digital world. What we see is a kind of fusion of the physical, digital, and biological world.

Interviewer: We call someone, we dont even have the reflex to take a device, its done naturally, the technique continues in the body. Schwab: Yes.

Interviewer: When will happen? Schwab: Certainly in the next ten years.[vi]

The following two points sum up the essence of transhumanism:

The process includes augmenting humans into something quite different than what God created as well as implanting a device inside them that will connect them to the digital world outside them.

The plan consists of connecting humans to the digital world, such as a supercomputer, that will monitor their behavior for the ultimate purpose of controlling it through the blending of people with machines.

At this point, however, it appears that these globalists might have a problem.

How do they put such a system in place? The vast majority of people would readily reject the changes that I have described in this post and rightly so. Some might desire the enhanced artificial intelligence that will come as the result of transhumanism, but not everything else that would come with it.

In part 2 of this series entitled Transhumanism: Is It Already Here? I will describe the deceitful plan of the transhumanists that they intend to use in augmenting human beings into something currently unrecognizable. Please keep reading as I continue to connect the dots.

My book, The Triumph of the Redeemed-An eternal Perspective that Calms Our Fears in Perilous Times, is now available on Amazon. Its written to provide hope for the perilous times in which we live.

[i] David Tippett, What is transhumanism and how does it affect you? April 10, 2018, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/transhumanism-advances-in-technology-could-already-put-evolution-into-hyperdrive-but-should-they/

[Ii] Dr. Carrie Madej video from April 19, 2021, https://thenewamerican.com/covid-shots-dna-transhumanism-with-dr-madej-2/ In this excellent video, she goes into great detail regard the threat of transhumanism.

[iii] Sarwant Singh, Transhumanism And The Future Of Humanity: 7 Ways The World Will Change By 2030, Nov. 20, 2017, Forbes website at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2017/11/20/transhumanism-and-the-future-of-humanity-seven-ways-the-world-will-change-by-2030/?sh=35b71a4d7d79

[iv] Alex Newman, Great Reset Transhumanism: Merging Man & Machine, December 2, 2020, @ https://thenewamerican.com/great-reset-transhumanism-merging-man-machine/

[v] Fourth Industrial Revolution page @ https://www.weforum.org/focus/fourth-industrial-revolution

[vi] Text is taken from a video within an article by Peter Koenig, The Super-Capitalists Depopulation Agenda, May 17, 2021. At: https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-depopulation-has-started/5745289

See more here:
Transhumanism: The Plot to Control Your Life! - Jonathan Brentner

Korean-born philosopher Byung-Chul Han completed his dissertation on Heideggers concept of Stimmung (mood) in 1994, and his early books were meditations on death and dying. Since the 2010 publication of Mdigkeitsgesellschaft (English title, The Burnout Society), now translated into a dozen languages, hes produced a steady stream of slender, poetic works of cultural commentary that track the transformations of human experience weve suffered as we adjust to the digital age. My task as a philosopher, he says, is to explain what kind of society we live in. Philosophy is truth-speaking.

In Burnout Society, Han contrasted the immunological paradigm of the twentieth century with the neuronal culture of the twenty-first. In a politics of immunology, everything foreign is simply combated. . . . even if it has no hostile intentions, even if it poses no danger, it is eliminated on the basis of its Otherness. Weve outgrown all that, we in our twenty-first-century adulthood. More and more, Han claimed, we live in a society where otherness and foreignness have disappeared. Foreign has morphed into exotic, and weve become tourists of difference. Along the way, weve outgrown barriers. The old world was marked by borders, transitions, thresholds, fences, ditches, and walls that prevent universal change and exchange. The twenty-first century began a decade early with the removal of a wallin Berlinand globalized hybridization has since displaced the regime of immunization. We now live in a world without walls.

