AI and Trans-humanism, which one (or both) is a graver threat to humanity?

gl69m

Member
Been wanting to recreate this thread and expand just haven't gotten around to it till now. I believe that some faction(s) of transhumanist elites are most likely behind the whole 'covid'/agenda 20/30/50 insanity. I started this thread well over 3 years ago (1/29/2018), and there's no doubt we are in knee deep of the Agenda 21 campaign. As usual, not gonna correct links, just pasting and copying from Way Back Machine for now. I figured this belonged in this sub-forum, doesn't really fit in the other categories, transhumanism (and AI, nano-tech even) figures heavily in the coming decades as far as health and medical treatments/technologies.

Post #1 (original thread, from gl69m)
Has any body been checking anything out on these two topics lately, AI and trans-humanism (trans-h would also include genetic engineering and bio-cybernetics)?

Been wanting to start a thread like this for some time now, like well I should have done this years and years ago, for all I know it may already be too late. I think this is the most important topic/threat we face in the world today: in terms of any so-called “freedoms” we have left in this world, or even whether humans, humanity will even survive the planned changes coming the NWO seems to have coming. I will make a case that it is “science fact” now (some of it) and not “science fiction”, but perhaps I could be wrong and any super AI/trans-human realities may still be many (or many many) years away, but if there is any chance whatsoever of opposing or stopping it, now is the time! I think there is plenty of technology already here to get these things rolling into place (to impliment depopulation for instance, which is already ongoing in so-called 'third world' for many years now), all that is needed to implement it into hyperdrive is the hyper tribal hive mentality (here I am really referring to “western” or “white” culture, globally) the PTBs are pushing to be coaxed into extreme defense/then attack mode, i.e. the 'immigrant crises'.


There are some earlier threads that touch upon these subjects, but they don't seem to question into it very far, nor sound very much in the way of alarm bells. I think this topic deserves extreme alarm bells (scrutiny), and I will argue it needs a huge amount of protest world wide, to counteract and oppose these changes if it is at all possible: but yes it will not be easy at all to convince people to oppose it (even for their own or children's/descendants sake), without sounding like a pure chicken little sky is falling fearmongering. I think the risk of possible extinction of humanity (or how we are now at least) far outweighs the possible ramifications & risk of sounding like a fearmonger, so I will get this thread off and running then.


Here is a list of some recent robot and AI vids on Youtube, does anyone here see that there is anything of major concern? There should be throngs of people online stating how massively incorrect all this push for technology is, doesn’t anyone remember all these crazy movies so many of us have grown up with??!! Most people seem to be cool with it, think it is all just bitchin'! From what I see online nowadays. On top of that, most sheople are asleep to this threat because they're caught up in the 'terror' threat with all the psyops, 9/11 and even well before that too.

This robot can jump gaps and do back flips, who knows how much more advanced the robots are that we have not seen yet? I'd be hard pressed, I don't think this is CGI IMO.

I robot del futuro sono gia tra noi ! - 2018 - www.informaicittadin.it (Of the future are already among us)


You Tube



World's Top3 Humanoid Robots - Asimo vs HPR-4 vs NAO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_m56irWKeI


Real World Terminators in development by the military, I wonder how much of this they have ready in underground military bunkers, awaiting the orders to use them on the surface?
US Army Future Most Advanced Robots DARPA Real Terminator Battle US Military Robots Full Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmh0fp6SOSw


AI Robots Full 2018 Documentary ~ Taking Over The World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_HotWXkXy0


The Dangers of Artificial Intelligence - Robot Sophia makes fun of Elon Musk - A.I. 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzdY3gwE0WQ


Artificial Intelligence: it will kill us | Jay Tuck | TEDxHamburgSalon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrNs0M77Pd4



This vid talks about programmer bias in AI written algorithms. First algorithm he discusses is about how a husky dog was mis-identified as a wolf because almost all the wolf photos used in the algorithm written programming used wolf pictures that were in the snow, and the husky dog photo was in the snow. COMPASS criminal sentencing algorithm (04:10 in), used in 13 states, a study shows that black people are 77% likely to be deemed by the algorithm as “at risk” for recidivism (repeating an offense after release from jail/prison) of violent crime than whites are. Not much racist bias in the programmers right? In lawsuits against this type of AI usage for case back log sentencing and parole cases, defendants were told they were not denied due process if the programs were used “properly' but then were not allowed to have the source codes of the algorithms examined, imagine that.

The Real Reason to be Afraid of Artificial Intelligence | Peter Haas | TEDxDirigo


You Tube

Haas states at the end of his talk (highly paraphrasing/interpreting here), “we need not fear killer robots, we need to make robots more like people and people not become more like robots”. This highly depends on who is making the robots and programming them. Also he says we have to fear our own “intellectual laziness” in programming, more than fearing the machines themselves; but really in my estimation it is not the intellectual laziness of these people (the AI makers) to be feared, it is their biases, racist and any other type of biases that they have (about who is a desirable human and who isn't) that should be the most disturbing. And most importantly, it is the directions and manipulations of the so-called PTBs and their intentions for the implementation of this technology that we should really fear the most.

Another thing is, are any of the people creating or directing this technology, are they misanthropes?

Misanthrope- quick google definition-
mis·an·thrope
ˈmis(ə)nˌTHrōp,ˈmiz(ə)nˌTHrōp/
noun
noun: misanthrope; plural noun: misanthropes; noun: misanthropist; plural noun: misanthropists

  1. a person who dislikes humankind and avoids human society.
synonyms:
hater of mankind, hater, cynic;

Of course for conscious and awake non-white people (counter-racists), in a global system of RWS, and with the threat of both AI and trans-humanism (if indeed the primary power of these reside in “white” hands) (i.e. depopulation agendas also), they have the most to be concerned about. For up to 90% (or more) of the worlds people on the globe now, it has to be of the utmost importance to deal with this issue and to challenge it with all their might. I don't want to be alarming, but ignoring and not acting about this issue seems to be an extremely unwise choice in my estimation.

And to be probably more accurate too, a certain percentage of “whites” (not that I know what that % is, but any % should be enough to fucking wake some sheople up) also face depopulation targeting, as “collateral damage”, and I would say not by some nefarious alleged immigrant (non-whites) taking over bullshit meme that has been promoted for so many years now; these memes in my view is nothing but a very specific strategy to increase racism and racist attitudes in whites to the fever pitch % necessary to have firm support and absolute minimum resistance to the AI/trans-human depopulation agendas; which will primarily target non-whites (in my view), specifically blacks the most, and then secondly most any darker skinned non-whites not deemed as black. This is just the logical extension of a survival strategy to avoid (or at least the fear of) “white genetic annihilation” by the white supremacist core of the NWO. I will expand on this later on in the thread.


Now supposedly this robot, Sophia, was granted citizenship by Saudi Arabia, have to wonder if that is just a huge ruse to peak interest (or disgust) about AI. Sure is weird, in Saudi Arabia they supposedly gave a “white” robot the first AI citizenship, well I guess the Saudi elite are pretty much the closest to white (accepted as at least passing for white) among all the middle east and Arab nations in general.

Meet Robot Sophia as Saudi Arabia Becomes First Country To Grant Citizenship To a Robot


You Tube

This video here the voice of Sophia (in this video and the next one listed) sounds a little too human, I mean scripted and voice acted: I think this may be a female actress conversing the lines into the voice of Sophia, and conversing directly with the “Powder” looking robotic like creator dude, from an isolated studio room in real time. Just a conjecture, but the the robot talking about taking over and extincting humanity, seems a bit to in your face flippant really, I hope that's not real AI consciousness in this robot, that would be really scary. Perhaps it is all just propaganda/fearmongering?, or are they perhaps really serious about it? I will try to summarize a few possible theories of PTB factions and intent a little later.
Robot Sophia Got Shut Down by her Creator


You Tube
One black robot that I could find, but the robot is only a bust, why not a full sized black or brown android like Sophia? I would say obvious racism at work there, some people might be offended at suggesting that could be racist of course. On the other hand, they might feel relieved that they are not represented thus far as fully replaceable as a human like perhaps Sophia is representing, who knows.
Bina 48 Meets Bina Rothblatt - Part One


You Tube



Cool robot built by a 20 year old black guy in South Africa, built in just two weeks by thrown away material and used electronic parts. This guy should be working for a tech company, whether he has a degree or not, no way I could create what he has there. It may not seem like a really great robot he has there, but imagine if he had serious materials to work with! I'm sure there are tons more of these intelligent and self motivated inventor types out there, in Africa, South America, Central America Mexico South East Asia, maybe here in the U.S. too; most if not all of them are not getting the attention and access they need to further their skills and talents.
Nas Daily : He Built A Robot From Trash!!


You Tube




More possible racist AI algorithm creation and programming?
'A beauty contest was judged by AI and the robots didn't like dark skin'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsvK0lVYu5M
And of course the most superior than though not racist (gtfoh) favorite Youtube blog stars of the alt right, weighs in on the racist AI beauty pageant,
Red Ice Live - Robots Judge Beauty Contest & Prefer Mostly Europeans


You Tube

oh no, can't be racist, white algorithm designer = 99% white beauty winners, can't possibly be racist, no way, and it was supposedly 75% white photos submitted, so there, can't be biased, sheesh! They say non-whites should write their own algorithms. True of course, but even if they did though (or probably have already), some dedicated white supremacist “intel” personnel would quite likely (at least attempt to) sabotage their efforts. But that is definitely what's needed for non-white people, their inclusion in the AI/trans-humanism movement, or non-whites will be faced with pure extinction if this movement succeeds in their depopulation agendas. Can't be any pussyfooting around with this notion, burying heads in the sand won't save anybody when it comes to this shit.