Hans reflections havent aged well. Walls are back in style, partly in reaction to a real pandemic. But his claim that our neuronal age will be plagued by pathologies deriving from an excess of positivity is more plausible. In place of threats from the Other, we face too-much-of-the-Same, surplus positivity. Han has in mind both the homogenization of culture and the surfeit of goods, the overproduction, overachievement, and overcommunication enjoyed by globalizations winners. Excess hasnt made us happy, or even free. Were no longer subjects of a Foucauldian disciplinary society; rather, hedonism has itself become a principle of domination, represented for Han by that omnipresent data-collector, the smartphone. A new form of human existence has emerged, the self-projecting, even self-optimizing subject, driven not by external compulsion but by the internal pressure to achieve and to display achievement. Always on, we suffer from exhaustion, fatigue, and suffocationin a word, Mdigkeit or burnout.

This overstressed achievement self in the neuronal age is in the background of Hans 2021 The Palliative Society, an elegant Jeremiad against algophobia, the fear of pain that now occupies our souls. Humans have always avoided painful conditions, but today our instinct to recoil has been institutionalized. Pain has no meaning; it lies entirely outside the symbolic system. Playgrounds are cushioned or cordoned for safety. Entertainment and social media keep us in a continuous state of anesthesia. We avoid the disturbances of art, reducing beauty to the likeable. Conflict and controversial thinkers are muted. Transhumanist philosopher David Pearce hopes well eventually eliminate the soul-destroying cruelties of traditional modes of love.

Algophobia detaches us from the Other, who is inevitably a source of discomfort. Our technologies train our seeing and regulate our reactions to what we see. Film permits an exceptional degree of cold cruelty, crueler than the ancient arena because more abstract and distant. We comfortably watch real and fake violence, becoming purveyors and consumers of violence porn that has the effect of an analgesic. Insensitive to the pain of others, we adopt the passivity and indifference of the silent spectator. Images overwhelm us, but instead of shocking us to action, they erode our capacity for shock: Our attention is so fragmented that such shock is impossible. Our souls form calluses.

Overshadowing our flight from pain is a universal imperative to Be Happy. We still experience pain, but pain isnt allowed to speak; its never given room to become eloquent, to rise to heights of protest or passion. Pain is depoliticized. It retreats to soothing screens or visits the doctors office for relief. The palliative society thus brings the end of revolution. Palliation transforms the exercise of power. Once upon a time, rulers ruled by inflicting bodily pain. According to Foucault, modern disciplinary power formed human beings into cogs in the industrial machine. The genius of palliative power is that it doesnt seem to be power at all; it feels like liberation. In the quest for self-realization, the achievement selves of the palliative society cheerily exploit themselves. Power decouples from pain and repression: Smart power operates in seductive and permissive ways. We live in a smart panopticon: We are constantly asked to communicate our needs, wishes and preferences. . . . Total communication, total surveillance, pornographic exposure and panoptic surveillance coincide. Freedom and surveillance become indistinguishable.

It cant work. Happiness must be fractured to be genuine. Without pain, happiness becomes reified into a boring repetition of the same. Pain bears happiness. . . . Any intensity is painful. Passion binds pain and happiness together. As Nietzsche knew, we cant think or discover truth without pain. Algophobia keeps us from scraping against the sharp edges of reality. We know it cant work, so we seek outlets from the numbing pressure of painless happiness. Girls cut themselves. Young men seek out fight clubs and gyms. Nietzsches anesthetized last men might suddenly turn into barbaric first men, recovering the ancient joys of pain-suffering and pain-inflicting heroism.

Hans books have been described as a form of philosophical haiku, and he illuminates by offering flashes in the darkness. Often enough, what Han exposes is recognizable. I came away from The Palliative Society thinking William Jamesian thoughts, with an ecclesial twist. James hoped to end war, yet, knowing that war alone arouses passions, virtues, and strengths that cannot be achieved in any other human endeavor, he searched for a moral equivalent of war. Heres one of the many ways the church can shore up and rebuild: Remember we cant be disciples of the crucified without carrying a cross of our own. Call Christians, especially young Christians, to strenuous, grueling, and, yes, painful service to the kingdom.

Peter J. Leithart is President ofTheopolis Institute.

First Thingsdepends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Clickhereto make a donation.

Clickhereto subscribe toFirst Things.

Read the original post:
The Power of Pain | Peter J. Leithart - First Things

Oh, hi! Long time no see! My name is Robbie and Im another white man behind a desk, and things are pretty bad, huh?

In case you never go outside and have these videos sent to your door on a USB delivered by a carrier pigeon, you might have missed a wee bit of a scuffle outside New Zealand Parliament. It turns out there were some folks there with some really interesting opinions! Would you like to meet them? I bet you wouldnt!

Its time to play Meet That Protestor!

[Spanish Flea starts playing. Robbie pulls out a thin old-school microphone.]

Bachelorette number one is Chantelle Baker! With nearly 100,000 Facebook followers, Chantelle well outnumbers her dad, former leader of the New Conservatives, who only has 52,000 Facebook followers. Embarrassing! Chantelle enjoys sharing live streams of peace and love that include other protestors saying, Were not leaving till we hang them. Baker disavows those protestors in the strongest possible terms by joining them and supporting their protest.

READ MORE:* The outing of an Internet troll showed women can win* The internet is no safer three years on from the Christchurch terror attack * We have failed to rein in social media's misinformation

Bachelor number two! Its the Freedom and Rights Coalition with 44,000 followers on Facebook. No wonder people love them! After all, they stand for Freedom and Rights. This might be Brian Tamakis group, but unfortunately, he cant make it because of all that breaking the law business. But dont worry! He could be your pen pal! The man writes beautiful letters warning New Zealanders that were heading down the path of UN ideology of socialism. After a walk down the path of socialism, why not go for a romantic walk down the beach with the Freedom and Rights Coalition!

Supplied/WhiteManBehindADesk

Satirist Robbie Nicol AKA White Man Behind A Desk details Facebook and radicalisation.

Bachelor number three is Counterspin Media NZ! Why not form a thruple with Kelvyn Alp and Hannah Spierer? Together you can fight the Deep State and the transhumanist agenda, and youre bound to win, because those things dont exist! Alp has lots to teach you about the moon landings, and hed love to buy you dinner with the money he makes selling weight loss pills and fraudulent vaccine passports. Maybe hell even tell you about the violent coup hes got planned. Shhh! Its a secret, but hell probably yell it to you in a livestreamed video being watched by police.

Congratulations! Youve made it to the protest! Now that youre here, why not get to know someone new? Introducing Bachelor number four, far-right white supremacist group Action Zealandia! Parliament changed security arrangements after video appeared to show these folks gaining access to a construction site in Bowen House. When theyre not helping protestors become Nazis, Action Zealandia enjoys organising terror cells, fighting hate speech laws, and grooming teenagers to join their white supremacist organisation! Action Zealandia isnt allowed to have a Facebook page any more, and Ill give you 10 guesses why.

What a friendly bunch.

Obviously, thats just a sample - theres also Billy Te Kahika, NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science, or, more accurately, speaking without science, and a bunch of people exhausted and angry with Covid and the world in general who didnt know what else to do.

But! Were not going to be talking about police decisions in response to the protest or Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard playing games with the sound-system. Instead, were going to talk about how the protestors got there, because while there are a number of different factors that led people there, theres one thing that stands out above all else: Facebook.

Founder, CEO, and controlling shareholder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg was determined to get people vaccinated. He and his wife, Priscilla Chan, have invested a lot of time and money into vaccination programmes, which makes it even sadder that his wee side-hustle, Facebook, turned so many people against them. Its like if Ronald McDonald became obsessed with encouraging healthy eating, but refused to give up his day job.

Facebook makes money in a similar way to a newspaper: users write content, Facebook publishes that content, they editorialise that content with an algorithm, and then they sell ad space around that content. For context, these ad sales accounted for nearly all of Facebooks $86 billion USD revenue in 2020.

Unlike a newspaper, Facebook doesnt pay its writers, fact-check its content, or spend much money on editorial oversight. The good part of this system is that you get to hear from people that newspapers wouldnt normally publish. The bad part is that you get to hear from people that newspapers wouldnt normally publish.