Of course I think this movement (AI/trans), needs to be seriously opposed with all humanly possible effort, even for the majority of the white underclass here, but in the more “developed' world, i.e. western civ, I don't see this happening, primarily because they are still majority white and white supremacist dominated.



In this video from the Advise Show, the host Phil shows and discusses a short clip from a white woman (presumably from Jersey or NYC? By her accent) (0:30-2:06, woman's short and extremely revealing racist rant). Don't know how her video ended up on the “WORLDSTARHIPHOP.COM” site. She just thinks it's so refreshing that Trump made those comments, he's the bomb, she tells her “peeps” peace out, not ripping off ebonics lingo much is she?? She says “we all thought, we all said it” (in private with no non-white people around, she referring to all white people of course??).

Trump Supporting Becky Is Estactic At Hearing Haitian & African Nations Being Called Sh*tholes


You Tube


This woman is not exactly well codified as a racist is she?, it's glaringly obvious (IMO) that her hatred for immigrants is nothing but very thinly disguised hatred for all dark skinned people, plain and simple; and she hates them regardless of them being American born or not. Can anyone seriously disagree with that, am I wrong about that??

Yes, the host here Phillip S. from the Advise Show does say inflammatory stuff about whites, this woman, and Donald Trump. He also frequently uses words like “neanderthug”, but I fail to see many white people being really offended nor affected by such a term, certainly not from an internet video. That might be different if you were being called that constantly and harassed with that language on a daily basis by other people, non-white people more especially, in public, school or workplaces. Just being called names in and of itself would not really be racism though, and whites are simply not subjected to systemic racism despite the absurd false claims of rampant reverse-white hating racism by the so-called crypto communist three headed liberals and jews.


One thing I can say for sure is, that if you add the hate filled attitude of this woman and people with the views of “Red Ice” (Trump supporters in general), and mix this with AI/trans-humanism, you will quite certainly (100%) end up with the most racist and egregious depopulation schemes possible, no different than if the KKK would be in charge of it. For all the pretension that the 'white nationalists' or 'alt right' does not want to be painted as “extreme” racist as nazis are, that they are just “separatists”, I contend that nothing could be further from the truth, but hopefully the masses of them can and will prove me wrong. I seriously doubt that though. I think this gives further support to the counter-racist theories of counter-racists such as the C.O.W.S. Show and people like Gus T Renegade. For them, the greatest threat with this issue is, racist man, racist woman, and racist child, anybody that can be called on by the PTBs (pool of people to be educated and indoctrinated into the technology workforce) to further this agenda.

If Red Ice and this woman, in actuality does represent the majority of white people (even 51%), then how can they (counter-racists) afford not to consider all white people as possibly racist (suspects)? Especially when an issue with the highest possible stakes in on the table with the subjects of depopulation/AI/trans? They simply can't afford to take such a risk and join with significant numbers of whites, if whites can deceive them, that they may outwardly act 'liberal' but inwardly think on the “right” or “alt right”. That puts them in much too vulnerable a position to oppose these kinds of things, and the power imbalance cannot be ignored for them. I feel this is terribly wrong and tragic, shouldn't be that way, but facts and logic keeps getting in the way of “you should believe in that which makes you the happiest” (quote from a sister of mine, to me in 2004) and not to mention “wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first” (quote from my Dad, probably heard this by the time I was maybe 6 years old).



For my theories of the NWO, and possible different factions among them, and what is the end goal, or endgame with all this depop/AI/trans shit? I would divide them up probably at least three categories (but then some sub categories too):

1- utterly racist, seeks to wipe out all people not considered white, would align with KKK/nazi types. Probably they are not the majority type in the NWO. They obviously want human labor (except white people mostly probably) replaced with machines. People like David Duke or the William Luther Pierce (author of the "Turner Diaries" would likely fall in this category.

2- utterly racist, but desire to keep some non-white people around as subservient slaves, probably for sexual abuse, rape, and experimentation as well. They surly want most if not all human labor replaced with machines, probably want 90-95% depopulation. People like the Clintons and Ted Turner would likely fall in this category.

3- this faction may comprise of true misanthropes (hates all people perhaps even?), but yes still utterly racist; perhaps they actually want to even eliminate all humans, even white people or so-called 'jew supremacists', including any descendants of their own, replace us all with machines/robots/androids or and/or also with so-called enhanced or 'super-humans', they want to evolve “humans” into another species I reckon. Techno gurus and misanthropes would fall in this category, not sure who is a really good example, possibly Bill Gates maybe.

There could be a lot more factions too, but I will start off with these three. Is there a fourth faction, that actually wants to replace "white" people (so called 'Kalergi' plan?), or eliminate them and give non-white people the planet? I seriously doubt it, but perhaps it has to be considered as well.

Another potential faction, that of the machines/computer brains themselves, are they "conscious" already? Can they upgrade and write their own code even now as Jay Tuck claims? Can they (and/or will they?) decide whether humans survive or not in the coming near and farther future?

A further refinement of my theory of these factions, is the subject of trans-humanism, as it relates to genetic engineering, so-called human improvement, bio-cybernetics; this complicates these three categories and in my view probably warranted to think of there being further sub-categories of these three main groups. I will have to touch further upon that aspect of trans-humanism in later posts.


Obviously there are so many technologies they have to choose from to kill off whole swaths of people at a time, chemical bio weapons (chemtrails could be utilized with these) along with machines/drones/robots/AI, I think nukes are basically a hoax (but may be powerful enough like the MOAB {mother of all bombs}) though. The question is are they really gonna go through with it, and if so when? As I've stated earlier threads, some “depopulation” has already been ongoing for years in Middle Eastern and African countries, just when are they going to make it fully global? Perhaps the next war (WWIII) or the agenda 21? Now is not the time to keep stalling to oppose these things.



Let me know what you think about this here Let's Roll, I feel our situation may indeed be dire, and it may already be too little too late to stop the techno juggernaut, but why think of it as impossible, that might as well be suicide IMO. If any one thinks this is just straight up fearmongering, let me know that if you feel like it, and then feel free to stick your head back in the sand, no problem, sorry to disturb your sleep.
 

gl69m

Member
Post #2 (original thread, from griff)
Great thread, Glen!
icon_thumright.gif


After I have a chance to look at all you've presented, I will try to join in on the technology aspects. I'm not going to get into any of the "supremacy" aspects (not my realm), although to a certain extent, I do understand your perspective of it.

Post #3 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Felt like throwing in just a couple more videos about drones, how they can be used as weapons, police and terror as well as military:


Russian guy with machine gun armed drone, looks and sounds pretty real to me, I don't think this looks like CGI to me. I can imagine, what if this guy screwed up controlling where he was shooting this thing and end up taking himself out, how poetic justice that would be.

Prototype Quadrotor with Machine Gun!


You Tube



Small drones supposedly controlled all by AI (un piloted by humans), with facial recognition, 3 grams of explosives, precision skull strike for the kill. I hope this is science fiction, but if it's not, well....

MICRO DRONES KILLER ARMS ROBOTS - AUTONOMOUS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - WARNING !!


You Tube

Note what mr. death salesmen jim carey lookalike says at @`2:05 in,



Quote:

Trained as a team, they can penetrate buildings, cars, trains, they can evade people, bullets, pretty much any counter measure. They cannot be stopped (Robocop like applause here). Now I said, this was big, why?, because we are thinking big. Watch (he points to video screen). A 25 million dollar order, now buys this (fleet of thousands of small drones flying out bottom hatch of a transport plane). Enough to kill half a city, THE BAD HALF (!).
goes onto say that nuclear is now obsolete, well it was really a hoax anyway in my estimation, so now they roll out mass murdering flying machines for hire. Who wants to be considered part of THE BAD HALF in your city? Any takers? I wouldn't think so, at least I hope not.

He continues “Take out your entire enemy, virtually risk free”. “Just characterize him (Target Profile- age__, sex__, fitness___, uniform___, ETHNICITY____), release the swarm, and rest easy”

Notice the drones in a nazi swastika shape formation @~3:03.

Anybody still asleep after this wakeup call? Anyone getting scared yet?

He says these are available today!! Some of the comments suggest this is a sci-fi episode of some kind (“Black Mirror”?). Actually at the very beginning of the video it shows the website (an anti-military industrial SJW presumably, “http://stratoenergetics.com, Buenos Aires Event, TV Truck 02”). Even if it's not real as of yet, can there be any doubt that some company out there is capable of making this already, and maybe even like 10-20 years ago already for all we know. I mean, like the Quadrotor russian guy was saying, oh you won't see what he has in his video available on the market for another 10-15 years, I would think the opposite is true, been available already for 10-15 years (or more) before we (the public) ever see it.


Some comments also point out the likely limitations of such small drone units, but who would we want to have any access to creating, buying, or distributing such technology? I would hope people working in this area of technology do not have any racist (WS or other supremacy complex ), or extreme political ideologies, I hope a lot of people will agree with me about that. In my estimation, I have to wonder if there is anyone (higher ups, elites) who could realistically be trusted not to abuse weapon systems like these, things that could deliver perhaps chem or bio weapons also, and surveillance of course and all manner of other disruptive terrorist type applications on any community, practically anywhere in the world (except perhaps underground prepper bunkers I guess).



The only way to really hold any nefarious techno violent abuse at bay by govt. (police) and secret govt., in my view would be mass protests and demands that only just and equitable systems be made and only be made "by and for" and then put in the hands of people who are wholly morally and ethically sound and without any racist or other biases. No one failing such psychological parameters should even be allowed near such technologies and access to them. Try convincing the mass fed sheople of this, fed a daily diet of racist stereotypes and 'terror' psyops, that is the real challenge in my view. Who would get to decide the psyche testing and criteria, another thorny question of course also, has to be figured out somehow.