For example, last month was the three-year anniversary of the Christchurch shooting, which was streamed live on Facebook and seen by thousands of people.

In response to the shooting, Facebook re-established the GIFCT as an independent organisation with their frenemies Microsoft, YouTube, and Twitter. The GIFCT is focused on removing TVEC. Acronyms are fun! Unless they stand for Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism or Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content. Then theyre no fun at all.

The operating board of the GIFCT is made up of Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube (owned by Google). Its sort of like a cigarette company setting up a council to help us deal with all the lung cancer. Thanks, corporations! Where would we be without you helping us deal with the problem you cause for profit?

When one of these companies identifies a piece of content as TVEC through vague and unknowable means, they give it a hash, pop it on the database of hashes, and it goes out to the Hash Sharing Consortium. Now, the Hash Sharing Consortium might sound like a nerdy group of stoners, but it isnt. Its different.

Basically, tech companies give TVEC a digital fingerprint, so all the other major online service providers can be like, Oop, someones trying to upload a terrorist video. And they stop them from uploading the content.

People can then slightly edit that content and reupload it and then someone has to report the new content, get that new content uploaded to the hash database, and the whole process starts again. Its kind of like whack-a-mole, only instead of a mole, its the worst thing youve ever seen in your life.

The way these OSPs or Online Service Providers decide what counts as terrorist content is haphazard at best. When New Zealands Chief Censor, David Shanks, decides what content should be illegal, its an extremely delicate process. He has to decide whether sharing extremist imagery is an important part of exposing New Zealanders to the horrors of the world, or whether it may cause further harm. According to the Guardian, Youve got to protect freedom of expression, he says.

Youve got to protect this vital ability to have opinions, to spread them, to access information of any kind.

Dawid Sokoowski/Unsplash

In response to the shooting, Facebook re-established the GIFCT as an independent organisation with their frenemies Microsoft, YouTube, and Twitter, writes Robbie Nicol.

The only reason to diverge from that principle, ever, he says, is to prevent harm something he consults groups ranging from medical experts to high school students about.

Facebook has a different approach.

As of 2019, Facebook was paying people US$15 an hour to look at up to 400 posts a day of the worst stuff imaginable: beheadings, animal abuse, hate speech, and pictures of you with the flash on.

It was then up to these underpaid, traumatised workers to decide the cultural and political context of each post from countries all over the world, sometimes in languages they didnt understand. This led to genuine Nazi content being left up and people getting blocked for sharing photos of Taika Waititi from Jojo Rabbit. Thats not a joke, by the way, that actually happened.

This work is supplemented by machine learning that works perfectly. According to the Wall Street Journal, in leaked documents scientists pointed out the companys ability to detect the content in comments was bad in English, and basically non-existent elsewhere. So, as I said, perfect.

This work is also supplemented by a list of dangerous individuals and organisations, the terrorist section of which seems to be heavily copy-and-pasted from the US governments list of terrorists. This is good because the US government is totally unbiased and completely trusted by every country in the world.

And while these companies often leave up content they claim to have banned, theyre also taking down content that they shouldnt. In June 2017, YouTube announced a plan to combat terrorist content online, and it worked well. In fact, you could argue it worked too well.

To quote Wired: The quick flagging and removal of content appears successful. Unfortunately, we know this because of devastating false-positives: the removal of content used or uploaded by journalists, investigators, and organisations curating materials from conflict zones and human rights crises for use in reporting, potential future legal proceedings, and the historical record.

The thing is, censorship is hard. Its complicated and political and has enormous ramifications for democracy. Facebook isnt doing it properly, and theyre not being nearly transparent enough about how they do it.

But even worse than Facebooks inability to effectively remove harmful content is how they editorialise all the stuff thats left.

To understand why Facebook is such a great platform for radicalisation it helps to look at the changes they made to their algorithm in 2018. When I say the Facebook algorithm, I mean the code they use to decide what pieces of content they promote.

In the same way that a newspaper uses an editor to decide what goes on the front page, Facebook uses an algorithm to decide what goes at the top of your newsfeed.

Whats fun about the changes they made in 2018 is that Facebook pretended they were making these changes for the greater good. Unfortunately, internal documents suggest that instead of making these changes for the good of humankind, they were actually making the changes to increase profit, which was shocking to everyone involved.

In 2018, Facebook was worried about declining engagement". To quote the Wall Street Journal, the fear was that eventually, users might stop using Facebook altogether. A terrifying thought.

[Insert Lionel Hutz shuddering at the idea of a world without lawyers.]

So, Facebook switched things up. Now, an angry reaction was worth five times a like; a long passionate comment was worth twice a short comment saying, Good job!; an angry rant sharing the original content was worth 30 times a like and so on.

Glen Carrie/unsplash

Facebook uses an algorithm to decide what content appears at the top of your newsfeed.

In a public letter to Facebook, BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti, the elder brother of Chelsea Peretti (FUN FACT!) complained that the change to the algorithm was forcing them to post increasingly controversial content to generate arguments in the comments.

In an internal report investigating the effects of the new algorithm on the politics of Poland, Facebook researchers wrote, One partys social media management team estimates that they have shifted the proportion of their posts from 50/50 positive/negative to 80 per cent negative, explicitly as a function of the change to the algorithm.

Staff at Facebook tried to come up with solutions, but again, quoting the Wall Street Journal, Mr Zuckerberg said he didnt want to pursue it if it reduced user engagement, according to the documents. What a piece of s....

The worlds most popular newspaper, Facebook, is a lawless hellscape that chooses its top stories based on how many complaints they get, and it turns out that has some negative consequences for the planet earth and the people who live there.

A landmark study in Germany looked at thousands of anti-refugee hate crimes and compared them to variables that might be relevant. These included wealth, demographics, support for far-right politics, newspaper sales, the number of refugees, history of hate crime and the number of protests. One variable stood out: Towns where Facebook use was higher than average reliably experienced more attacks on refugees.

Sometimes Facebooks ability to fuel hate crimes is even more extreme. Facebook was forced to admit that it played a role in inciting violence during the militarys genocidal campaign against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Just for some context here, inciting violence in a genocide is bad.

Similarly, in Ethiopia, an investigation by Vice said violence had been supercharged by the almost-instant and widespread sharing of hate speech and incitement to violence on Facebook, which whipped up peoples anger.

And then theres Covid-19. Again, Facebook wanted to stop the spread of misinformationthey gave free ads to the World Health Organisation and added links to accurate information on posts about the pandemic, but it wasnt enough to counteract the fundamental business model of Facebook. Publish content without editorial oversight and promote anything that drives engagement.

So, cool. Great. Facebook, the worlds most popular newspaper, might eventually stop publishing neo-Nazis like the folks at Action Zealandia, but they will actively promote anti-vaxxers because of all the people arguing in the comments, and once youre at the rally, Im sure there are some friendly dudes in brown shirts ready to say hi.

The problem is big, but, surprisingly, governments seem willing to tackle it anyway.

Law-makers in the EU proposed a law that would require online service providers to remove illegal content within one hour. It turned out to be pretty controversial, but as with most controversial actsthe French did it anyway. And this law doesnt just cover TVEC!

The BBC writes: Failure to remove content could attract a fine of up to 1.25m (1.1m). France's regulator, the Superior Council of the Audiovisual (CSA), will have the power to impose heftier fines of up to 4 per cent of global turnover for continuous and repeated violations.

For context, 4 per cent of Facebooks revenue in 2021 was nearly $5 billion USD. Thats quite a big fine.

The UK has put forward a white paper on statutory duty of care, arguing the platform that should be regulated not the content, including the design of the platform and the operation of the business. Secondly, the duty of care implies a risk assessment so that reasonably foreseeable harms are avoided where possible or mitigated.

Its written like that because the British are, unfortunately, British.

Here in New Zealand, were undergoing a review of content regulation and working on hate speech reform.