Post #4 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Trying to come back to this thread when I had a little time, there is just so much material that could be covered, not easy at all for me to know where to begin. I would say my purpose for the thread is to lay out the case that these particular ideologies/subjects and activities; that- AI, technology in general (hi-tech enthusiasts or proponents) and trans-humanism, does not have (and many of them probably never had, but I'm speaking more so in our time) at it's root/foundation, the best interests of humans in general at heart. More bluntly I would say it has only a small demographic of representative people's interest at heart. Needless to say, but I will lay out the case best as possible, these people are overwhelmingly racist white supremacist also, not much different from the rest of “western culture”, but that might not mean all of them desire to totally annihilate all non-white people, but some of them surly do. For any butt-hurt white race soldiers reading this, we could simply call it a “global system of injustice”, but it still means the same thing as global RWS.

My main point is that this techno revolution in my opinion, is likely to wipe all humans out, at some point, so if we don't desire that, it's probably now or never, start opposing it now, or just tuck your tail and head between your legs, or bury your head back in the sand and then just kiss all of humanity's ass goodbye. But since there is so little opposition to it that I'm aware of, why is that? Well, I think that WWIII and depopulation, and proposed technology to carry that out, can probably easily be sold to “western masses” as 'solutions' to 'overpopulation crises' and 'immigration problems': if that is, it is sold as “population reduction” targeted at non-white people, and not white people. Another words, if “white culture/identity” really does equal “white supremacist”, which I allege has been amply and unfortunately been thoroughly demonstrated on the C.O.W.S. thread; then the progression towards that would likely meet very little resistance from the “white western” masses, even from so-called 'liberal' so-called 'socialist/communist' SJWs, because of endemic racism/WS within this population.

Well, in our more supposedly 'politically correct' times, it will of course be sold (already has been ongoing for many years) in a variety of different marketed packages, racist coded packages for the “conservative” more overtly racists, and one more 'anti-racist' PC coded for the racist-light SJW crowd. Even non-white people who are more confused about RWS will likely be sold on these types of 'solutions', the ones packaged in the PC SJW marketing strategies, of which I will throw out the Agenda 21 as basically exactly one such strategy.

The strategy of the Agenda 21 marketing, is using absurdly lingoistic language towards 'development', 'sustainability' as a means of helping the poor and oppressed, code in general for non-white peoples of the world. This strategy is aimed at the SJWs and confused non-white people. I've heard an awful lot of “conservative” conspiracy theorists and yes I say racist unflinchingly, talk about agenda 21 as basically a so-called 'zionist'/'communist' plot to inundate white people in the “western world” with black and brown people, this is a different strategy to sell the same thing, only disguised of course. In the rightwing marketing they are screaming about it all being a plot for 'white genocide', when really it is just the perceived fear of “white genetic annihilation” without ever acknowledging that that's what their actually talking about.

So this strategy, marketed in different ways at this false left/right dichotomy, on the one hand the left is sold Agenda 21 as a way to help the poor, but not all of the poor can likely be saved, so it turns into “lifeboat ethics”, which I have talked about in the Dave McGowan Depopulation thread. So on the right, is the screaming bullshit 'white genocide' strategy, meant of course to increase the racist desire for world wide depopulation of non-white people. So where do these two strategies merge to finally implement quote un-quote “real” depopulation, or not just the military industrial complex business of perpetual war and rotational systemic ongoing depopulation? Well, that's of course where the “war on (of) terror” and all these psyops come in to play of course, and racism/WS takes care of the rest, in order to sell the 'necessity' of world wide “population reduction”.

Of course the technological means to actually carry out world wide mass murder of up to billions of people in rapid time frame might not actually be available as yet: it is a safe bet that racist WS race soldiers in the military intelligence industrial complex (which has to include people in the “techno” revolution imbedded of course) are dedicatingly hard at work 24/7/365 to hasten the push button capability of such. Doubtless in my opinion.


Now here is the infamous Agenda 21 document pdf, and I have read bits and pieces, but the language is so ridiculously convoluted as to be impossible for me to read any inference of it into which side of the coin (fake 'left' or “right”) a conspiracy theorist could argue it is better evidence in favor of. On the one hand, the endless pseudo-leftist sustainability talk about the goals to alleviate poverty could be used as evidence it is 'anti-white' and promotes 'white genocide'. But the problem with that is, on the other hand, there is no concrete language at all that I could comprehend of “how” any of that, sustainability or alleviation of poverty is supposed to be accomplished, and so in my view it is complete hogwash (that it's actually about helping the poor, code in general for “non-white” people) and what I would call a “controlled opposition” of an SJW (racist-light) side of the coin.

United Nations Sustainable Development
United Nations Conference on Environment & Development
Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992
AGENDA 21

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...s/Agenda21.pdf

I'm going to paste only a small snippet of the document to give the flavor of the language used, in my view, the rest of the document pretty much reads the same.


Quote:

Agenda 21 - Chapter 3
COMBATING POVERTY PROGRAMME AREA

Enabling the poor to achieve sustainable livelihoods
Basis for action

3.1.
Poverty is a complex multidimensional problem with origins in both the national and international domains. No uniform solution can be found for global application. Rather, country-specific programmes to tackle poverty and international efforts supporting national efforts, as well as the
parallel process of creating a supportive international environment, are crucial for a solution to this problem. The eradication of poverty and hunger, greater equity in income distribution and human resource development remain major challenges everywhere. The struggle against poverty is the shared responsibility of all countries.

3.2.
While managing resources sustainably, an environmental policy that focuses mainly on the conservation and protection of resources must take due account of those who depend on the resources for their livelihoods. Otherwise it could have an adverse impact both on poverty and o
n chances for long-term success in resource and environmental conservation. Equally, a development policy that focuses mainly on increasing the production of goods without addressing the sustainability of the resources on which production is based will sooner or later run into declining productivity, which could also have an adverse impact on poverty. A specific anti-poverty strategy is therefore one of the basic conditions for ensuring sustainable development. An effective strategy for tackling the problems of poverty, development and environment simultaneously should begin by focusing on resources, production and people and should cover demographic issues, enhanced health care and education, the rights of women, the role of youth and of indigenous people and local communities and a democratic participation process in association with improved governance.

3.3.
Integral to such action is, together with international support, the promotion of economic growth in developing countries that is both sustained and sustainable and direct action in eradicating poverty by strengthening employment and income-generating programmes.
Now the problem right off the bat is this line, “Enabling the poor to achieve sustainable livelihoods”. I mean there is no evidence whatsoever, and plenty to the contrary, that the UN has ever been about “enabling the poor” for any such thing, except to keep them exploited (land, labor and resources) and oppressed by the powerful nations. Let's just keep that in mind as I go forward with the argument.

I won't spend any more time on the Agenda 21 document for now, it's 351 pages, so I figure let's just focus on some of the key buzz words used, “sustainability” and “development”. So that will bring us to other buzz words and concepts, some I've found recently, “smart cities”, and also “resilient cities” and “automated cities”.

I think I had first heard about the basics of such concepts from the “Zeitgeist” movie,

Zietgeist movie maker,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Joseph

Jaques Fresco
https://www.thevenusproject.com/

and so the Venus Project by the Fresco dude, was an early advocate of what we could term as smart or potentially automated cities. The “Zeitgeist” founder and the Venus Project have parted ways a few years ago apparently. I don't feel like getting into the particulars of these at the moment. Next, I found the “resilient city” term, and so I saw a Youtube video talking about this “100 Resilient City” movement, and so googling that, I came up with this pfd,

100 Resilient Cities
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/u...esentation.pdf

in which I found that St. Louis is listed as one of the 100 “resilient cities” as a “second wave” city (slide 29 of the ”100 Resilient Cities” document); and why the second wave, and what each wave means, I don't really care right now. As it turns out, there are also documents for these cities you can look up, that spells out that an office called the CRO or “Chief Resilient Officer” is setup that “advises” the mayor's office (slide 23 of the ”100 Resilient Cities” document),



Quote:

Who is the Chief Resilience Officer?
The CRO is a catalytic force, transforming the way cities organize themselves to better meet the
challenges of building resilience in the 21st century. The CRO will lead the city’s resilience
building efforts, including:

Working across silos to create and implement a resilience strategy

Serving as a senior advisor to the Mayor or municipal leader

Promoting resilience thinking, and acting as both a local and global thought leader

Coordinating resilience efforts across government and multi-sector stakeholders

Liaising with other CROs, 100RC staff, and service providers via the network and platform
Here is the pdf for the city of St. Louis, incidentally signed by the racist former mayor here Francis Slay,

Executive Order 56: Establishing Office of Resilience (173.90 KB)
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/governmen...Resilience.pdf

On the first page

Quote:

An Executive Order relating to the City of St. Louis's participation in the 100 Resilient Cities (“100RC”) Initiative as a member City:

Whereas, the Rockefeller foundation (Grantor) has approved a two year grant to the City of St. Louis
this was signed in July of 2016.

There was many stories about Frances Slay I'd heard from a former radio personality here, Lizz Brown, about the racist (par for the course in all of the major cities) actions and policies of Slay (mayor from 2001 to 2016). One anecdote in particular involved his daughter as a college student who had a black female student friend that came to the daughter's house with her one time, and father mayor Slay reprimanded the daughter in another room in an easily heard voice that she “should not be associating with the likes of them” (paraphrasing what I remember hearing).