The Department of Internal Affairs has been put in charge of removing TVEC - forcing them to draw the line between radical politics and terrorism and the line between important journalism on the topic of terrorism and media used to promote terrorist acts.

Maybe thats something our Chief Censor and the Classification Office should decide, but there you go. Apparently, weve decided to give it to the Department of Internal Affairs, the department of government work that nobody else wanted to do.

Ultimately, we know that the GIFCT is insufficient, because social media companies are not going to voluntarily invest enough money to monitor what they share. We know that the Facebook algorithm is a worse editor than Rupert Murdoch, willing to throw anything on the front page that riles people up. And we know that this problem is not limited to Facebook, this s...show runs across multiple platforms that all basically run the same way.

But it took us a long time to figure out how to regulate television and radio and newspapers. And its going to take us a long time to figure out how to regulate the internet. These are enormous questions of democracy, and free speech, and protecting people from harm.

Everyone needs to be a part of this discussion.

So, if you wouldnt mind, maybe start a long pointless argument in the comments. Do all the different kinds of reactions you can think of. Reshare this video with a long speech youve copy-and-pasted from the internet.

Maybe that way we can get an important story on the front page.

White Man Behind A Desk is the work of satirist Robbie Nicol and playwright Finnius Teppett. See more at Patreon.com/WhiteManBehindADesk.

Read the rest here:
Facebook and radicalisation: how can we regulate the internet to prevent harm? - Stuff

The U.S. Transhumanist Party is focused onpolicyrather thanpoliticsas conventionally defined. We value initiatives and reforms that will improve the human condition for as many people as possible, with as much beneficial impact as possible and without regard for scoring political points or defeating the other side. We seek to achieve the next, greatest era of our civilization, which will require constructive solutions to the problems of our current era. All of these problems can be solved if we look away from the political trench warfare of today and up toward a far brighter future.

Ideal 1.The Transhumanist Party supports significant life extension achieved through the progress of science and technology.

Ideal 2.The Transhumanist Party supports a cultural, societal, and political atmosphere informed and animated by reason, science, and secular values.

Ideal 3.The Transhumanist Party supports efforts to use science, technology, and rational discourse to reduce and eliminate various existential risks to the human species.

Find the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform as Article VI of our Constitution or in this standalone presentation. Below is just a selection of some of our key values and goals, as determined by votes of our members, but we have many other ideas as well, and we also frame the ideas below with a great deal of thought and detail.

Individual privacy and liberty over how to apply technology to ones personal life. [Article VI, Section I]

Tolerance and inclusivity of all individuals of all races, genders, classes, religions, creeds, national origins, and other characteristics.[Article VI, Section II]

Support of most technologies but opposition to certain detrimental technologies (e.g., weapons of mass destruction, privacy-infringing technologies, engineering of new pathogens).[Article VI, Section III]

Opposition to nuclear weapons, support of complete nuclear disarmament, even if unilateral.[Article VI, Section IV]

Support of research on eradicating disease.[Article VI, Section V]

Morphological freedom.[Article VI, Section VI]

Support of all values and efforts toward cultivation of science, technology, reason.[Article VI, Section VII]

Support of all emerging technologies that improve the human condition, including:

Autonomous vehicles

Electric vehicles

Economical solar power

Safe nuclear power

Hydroelectricity

Geothermal power

Applications for the sharing of durable goods

Artificial intelligence

Biotechnology

Nanotechnology

Robotics

Rapid transit

3D printing

Vertical farming

Electronic devices to detect and respond to trauma

Beneficial genetic modification of plants, animals, and human beings[Article VI, Section IX]

Ending the drug war.[Article VI, Section XIV]

Reforming the prison system to reduce the incarcerated population.[Article VI, Section XV]

Universal Basic Income (UBI) not conditional on life circumstances, occupations, other income, or wealth.[Article VI, Section XVI]

Reasonable measures to fund space travel.[Article VI, Section XVII]

Using science and technology to eliminate disabilities.[Article VI, Section XVIII]

Ending the two-party duopoly.[Article VI, Section XIX]

Life extension / anti-aging.[Article VI, Sections V, VIII, IX]

Removal of barriers to medical research and deployment of treatments.[Article VI, Sections LXXIX, LXXX, LXXXI, LXXXII]

Reducing the national debt.[Article VI, Section XXXV]

Alternative sources of energy and their technological implementations. [Article VI, Section XXXVIII]

Increasing the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).[Article VI, SectionLXXVII]

Support for political, economic, and cultural experimentation e.g., seasteads and micronations.[Article VI, SectionXXII]

Childrens rights proportional to their rational faculties. [Article VI, Sections XXIII, LXII]

Animal welfare (but not animal liberation). [Article VI, Section XXIV]

Opposition to intolerant, rights-violating, anti-technological, and compulsion-imposing doctrines, be they religious or secular.[Article VI, Sections XXV, XL, LXIII]

Here is the original post:
Values of the U.S. Transhumanist Party U.S ...

U.S. Transhumanist Party Putting Science, Health, and Technology at the Forefront of American Politics

The U.S. Transhumanist Party was founded on October 7, 2014, and has since grown to over 3,600 members.

Learn about future technology and trends that will affect the lives of everyone you care about.

Join us weekly at the Virtual Enlightenment Salon to learn from other Transhumanists.

Join our party. Membership is free and open to everyone worldwide.

Find out the Values of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and read our extensive, member-generated Platform.

Read our Constitution and the Transhumanist Bill of Rights.

For an overview of what the U.S. Transhumanist Party stands for, watch Chairman Gennady Stolyarov IIs address at RAADfest 2017, The U.S. Transhumanist Party: Pursuing a Peaceful Political Revolution for Longevity.

Read Chairman Stolyarovs 60-page essay, The United States Transhumanist Party and the Politics of Abundance, published as Chapter 5 ofThe Transhumanism Handbook, a major compilation of transhumanist thought edited by Newton Lee.

Official USTP Merchandise Support Our Cause!

(Many Products to Choose From)

(Transfer Design to other Products)

See the rest here:
U.S. Transhumanist Party Official Website U.S ...

While lockdowns were supposed to be temporary initially just a couple of weeks to flatten the curve nearly two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, theres no end in sight. Thanksgiving was once again canceled in many parts of the U.S., and many government leaders again urged residents to cancel their Christmas celebrations too. The latest Omicron mutation has given bureaucrats additional reasons to unleash their power and raise panic.

What many still dont realize is that the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has little to do with the spread of an actual virus, and everything to do with the planned global takeover and implementation of a technocratic agenda known as The Great Reset.

Universal mask mandates, social distancing, business shutdowns, online working and learning, and quarantining of asymptomatic individuals are all forms of soft indoctrination to get us used to an entirely new, and unfathomably inhumane, way of life devoid of our usual rights and freedoms.

Klaus Schwab is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. Schwab announced the World Economic Forums Great Reset Agenda in June 2020,1 which includes stripping people of their privately owned assets.

In addition to being a poster boy for technocracy, Schwab also has a strong transhumanist bend, and wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a hallmark of which is the merger of man and machine, biology and digital technology.2

According to Winter Oak a British nonprofit social justice organization Schwab and his globalist accomplices are using the COVID-19 pandemic to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will.

While the Great Reset plan is being sold as a way to make life fair and equitable for all, the required sacrifices do not apply to the technocrats running the system.

On the contrary, as noted by Patrick Wood in an interview with James Delingpole, the wealth distribution and circular economies promoted by the technocratic elite will never benefit the people, because what theyre really referring to is the redistribution of wealth from the people, to themselves.

Evidence of this can be seen in the decision to allow big box stores to remain open during the pandemic while forcing small businesses to close, no matter how small the infection risk.

Theres really no rhyme or reason for such a decision, other than to shift wealth away from small, private business owners to multinational corporations. More than half of all small business owners fear their businesses wont survive.3

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the collective wealth of 651 billionaires in the U.S. rose by more than $1 trillion (36%).4 To put their current wealth in perspective, not only did the number of billionaires in America swell to 745 during the pandemic, but their assets grew by $2.1 trillion.5

According to the online newsletter Inequality, The $5 trillion in wealth now held by 745 billionaires is two-thirds more than the $3 trillion in wealth held by the bottom 50 percent of U.S. households estimated by the Federal Reserve Board.