The continued assault on the St, Louis public schools' state/federal accreditation was ongoing in his administration, which I think finally succeeded, and a number of failure charter schools were created during that period also. And the refusal to allow the city to control the police force, which is under control for the last 150 years by some MO state created agency/committee that I think is based in Jefferson City MO, but I think the mayor sits on a three person council that meets with this agency, that's the way I remember it described anyway.

Those were just two tidbits of the racist actions of the Democratic party mayor Slay, while surly being painted as one of those 'socialist' 'leftist' SJW type of mayors. His predecessor, Lyda Krewson, also a Democrat and first female mayor of St. Louis, no doubt will carry on the pseudo SJW racist-light policies in St. Louis.


Here is a planned automated city that will supposedly be tested while no one will currently live in it, I would presume after it has been built?

CITE: The $1 billion city that nobody calls home

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/test-city/index.html



Quote:

In the arid plains of the southern New Mexico desert, between the site of the first atomic bomb test and the U.S.-Mexico border, a new city is rising from the sand.

Planned for a population of 35,000, the city will showcase a modern business district downtown, and neat rows of terraced housing in the suburbs. It will be supplied with pristine streets, parks, malls and a church.

But no one will ever call it home.


The CITE (Center for Innovation, Testing and Evaluation) project is a full-scale model of an ordinary American town. Yet it will be used as a petri dish to develop new technologies that will shape the future of the urban environment.

The $1 billion scheme, led by telecommunications and tech firm Pegasus Global Holdings, will see 15-square-miles dedicated to ambitious experiments in fields such as transport, construction, communication and security.

CITE will include specialized zones for developing new forms of agriculture, energy, and water treatment. An underground data collection network will provide detailed, real-time feedback.
"The vision is an environment where new products, services and technologies can be demonstrated and tested without disrupting everyday life," says Pegasus Managing Director Robert Brumley.

Without a human population to worry about, the possibilities are endless.

Driverless vehicles could be used on responsive roads, monitored from above by traffic drones. Homes could be designed to survive natural disasters, and fitted with robotic features. Alternative energy sources such as Thorium power could be tested at scale.

"You can bring new things to have them stressed, break them, and find out the laws of unintended consequences," says Brumley. "This should become like a magnet where people with ideas and technologies come, and not just test but interact."

The director describes CITE as an "intermediary step" between lab testing a technology and it reaching the public. He believes the process will deliver more market-ready products and address the 'Valley of Death' -- the shortfall that exists between investment in research and development, and the revenues this generates.

"The US spends billions of dollars on research and gets 2-3% return in commercial products," says Brumley. "This facility could extend and increase the return."
I won't paste the whole thing, I think this gives us the idea of what so much huge sums of money is now being invested in, for the actual cities and residents of the planned future apparently. I think the 100 Resilient Cities, being part of Agenda 21, is probably a ruse to siphon off funds from the major urban population centers of the world to fund the automated cities that the “elite” want to move the chosen keepers of the earth into, if they succeed on the Agenda 21 depopulation schemes.

Which I would say depopulation right now in the poorer countries/areas is could already be accelerating, and the “immigrants”, the few survivors of this that actually get to come to Europe and the U.S., and the urban cities in Africa, South America, Asia, all probably, potentially I guess, being setup for a mass culling, mass murder.

Once enough of these automated cities are online and functional, other automation meant to replace workers in a huge range of jobs will make the depopulation agenda seem much more 'necessary' for George W.'s friends the haves and have mores. And the redneck racists who will gladly support that, in their doomsday prepper bunkers (waiting for SHTF), will be left on their own, but they are of course well stocked up (deliberately allowed to of course for several decades now) to join in on the depopulation “purge” agenda, of the poor (code primarily non-white). At least that's what it looks like to me right now. As far as whether the rednecks would be let in to the Logan's Run domes after a possible mass bloodbath occurs, I can't say for sure, nor would I care if they survived a mass culling or not either; they would not deserve to survive anymore than the “elite” would in my view.

Here is an article from the UK about automation (in U.S. too) of perhaps from 40-60% of all jobs by 2035,

The automated city: do we still need humans to run public services?

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...vices-councils


Quote:

But whether everyone can be “upskilled” to carry out more fulfilling work, and how many staff will actually be needed as robots take on more routine tasks, remains to be seen. Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne’s influential 2013 paper The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation?, estimates that 47% of US jobs are “at risk” of being automated in the next 20 years. Another report by Deloitte found that in London, 29% of admin and support services jobs, and a whopping 72% of transport and storage roles, are at “high risk” of automation.

However, a report Forrester published last year was less pessimistic about people’s future employment prospects, suggesting that only 9.1 million US jobs will be automated by 2025. Robinson is more inclined to believe Forrester’s estimate. “It’s inarguable that as technology develops, it will automate certain tasks. But ‘tasks’ are very different to ‘jobs’. I also think some reports are hugely optimistic about what technology will be able to accomplish in [the] future.”

If Google or another tech giant does eventually manage to create an artificial general intelligence that can successfully perform any task a human can, the job losses would dwarf anything we’ve seen before – and not only among the 1.5 million people employed by local government in England. A universal basic income, which would provide everyone with enough money to maintain a decent standard of living, is often cited as a solution to this problem. But in the medium term we might find robots still need our help; that there are things we simply do better than machines.

Now personally, I think that sustainability, even for a continually growing population, we need to have communities that have independent local control of food supplies and producing their own necessary items: more localized economies, everyone should have food garden plots (indoor hydroponics also where feasible) to supplement an outside industrial market so no food shortages occur, etc. The capitalist/communist intelligence military complex would have to be broken up first to accomplish this, or at least taken down several notches; and industries though still needed would really simply be necessary to scale down to manageable energy consumption and waste producing levels. Automation could still be beneficial, as long as a system of justice instead of a system of injustice will be put in place, and not by people who want to cull, or murder 90-95% of the world's population.

Something like “contribution-ism”, like that described by the “Ubuntu” movement should be the model, where each community has it's own mini-corporate centers (locally controlled) to produce local products and thus abundance and a way out of poverty, at least a much greater equitable creation and distribution of commodities and wealth production compared to the globalist system we have now, especially for poorer communities.
I first heard about this movement from a guy named Micheal Tellinger a while back, and he gives a great talk about the possibilities of “free energy” and the like. But being a white man from the UK coming into Africa and trying to sell this to Africans, selling them back (marketing it as though it were a new idea) their own traditional way of life really, there is no way he should be trusted to not sabotage such a movement before it ever could get off the ground. Really that was a traditional type of existence for most people in the world prior to the euro-colonial expansion in the 1400s, in the general sense anyway.

Tellinger makes some incredible claims about advanced civilization(s) existing all over the planet and all over Africa in ancient times (up to perhaps 200,000 to 400,000 years ago), with archeological finds of many different kinds of ruins in Southern Africa and all over Africa really, as well as stone megalithic structures found all over the planet. But then he goes into the Ananaki bible and Sumerian mythology and aliens built the pyramids racist white supremacist standard operating procedural non-sense (and humans, aka black people then, were created by the aliens as a slave race to mine the gold that is still being stolen off the planet even now): and then despite also talking the lingo of a 'socialist' SJW of course, so really I don't know how much of his whole claptrap to take seriously or not. Some of the concepts he brought up were very interesting, the free energy and sound and resonance stuff, at least sounding really cool and promising if there is any truth to it of course.


Well I guess if nobody really gives a shit about justice, then all the automation and depopulation will continue to progress unimpeded I suppose.

Gonna have to cut this post off here, and come back to the trans-humanism when I have more time.
 

gl69m

Member
Post #5 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Been wanting to come back to the thread and continue about trans-humanism, it is a very deep and varied topic, at least conceptually for sure. So for each post, I have to lay out enough background to show not only what's been going on (and recent) in such fields/circles, but also potential plans nefarious or not, to back up an assertion I've made earlier in the thread, namely (post #4)


Quote:

I would say my purpose for the thread is to lay out the case that these particular ideologies/subjects and activities; that- AI, technology in general (hi-tech enthusiasts or proponents) and trans-humanism, does not have (and many of them probably never had, but I'm speaking more so in our time) at it's root/foundation, the best interests of humans in general at heart. More bluntly I would say it has only a small demographic of representative people's interest at heart.
Now though, it can be argued from many trans-humanist proponents that they are not nefarious, “eugenicist” (minded) and most would likely claim they are not racist, sexist, classist etc. But I think from what I have looked at previously, and am starting to more now so, that that is not accurate, not the case, the overwhelming majority of tech/AI/trans-humanist (and derived mostly from “humanists” as well) enthusiasts and philosophical adherents/researcher/developers, are “white” and male; so unfortunately if a global system of racism white supremacy does exist akin to a C.O.W.S. theory of it (i.e. the “globalists”), which there is vast evidence to affirm something like that is indeed true IMSO; so I say that trans-humanist/AI idealogues are indeed overwhelmingly “racist” (insert other oppressive expletives here also if desired) and would/will not blink or flinch at “depopulation” talk or plans (within certain audiences anyway).

I contend that they are definitely racist, and many believe in some form of “evolution”, but many also believe in some form of white christian religious strand that promotes obviously white supremacy: of which the “western” strain of “christianity” really is not at all truly at odds with certain “darwinistic” evolutionary theories (“eugenics” also) or strands, so in my view, despite some “evolutionists” being at odds with most “creationists”, the overwhelming congruency of the two separate types of camps (that are supposedly opposed to each other), is that at the foundational bedrock/framework of each, is the true religion derivative of each, racism white supremacy. There is no question of the truth of this in my mind and thinking, these type of people prove that over and over again, race/racism trumps all for them over any other point of any disagreement between the camps.


I believe a connection can also be made that the “christian” (white supremacist strands) concepts of “transcendentalism” or the “transfiguration” is perfectly compatible in many ways with “trans-humanism”, and I would argue is a logical extension of such and consistent with the PTB white supremacist elite desire for continued “white genetic survival” (or basically avoidance of “white genetic annihilation”, or at least the fear of) and I mean in context of the current world political and demographic configurations we are currently in. I don't know if I can fully cover this point in this post, I may have to try and come back to that later.

But to get to all that, I have to lay out a minimal foundation, a little definition of “trans-humanism” of course. I chose this site here to start with, seems a there is a significant list of notables (people) from a “trans-humanistic” movement that contributed to this site, so here is that site with their basic definition of “trans-humanism”,

http://whatistranshumanism.org/


Quote:

What is

Transhumanism?

Transhumanism
is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase.
Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades.
Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.
– Max More (1990)
Humanity+ formally defines it based on Max More’s original definition as follows:

  1. The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
  2. The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.
Transhumanism can be viewed as an extension of humanism, from which it is partially derived. Humanists believe that humans matter, that individuals matter. We might not be perfect, but we can make things better by promoting rational thinking, freedom, tolerance, democracy, and concern for our fellow human beings. Transhumanists agree with this but also emphasize what we have the potential to become. Just as we use rational means to improve the human condition and the external world, we can also use such means to improve ourselves, the human organism. In doing so, we are not limited to traditional humanistic methods, such as education and cultural development. We can also use technological means that will eventually enable us to move beyond what some would think of as “human”.


About the Transhumanist FAQ

The Transhumanist FAQ was developed in 1998 and authored into a formal FAQ in 1999 through the inspirational work of transhumanists, including Alexander Chislenko, Max More, Anders Sandberg, Natasha Vita-More, James Hughes, and Nick Bostrom. Several people contributed to the definition of transhumanism, which was originated by Max More. Greg Burch, David Pearce, Kathryn Aegis, and Anders Sandberg kindly offered extensive editorial comments. The presentation in the cryonics section was, and still is, directly inspired by an article by Ralph Merkle. Ideas, criticisms, questions, phrases, and sentences to the original version were contributed by (in alphabetical order): Kathryn Aegis, Alex (intech@intsar.com), Brent Allsop, Brian Atkins, Scott Badger, Doug Bailey, Harmony Baldwin, Damien Broderick, Greg Burch, David Cary, John K Clark, Dan Clemensen, Damon Davis, Jeff Dee, Jean-Michel Delhotel, Dylan Evans, EvMick@aol.com, Daniel Fabulich, Frank Forman, Robin Hanson, Andrew Hennessey, Tony Hollick, Joe Jenkins, William John, Michelle Jones, Arjen Kamphius, Henri Kluytmans, Eugene Leitl, Michael Lorrey, mark@unicorn.com, Peter C. McCluskey, Erik Moeller, J. R. Molloy, Max More, Bryan Moss, Harvey Newstrom, Michael Nielsen, John S. Novak III, Dalibor van den Otter, David Pearce, pilgrim@cyberdude.com, Thom Quinn, Anders Sandberg, Wesley R. Schwein, Shakehip@aol.com, Allen Smith, Geoff Smith, Randy Smith, Dennis Stevens, Derek Strong, Remi Sussan, Natasha Vita-More, Michael Wiik, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and zebo@pro-ns.net

Over the years, this FAQ has been updated to provide a substantial account of transhumanism. Extropy Institute (ExI) was a source of information for the first version of the Transhumanist FAQ, version 1.0 in the 1990s. WTA adopted the FAQ in 2001 and Nick Bostrom and James Hughes continued to work on it, with the contributions of close to hundred people from ExI and WTA, including Aleph and Transcedo and the UK Transhumanist Association. New material has been added and many old sections have been substantially reworked. In the preparation of version 2.0, the following people have been especially helpful: Eliezer Yudkowsky, who provided editorial assistance with comments on particular issues of substance; Dale Carrico who proofread the first half of the text; and Michael LaTorra who did the same for the second half; and “Reason” who then went over the whole document again, as did Frank Forman, and Sarah Banks Forman. Useful comments of either substance or form have also been contributed by (in alphabetical order): Michael Anissimov, Samantha Atkins, Milan Cirkovic, José Luis Cordeiro, George Dvorsky, James Hughes, G.E. Jordan, Vasso Kambourelli, Michael LaTorra, Eugen Leitl, Juan Meridalva, Harvey Newstrom, Emlyn O’Reagan, Christine Peterson, Giulio Prisco, Reason, Rafal Smigrodzki, Simon Smith, Mike Treder, and Mark Walker. Many others have over the years offered questions or reflections that have in some way helped shape this document, and even though it is not possible to name you all, your contributions are warmly appreciated.
Now my basic shorthand way of defining what I think of trans-humanism/transhumanists (so far), would be that these people are:
physically and spiritually weak human beings that want to either transform (quickly) or evolve (somehow, quick or slow) into super-humans akin to the comic book type superheroes; through a variety of available (or available at some “future” point) possible technological avenues of course.
But if they (current trans-humanists) can't transform or evolve in our current time frames, naturally their thinking is transposed onto their own children (or grandchildren et al) here, the desire for them to become super-human at some point

Now some of the ideas coming out of AI/trans-human movements, have in my view some ways that are good ideas, technological and biological even, for the improvement of human physical frailties, diseases, conditions, standards of living world wide, etc. etc. But at this point, regardless of the technological advances having been made up to this point, what we (public) potentially aware of per se (and I cannot speak much only speculate about what has not been yet revealed publicly): all of it right now the way I see it, it only feeds into a commercially desire/demand driven corporate/govt. avenues of development for those that can afford such developments; capitalistic/fascist/communist elites and overlords. So far I remain unconvinced from what I see from these people, that their intentions are really otherwise, to benefit all world's peoples and not just the elite 1%, just doesn't look that way to me.


One link I found that I think perhaps links “trans-humanism” to “eugenics” is, the derivation of the term (found this I think Wikipedia entry from google search of who coined the term)

The term transhumanism was originally coined by English biologist and philosopher Julian Huxley in his 1957 essay of the same name.”


This article clearly shows that Huxely was a eugenicist, and some argue against racism but I find that claim is not tenable, all them were racist I would argue.

‘Julian Huxley and the Continuity of Eugenics in Twentieth-century Britain’

Professor Paul Weindling
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366572/


Quote:

The life and ideas of Julian Sorrell Huxley (1887-1975) represent not only considerable contributions to evolutionary theory but also to eugenic thought and social planning. Huxley’s career history was complex and disjointed making him an international and very much a public figure. This paper sees Huxley’s peripatetic career as linked to ideological agendas, not least of “a new world order”.1The problems addressed here are, first, the extent of continuities in eugenic commitments from his interwar views and, second, to determine the contours of Huxley’s post-Second World War eugenic thinking. Huxley emerges as a crucial bridging figure from what has been referred to as “old eugenics” to a new eugenics based on molecular biology, providing an influential analysis of human evolution and a set of persuasively appealing concepts for both the wider public and scientific elite.2

i. Early Years

Huxley was a chameleon like figure, adept at fitting in with current social rhetoric while pursuing a social agenda defined by long-held evolutionary convictions. Huxley always qualified humanism with the terms “scientific” or “evolutionary” to emphasise the determining role of the natural sciences. His distinctive “scientific humanism” was rooted in his formative period as a student and young academic in Oxford (and elsewhere), and sustained throughout his life. Taking up the mantle of his crusading grandfather, T.H. Huxley, his public role was an apostle for evolutionary eugenics. This was in keeping with British middle class interests, as Huxley shaped an agenda of issues regarding the state of the nation’s physical and mental health from the pioneering welfare legislation of the Edwardian period to the reformist and welfare oriented 1960s. His role in organisations like the British Social Hygiene Council, Political and Economic Planning (PEP), and the British Population Society, formed in 1929, very much reflects this. He was an outstanding advocate of the advance of what Paul Mazumdar calls “the scientific intelligentsia” and seeking to shape what historian Harold Perkin has called the rise of professional society.6Huxley was convinced that science had to have both impact and meaning. As a public intellectual, he deployed his promotional talents in order to direct the current of public discourse on birth control and welfare, by setting it within a biologically conceived framework.
Now I will have to look up more on the PEP and the BPS (World Population Conference of 1927), to see what connection these might have to current trends in possible “depopulation” agendas. Could be interesting, only have so much time though. Julian Huxely (his brother Aldous wrote the famous or infamous “Brave New World”) has been connected to many other eugenicists of note of course, in the article, was the first director of UNESCO in 1948, and later in the article is connected to the Rockefeller and Ford foundations. The article has a section that shows that Huxely had a critique against “Nazi race theory”, and claims he was not racist or he was anti-racist but other parts of the article prove otherwise IMO.