As noted by Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, Never before has America seen such an accumulation of wealth in so few hands.6

Thats technocratic wealth redistribution for you. Ultimately, The Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: the technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no voice.

That the COVID-19 pandemic is a form of class war is also evident in the way rules are enforced. While citizens are threatened with fines and arrest if they dont do as theyre told, those who lay down the rules repeatedly break them without repercussions.

If you need more evidence that were in the middle of a technocratic takeover, look no further than the mass vaccination agenda and the promotion of fake, lab-grown meat. Bill Gates, another frontline technocrat, has repeatedly stated that we have no choice but to vaccinate everyone against COVID-19.

Naturally, hes heavily invested in said vaccine and stands to gain handsomely from a global mass vaccination campaign. Technocrats are nothing if not self-serving, all while pretending to be do-gooders much like COVID Claus in our little video.

Eventually, your personal identification, medical records, finances and who knows what else will all be tied together and embedded somewhere on or in your body. Every possible aspect of your biology and life activities will be trackable 24/7. You will also be digitally tied into the internet of things, which eventually will include smart cities.

All the different parts of this giant population control grid fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The global vaccination agenda ties into the biometric identity agenda, which ties into the cashless society agenda, which ties into the social credit system agenda, which ties into the social engineering agenda and so on.

When you follow this experiment to its ultimate conclusion, you find all of humanity enslaved within a digitized prison with no way out. Those who rebel will simply have their digital-everything restricted or shut down.

The rise of fake, lab-grown meat is a puzzle piece of The Great Reset agenda too. According to the World Economic Forum, lab-grown, cultured meat is a more sustainable alternative to conventional livestock, and in the future, well all be eating a lot less meat. As noted on its website:7

As the world looks to reset its economy, along with food systems, in a cleaner way post-pandemic, one more sustainable solution coming to fruition is cultured meat Cultured meat takes much less time to grow, uses fewer of the planets resources, and no animals are slaughtered.

But dont think for a second that this has anything to do with environmental protection. No, its about controlling the food supply and preventing food independence.

Already, multinational corporations have taken over a majority of the global food supply with their patented genetically engineered seeds. Patented cultured meats and seafood will allow private companies to control the food supply in its entirety, and by controlling the food supply, they will control countries and entire populations.

Public health will undoubtedly suffer from this dietary switch, as canola and safflower oil8 are primary sources of fat in these fake meat concoctions. Vegetable oils are loaded with linoleic acid (LA), an omega-6 fat that, in excess, acts as a metabolic poison, causing severe mitochondrial dysfunction, insulin resistance, decreased NAD+ levels, obesity and a radical decrease in your ability to generate cellular energy.

Our LA consumption 150 years ago was between 2 and 3 grams per day. Today it is 10 to 20 times higher. If fake meat becomes a staple, the average LA intake is bound to increase even further.

The Great Reset is well underway, but its not yet too late to stop it. Enough people have to see it and understand it, though. And then they must act. If we want to prevent The Great Reset from destroying life as we know it, we must view civil disobedience as a duty. We must resist it from every angle.

We must reclaim our sovereignty, our right to live free, to open our businesses and move about freely. We must communicate with our elected leaders and demand they not infringe on our constitutional rights. We have to engage in political processes and help educate our local sheriffs of their role as defenders of the constitution. We may also need to support legal challenges.

A small step in the right direction that you can take right now would be to celebrate Christmas like you normally would this week, and not allow the Klaus Schwabs and Bill Gateses of the world rob you of valuable time with family and friends.

There are no guarantees in this life, and for many, this will be their last Christmas. So, spend it well. Cherish life by actually living it and spending it with those you love. Refusing to give up our humanity is how we resist The Great Reset.

Source link

Read more:
Another Year Without A Family Christmas? - newsconcerns