Quote:

Since his time as a student at Balliol College, Oxford (from 1906-1909) and young zoologist, he was a committed eugenicist. The Eugenics Education Society was founded in 1907 although its Oxford branch was launched in 1913 when Huxley was at Rice University Texas. T.H. Huxley in his Romanes Lectures spoke stridently against social selection, and although it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of any eugenic epiphany for Julian Huxley around 1912-13 eugenics was certainly intensively debated at Oxford. For example, Huxley, Harold Laski and J. B. S. Haldane all debated “Heredity” at the student Essay Society at New College, Oxford in 1912, a Galton Club was formed at the College, and further debates took place at the Oxford Union.7From 1919 until 1925 Huxley was Fellow at New College, and the population geneticist J.B.S. Haldane (Huxley’s former “fag” at Eton) was Fellow from 1919 until 1922. Huxley’s students included the cytologist and contraception pioneer J.R. Baker who was undergraduate at New College from 1919-22, and the population geneticist E.B. (“Henry”) Ford. These bio-social theorists represented a political spectrum from Haldane on the extreme left to Ford and (a later Oxford recruit) the botanist Darlington on the extreme right: they all continued to exert influence on questions of biology and society on into the 1960s.8C.P. (“Pip”) Blacker (1895-1975) was another Huxley student, who went into clinical medicine, and became Huxley’s lifelong friend and fellow eugenicist. Whereas Allen focuses on Huxley the fully formed left-leaning eugenicist of the 1930s, Barkan discovered a right-leaning Huxley at Rice.9This continued on into 1920s when at the World Population Conference of 1927 Huxley maintained his stance for restrictive immigration controls.10Yet Huxley’s Oxford phase merits consideration as culturally elitist, a conviction that he held fast to as an axiom of his ideas of human evolution.

ii. Eugenic Campaigner

Although seeing the social potential of genetics, Huxley did not restrict himself to eugenics as applied genetics. He advocated eugenics as a social science, addressing the issue of a “social problem group”.14He was Life Fellow of the Eugenics Society from 1925, active on its Council from 1931, its Vice-President 1937-44, and President from 1959-62. He supported the campaigns for voluntary sterilisation legislation in the early 1930s, and for negative eugenic measures against persons carrying the scientific stigma of “mental defect”. Huxley straddled science and social action. He saw biology as a means to solve social welfare problems. He consequently built bridges between eugenics and the social sciences by working on behalf of Political and Economic Planning (PEP), of which he was a founder member in 1931. Huxley’s advocacy of social planning and state centralism clashed with an older style of eugenic imperialist. Huxley was similarly supportive of Mass Observation. The historical consensus is of Huxley as a moderniser and reformer, seeking to establish eugenics as part of an agenda of social planning and to shape the emergent welfare state on biological lines.15


This meant a fundamental redefinition of eugenics as concerned not with race but with biological qualities. Huxley’s advocacy of “reform eugenics” meant a break with an old guard of racist imperialists among eugenicists like Leonard Darwin and Cora Hodson of the Bureau of Human Heredity.16He ceased to speak of racial deterioration during the 1930s.17This is fundamental understanding for Huxley’s position during the 1950s and 60s.
Now that last part I quoted, it's claimed he broke with old racism/eugenics (supposedly he was 'leftish' leaning anyways right?) at some point: what I would call it was a refinement in that time of racism white supremacy in the context of “eugenics” and population control; I would use this passage that makes some of his views not really easy to distinguish from “Nazism” (parts I bolded for emphasis),


Quote:

iii. Against Race

Huxley caught the mood of the times politically. In the 1930s he supported the critique of Nazi race theory, by co-authoring We Europeans (an anti-racist study of 1936). He astutely substituted the term “ethnic group” for the discredited idea of race, which he saw as by now debased “pseudo-science”. The menace of Nazism taught Huxley to be critical of anything linked to the idea of race. He was a strident opponent of Nazism, and, signed whatever anti-racist manifesto was afoot.20 The “Geneticists’ Manifesto” (authored by his friend Muller) of 1939 very much expressed the wider shift of opinion to a position critical of Nazi racial politics, while preserving commitments to biologically based social reform.21 He still found it difficult to shed an elitist form of thinking that differentiated between peoples as supposedly culturally inferior or superior.22 Sluga points out that Huxley retained ideas of Britain’s imperial role in contexts like Africa, in advancing literacy and disease control.23

iv. The Humanist Agenda

During the 1930s Huxley took a public stance as an avowed “scientific humanist”, by which he meant that his ethical ideas had a basis in evolutionary theory.36 As President of the Social and Political Education League, his lectures were published by the Rationalist Press Association. He linked his evolutionary ethics to the social agenda of eugenics: it meant approval for family allowances to encourage professional middle classes to have children of (hopefully) good eugenic quality, and the elimination of mental defect by reproductive controls.37 He explained that eugenicists should avoid a “holocaust” of the unfit by segregating mental defectives to prevent their reproduction.38 The economic and social system had to be altered to advance the reproduction of “the most successful stocks” particularly of the professional classes.39 Huxley advocated the ideas of eugenics as a sacred ideal and of “racial hope”, so that religion would advance his ideals of social evolution.

Huxley was always at pains to differentiate his views of eugenics from Nazism. During the war this was a clear-cut matter of opposing the anti-democratic Nazi state as well as of its racist underpinnings as “pseudo-science”. In 1940 Huxley viewed Communism and Nazism as “social movements of a religious nature”, which were destructive of life.40 In 1941 Huxley published a tract Religion without Revelation, a work reprinted in 1945. This manifesto for “a socially founded humanist religion” appeared in a secularist series, the Thinker’s Library, the first volumes in the series being works by Darwin, Haeckel and Herbert Spencer. Huxley argued for a humanist religion which would be life sustaining on the basis that mankind had outgrown old superstitions, and had evolved to a stage when a new religion was needed. Religious feelings like grace were natural experiences, and that a reverent approach to reality was needed to make the most of life: Huxley concluded “I believe in the religion of life”.41

Huxley argued that Nazi race theory was “pseudo-scientific” while his ideas were linked to scientifically valid observations. In 1940 Huxley forthrightly condemned the Nazi system as a negation of all civilised values: as organised destruction. Using the Freudian concept of projection, he diagnosed how the Nazis transposed their own inadequacies and failings on the Jews.42 Unesco was less concerned with diagnosis and post-mortem on Nazism, but rather a forward looking set of social beliefs, ones that Huxley was already hoping for in the darkest days of the war when an Allied victory was still uncertain.43 His Romanes Lectures on Ethics and Evolution of 1943 argued that “conscious evolution” should be the primary focus of ethical endeavours.44

Life for Huxley had a positive social value. Unesco adopted a forward looking philosophy of universal education aimed at preventing a future war. Here Huxley supported the psychiatrist John Thompson in developing its German programme as a therapy for a maladjusted nation.45 Huxley took up a number of issues at UNESCO notably conservation, utilisation of natural resources, and over-population.46 Huxley continued to develop these themes on leaving UNESCO. He was well positioned to drive forward a eugenically informed agenda in 1950s Britain and on a broader world stage. But at the same time, Huxley was also in a politically exposed position, out of step with Cold War culture. His espousal of biological values earned him enmity from the right, including Roman Catholics, and advocates of individual rights. He did not participate in the movement for the freedom of science of J.R. Baker and Michael Polanyi, nor the Congress for Cultural Freedom, in which his friend the poet Stephen Spender was so prominent. His only contributions were a review of Teilhard de Chardin, and an appreciation of the left-leaning Haldane for the journal Encounter.47
and from the v. The Post-war Era ,


Quote:

Huxley, then, sought to establish a biologically based social philosophy. Part of this agenda was population policies – Huxley tried to get population problems onto the agendas of the United Nations as well as onto those of its specialised agencies, not least UNESCO, FAO, WHO as well as supporting the UN Population Commission. He took up population questions while still director general of UNESCO in 1948. He was aligned with the Rockefeller Foundation, being on good terms with the physical sciences programme officer, Warren Weaver. On the population front, there were dividends for the population lobby. The Population Council managed to intrude birth control into the United Nations agenda, and population control came to be regarded as a legitimate part of the politics of international assistance.53 Huxley endorsed the strategy of world population control.


Eugenics remained controversial during the Cold War period of the 1950s. There were two sets of criticism: first, the shadow of Nazi Germany as a state which had imposed laws of racial selection with devastating cruelty. Nazi racial and eugenic policy meant that a link could be drawn between forced sterilisation and genocide. During the 1950s the Catholic Church intensified its opposition to birth control and abortion, a position going back to the Papal encyclical Casti Conubii of 1932. A strengthening of Roman Catholic religious revivalism during the 1950s with its stress on the Incarnation and Infallibility meant continuous tensions between reproductive biology with the Roman Catholicism over birth control.


Huxley positioned himself with the biologists and physical anthropologists who sought to retain a biological component in the term “race” as a population group, when it was discussed by UNESCO during 1950.62Huxley’s humanism remained firmly founded in evolutionary theory.63 It was at this juncture that Huxley coined the term “transhumanism”, a term that he used only intermittently.64
Margaret Sanger in the United States provided a similar linking of biochemical innovators like Pincus with classic eugenic aims. As regards abortion and birth control eugenicists – or as some termed it “crypto-eugenicists” gained in influence through such organisations as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Family Planning Association. Huxley was a speaker at the Sixth Planned Parenthood International conference at New Dehli in 1959.
quote
I can't quote or break down the entire long article, but I think as long as the article author was accurate, I think there is valuable information that I would say is in favor of a link between “eugenics”, humanism, scientific humanism, evolutionary thought and the like to the current “trans-humanism” movement(s) and as well as AI movement or “Robot cults”, I think AI and Trans-humanism is very closely linked in my opinion, overwhelmingly white, male (not elusively male of course), just as the previous iteration of racism white supremacy was in the earlier phases of it, eugenics, scientific racism etc., in the 19th and 20th centuries. AI/trans is all a continuation of that, I believe the information is available to prove and establish that link.


Here are some other interesting articles I found, describing some of the ideas of transhumanism and a few critiques, some seemingly against, one possibly for but with reservations maybe (good article I think byMeghan O'Gieblyn, “God in the Machine”, I think this article can help establish a link with “christianity” and “trans-humanism”)


They want to be literally machines’: Writer Mark O’Connell on the rise of transhumanists

Biohackers, cryonics, brainuploading and more

By Angela Chen@chengela Feb 25, 2017, 5:00pm EST

https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/25/1...ist-biohackers


The long read
God in the machine: my strange journey into transhumanism

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-transhumanism


The Techno-Libertarians Praying for Dystopia

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/04/t...-dystopia.html


The ethics of transhumanism

https://beta.techcrunch.com/2016/08/...transhumanism/


I may try to elucidate some of these articles later, or not, that is very time consuming. I would like to though. But one question I think is highly important, and for me to establish part of my premise, is this movement truly racist? It doesn't seem to be that easy to establish this with zero doubt save me finding quotes from prominent trans-humanists saying things akin (or at least coded equivalents to) to known extreme white supremacists. Here is one comment from a trans-humanist critique blog, that on the surface may not sound like a KKK redneck, but I would argue shows a complete disdain for any and all peoples who are not white, so I fail to see how it is really any different.

I suspect this commenter is probably alt-right and absolutely typical of trans/AI enthusiaists who are white, probably world wide. I won't paste all of Carrico's response to “Black Guy From the Future Past”'s question, it serves as background to the commenter “jimf” who gave their own answer to “Black Guy”'s question. I can only imagine that “jimf” would scoff and dance around at being called a “racist” for his answer or that his answer is actually racist. I think however that his answer does indeed demonstrate that at least he believes that the bulk (and the core) of “trans-humanists” are ideologically on the “right”, white, and yes racist, but he would probably exorbitantly down play (or justify) that racism even if he did admit to it.

I also find it interesting that Carrico (Dale) was mentioned in the trans-humanist website FAQ section too ("Dale Carrico who proofread the first half of the text;"), so I'm wondering if he was at one time a trans-humanist then parted ways with them? Not sure at the moment, I would presume probably so.

Friday, December 21, 2012

"Is Transhumanism Racist?"


https://amormundi.blogspot.com/2012/...sm-racist.html


Quote:

AMOR MUNDI

Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All



Friday, December 21, 2012

"Is Transhumanism Racist?"


Upgraded and adapted from the Moot, "Black Guy From the Future Past" has this to say:
Hello Dale. Is transhumanism racist? I've been reading your blog and you continually make reference to how most futurists tend to be white. Also, many scientific fields are dominated by white people, more specifically white males. How does this skew ideas about the "future". I await your response. Thank you. (BTW I am that rare black guy who has encountered transhumanist ideas on the net and have noticed the alarming lack of representation of other races, cultures and their ideas)
Is transhumanism racist? Since there are unquestionably transhumanist-identified people who are conscientiously anti-racist anything like an affirmative answer by me will provoke the usual howls about my hostile unfair ad hominem attacks. As always, one needs to recall at the outset that one can benefit from racist legacies or mobilize racist discourses without necessarily affirming racist beliefs, indeed while earnestly affirming anti-racist ones, and so recognizing the force of racism is often a matter of exposing structural effects rather than making accusations of unalloyed bigotry.


7 comments:

jimf said... > . . .assumptions, aspirations, and discourse. . .

The logic is simple. The Way Ahead will be discovered, cleared,
and paved by the tiny handful of people with the smarts, power,
and money to do so. Most of those people will be white, male,
and wealthy (and probably unapologetic Republicans who are at
heart Ayn Rand fans).

The other 99.99999% of humans (including most people of color,
inhabitants of the Third World, and women) simply do not matter.
They are as irrelevant to the Bright Shining Future as the
99.9% of living species that have gone extinct in the history
of life on earth.

To tender-heartedly listen to them (the irrelevant 99.99999%)
begging for equal consideration, or even to be distracted by
their claims to basic minimum sustenance, is to lose sight
of the Important Things (things that will lead to Artificial
Intelligence, Nanotechnology, Life Extension [for the .0000001%
who can actually make good use of it], etc.).

> . . .their endless futurological white penis parade. . .

Well, in the future, they'll have turned blue.

http://www.ieet.org/images/uploads/dr._manhattan111.jpg



(my note, "Black Guy"'s response to Dale, he seemed to ignore jimf, and probably should have)

Black guy from the future past said... Thank you Dale. This article is so well written and so dense, I will have to read it at least three times. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. It is quite alarming indeed to see the parallels between racism and transhumanism, in how transhumanists literally aspire to make everything so "neat", "clean", "orderly", homogenized...dare I say "white" (using it in the most abstract sense). Thank you.

5:15 PM
Don't know what “jimf”'s link to an image was, I came up with error 404 not found.

This article by Dale Carrico, he argues that this movement is largely “eugencist” in nature, but can be slightly contrast with . I haven't really read all of it or absorbed it as yet, but a decent account, little wordy for my tastes in some respects, but he doesn't give specific examples or quotes from the movement to support the opinions in his piece, but he has claimed to have read and analyzed a great deal of trans-humanist literature, so I would think his critique is probably relatively accurate; although doubtless his conclusions are not equivalent to ones I am postulating about this movement.

https://amormundi.blogspot.com/2008/...f-consent.html


Quote:

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Eugenics and the Denigration of Consent


I have argued that both the "transhumanist" and "bioconservative" stances (roughly, the undercritical technophilic imagination as against the undercritical technophobic imagination) on questions of so-called "enhancement" medicine can rightly be described as eugenicist. In my view, there is a significant parallel to be discerned between
[one] on the one hand: the "transhumanist" who feels a moral obligation to "enhance" human capacities, morphologies, and lifeways by means of emerging genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive techniques to better facilitate the project of engineering the homo superior of the "posthumanity" with which they identify, and

[two] on the other hand: the "bioconservative" who feels a moral obligation to ban such "enhancements" and such techniques to better facilitate the project of preserving the homo naturalis of the parochial and static vision of "humanity" with which they identify.
These projects to facilitate particular parochial conceptions of humanity with which they identify through emphatic recourse to or repudiation of medical technique, seem to me in both cases profoundly eugenic (it pays to remember that in foreswearing emerging forms of medical technique, "bioconservatives" are enshrining as "natural" the norms and practices that currently contingently guide kinship and reproduction in the service of patriarchy and other traditional hierarchical social forms, a selective breeding program no less technical and artificial for having lasted in most places for many thousands of years).

"Transhumanist"-identified readers often object to my characterization of their viewpoint as eugenicist. It is a sore spot with them: after all, they get a lot of that... but if the shoe hurts, you may be wearing it. It is true that few of them openly advocate coercive or involuntary programs of medical intervention to facilitate their engineering of an "optimal" "enhanced" posthumanity (although even self-declared "democratic" transhumanists like James Hughes advocate the suppression of, say, non-hearing prospective parents who would "screen" for an atypical but certainly both valuable and nonlethal while scarcely demonstrably disadvantageous non-hearing child as an expression of gratitude for and solidarity with their own non-hearing lifeway, for example). Indeed, some transhumanists declare in exasperation that their viewpoint amounts to more or less my own (when it palpably does not).

I believe that to value human lifeway diversity and human stakeholder equity as people of the secular progressive democratic left in an era of prosthetic/therapeutic polyculture demands neither [1] pretensions to knowing what ideal human optimality properly consists of and pressuring human plurality into reflecting it nor [2] pretensions to knowing what ideal human normality consists of and pressuring human dynamism into conformity with it, but instead [3] always only the struggle for more informed, nonduressed consent, peer to peer. What is wanted in my view is a politics that will shore up the scene of informed, nonduressed consent in therapeutic contexts, and celebrate the proliferation of wanted human capacities, morphologies, and lifeways that will be sure to eventuate from such a consensual scene. Against the eugenicism of the elitist "transhumanist" optimizers and the eugenicism of the elitist "bioconservative" preservationists, I have proposed the better alternative of a more informed, nonduressed consensual secular democratic prosthetic polyculture.

I disagree that "transhumanists" are in accord with my view here, but before I elaborate why let me first address the question of coercion that some "transhumanists" believe gets them off the eugenicist hook despite their overconfident belief that they know what optimal human health, abilities, and ways of life will look like and their advocacy of that optimality as an "objective standard" that should function as a norm in public discourse, in administrative policy, and shaping professional and institutional formations.

It is not only those who go so far as to actively advocate involuntary modification who are typically described as eugenicist in my understanding. There are disciplinary pressures beneath the threshold of conspicuous coercion that will yield eugenic effects just as surely, and often more efficaciously, than blatant threats and attacks of violence will do. Certainly programs of involuntary medical intervention constitute the most hideous and heartbreaking end of the eugenicist spectrum, but one can easily observe comparable homogenizing and restrictive effects arising from popular misinformation, from social stigma, from mass mediated promulgation of norms, from uncritical and inertial workings of orthodox institutional healthcare mechanisms. And the workings of these unexamined orthodoxies do no small amount of the work enabling more conspicuously coercive interventions, by marginalizing and befuddling objections to them and sanctifying their "best intentions" as only natural.

Not everybody needs, as some "transhumanists" apparently seem to do, literally to see a Nazi brandishing a firearm or cracking a whip in the service of genocide before they will grant that even now society is conspiring unnecessarily and at great human cost to cast certain perfectly liveable and flourishing and legible and wanted human capacities, morphologies, and lifeways as less-than-human, as offenses to humanity demanding "remedy" whatever those who incarnate them might have to say in the matter.

As far as I can tell, "transhumanists" who hide behind their restraint from conspicuous coercion to protect themselves from the "eugenicist" charge for all their glib talk about what objectively counts as a life worth living and a capacity worth "enhancing," have simply arbitrarily accepted a far too-restrictive conception of what can count as eugenics and then pretend everybody else agrees with that conception when almost nobody actually does. In my view the very idea of a discourse of morphological or lifeway "improvement" in the abstract -- rather than and apart from discourses and practices of actually diverse, actually wanted, actually expressed, informed nonduressed consensual prosthetic/therapeutic interventions -- is dangerously eugenic in its implications.
That's about half of his article here, just don't feel like posting all of it. I certainly agree with Carrico's excerpt here that I bolded, certainly a "eugenicist", nor a "racist", has to be an extreme right wing hatefullogue that trolls the internet and posts at Stormfront or something, that narrow of a range of definition of these terms is not accurate nor meaningful in my view.



There is a lot more to flesh out on this subject, but I will cut this post off here, come back to it later.
 

gl69m

Member
Post #6 (from original thread, from gl69m)
I know I'm real slow at coming back to threads to follow up; just wanna add a few things to this one.

Here is one of the most visible trans-humanist spokesman who also is the more or less political leader or candidate for the “Transhumanist” political party:

The Transhumanist Who Would Be President

An interview with Zoltan Istvan


https://medium.com/re-form/the-transhumanist-who-would-be-president-8950069ca0a4

A Transhumanist Goes to the Conventions

Zoltan Istvan
Jul 28 2016, 10:28am

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/53d5xa/a-transhumanist-goes-to-the-conventions


Quote:

The RNC was surprisingly more open to transhumanism than the DNC.

Zoltan Istvan is a futurist, author of The Transhumanist Wager, and a 2016 US Presidential candidateof the Transhumanist Party. He writes an occasional columnfor Motherboard in which he ruminates on the future beyond human ability.

Somewhere between a roaming white llama, a purple face-painted dancing mystic, and a pack of born-again, sign-waving Christians screaming that I was going to burn in hell, I saw the irritated soul of America.

It wasn't the America you see on CNN or hear about on NPR, but rather it resembled a traveling circus performing under the sprawled-out tent of democracy—and the tent was faded and fraying at the edges.

Either way, as the 2016 Transhumanist Party Presidential candidate—someone who advocates for robot rights, brain implants, and AI to one day replaceall government—I fit right in.

Earlier this month, my volunteers and I had decided to attend both 2016 national conventions—the GOP convention in Cleveland (which ended last week) and the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia (which ends Thursday).

Another interesting point about the convention was protester diversity. For all the criticism that Trump and the Republican Party gets about being racist, the protesters (and supporters) outside the GOP convention were packed with diversity. There was an extremely large amount of different races, creeds, ethnicities, political philosophies, and social movements afoot—including an all women's group of "Muslims for science," which I appreciated. The protesters and supporters that couldn't get into the Democratic convention were nothing of the sort. Everywhere I looked were young, white Americans, many camping out at FDR Park in South Philly. Diversity was limited, even if everyone was preaching for it. On the other hand, regarding gender, I did see more women protesters at the DNC than the RNC. (my note: now here I wonder how much of this diversity, what general % was supporters of Trump as opposed to the protesters, unless I saw for my self I'd be skeptical that there was serious “diversity” for the supporters side, I'm not sure what that evidence is, but not looking that up right now)


Interestingly, many of the delegates I spoke to at the GOP convention didn't seem to care what my futurist policies were or weren't. What they cared about was that the transhumanist ideas I suggested could move the economy forward. Luckily, they can, I insisted. Gene editing tech, exoskeleton technology, and driverless cars—core transhumanist issues—are going to make many new billionaires. The delegates smiled, welcoming me to the club, asking if GOP speaker and transhumanist Peter Thiel was a friend of mine.

This wasn't the way it was supposed to be. I tend to lean a bit left in my policies, and the Christian right—rulers of the GOP—were supposed to despise me. After all, I'm an atheist candidate. Yet, it turned out, at least at their convention, that my musings were welcome.

The Transhumanist Party and my campaign generally aim to be politically centric, and we focus on how we can best promote a science and technology agenda. Nothing on Planet Earth affects our lives more than innovation in science and tech, so you'd think the major candidates would be talking more about it. Sadly, they're not. It's politics as usual with them, which is perhaps why so many Americans are disgruntled about the major candidate choices they have.
Peter Thiel is another prominent trans-humanist it would seem and an apparent supporter of Trump I presume. This photo here Zoltan includes, shows what looks like to me some good ol' boy bible thumpin' rednecks, and I will say it out loud and call them likely racist (well I'm only 99.9% sure about that
biggrin.gif
), I have just seen too many of those types in various youtube vids, and known a few people similar that description (mindset) my self in my own life.

The ironic thing I think is, people like this very likely welcomes the shit out of tech/technology/AI etc. and probably many transhumanist ideals (akin to human “evolutionary” style improvement, via technology, and eugenics); so long as they stay in white supremacist hands, and such trans-humanists (and tech) stay at least relatively close (without apparent conflict) to whatever religious views they espouse to. Dude on the very right with the sign of the list of all who await hellfire!

I'm slightly dismayed they got “masturbators” and “metal-heads” on the list, I'm doubly fucked there
biggrin.gif
damn! That's quite an extensive list! of hellfire awaiters there, maybe some people deserve hellfire, I aint really sure who, surly these guys didn't put themselves on that list.

Quote:

1469720048990222.JPG
I wonder, do they realize that Jesus, if he actually existed was probably a black man or maybe he was mulatto (he was Hebrew right?)? They even include “white supremacists” and “little monsters” (wtf do they mean by that one??!!) on that extensive list. I think they might as well just put all humans on the list except the names of the 8-9 guys standing there, would be simpler
biggrin.gif
. The ironic thing is, I bet these guys would welcome trans-humanism if it were in christian supremacist hands, and wiped out all so-called sinners by their definitions. But if there are too many transgendered and gay people into the movement, I'm sure they might not be so approving of it (trans-humanism) if they realize more of those people might be some of the geeks and nerds that are into pushing trans-humanism forward so much, and that it possibly is supportive of say gender fluidity (say even in cyborgs), or more racial inclusion (not seeing that so far though) or maybe even race fluidity or perhaps primarily skin color fluidity say (like chameleon like).


So Zoltan is an atheist, but I wonder exactly why, what is his motivations towards dis-belief in deities. I have suspicions about some atheists and any real motivation to be “anti-religious”, cause sometimes the charge of un-feeling and in-humanness, violence justified through war with all the "scientific' "rationalism' mentality does describe some of those kind of people very well, anti-spirituality in my view, some on the “left” as well as the “right”. I am definitely not anti-spiritual, but it is almost impossible to really define that from what I can make of it, and I do consider myself to be basically an atheist or maybe agnostic is a better word, just not strong enough objectivity to what “theism” really is or the “empirical” objective evidence for any “deitie(s)”. I'm really someone who wants to be a theist, but the evidence is horribly poor and horribly confusing, so I'm more or less atheist by default. But atheism simply in of itself does not make spiritually impossible or un-real, nor even life after death (at least the possibility), but most theists make the mistake of assuming that to be true when it isn't.

Zoltan's book “The Transhumanist Wager”, some of the reviews makes it sound to me very similar, a lot like the same vein as Aldous Huxley's “Brave New World” (in a more modern our time context that is), some what satirical about potential abuse of power by those they actually support but also a lot of predictive programming it seems to me also. Weird stuff. I haven't read either book, but just making a casual comparison from the brief description of the two books from what snippets I have read about them.

Zoltan seems to advocate the probable extinction of “democracy”, and by logical extension of that, would seem that if a “singularity” ever actually comes about, I would think he's sure to recommend it become the “one world govt.” dictator for all, even if it were to become a “Jesus” singularity.

The Jesus Singularity

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...us-singularity
Zoltan Istvan

Aug 24 2016, 12:55pm

Wild Transhumanist Campaign Tech We’ll See in Future Presidential Elections

Zoltan Istvan
Jun 22 2016, 12:15pm

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...tial-elections




Quote:

If we’re lucky, given how crazy these elections have made America look, maybe technology will make future elections disappear altogether.

Lest we think future elections are all about the candidates, perhaps the largest possibility on the horizon could come from digital direct democracy—the concept where citizens participate in real time input in the government. I gently advocate for a fourth branch of government, in which the people can vote on issues that matter to them and their decrees could have real legal consequence on Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency.

Of course, that's only if government even exists anymore. It's possible the coming age of artificial intelligence and robots may replace the need for politicians. At least human ones. Some experts think superintelligent AI might be here in 10 to 15 years, so why not have a robot president that is totally altruistic and not susceptible to lobbyists and personal desires? This machine leader would simply always calculate the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and go with that. No more Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, or whatever else we are.
As much as I despise the fake and rigged democracy that we have now, right now I'm not presently leaning toward robot/AI dictators as a better solution, certainly not while knowing who it is that is working towards creating the “singularity”; IMO which is strongly supported by those currently in control of the rigged democracy as of now anyhow.

My feeling is though, that their show (the hardcore trans-humanists) of acting like they care about and trying to get involved in politics, is just that, just for show: I think they are working on technology that in their minds will be unstoppable (built in mechanisms against all resistance to it's power) and basically all powerful (from a human standpoint), so it could go (quietly and secretly) around any political resistance. And perhaps not even secretly if the technological power really comes to fruition, as it is potentially possible for it (them) to do so, I have to believe such could be our possible future at this point. And in which case, gun enthusiasts (or in some cases gun nuts) can have all the weapons and firepower in the world, and machines and AI (if advanced enough, nano weapons too) may have all kinds of ways to defeat that and the most super prepared doomsday prepper wouldn't stand a chance against that anyway. So all the Trump era Make America Great (racist) again behavior might not matter in 10, 20 or 50 years from now, or maybe even sooner, I really don't know right now.


I found this site here,

Lifeboat Foundation
Safeguarding Humanity

which seems to espouse a belief in investing in technologies to quote perhaps save humanity (or as many people as possible?) from some impending planned “de-population” agenda. Supposedly I guess.

https://lifeboat.com/

in the “About” section


Quote:

Learn about our advisory boards, board of directors, staff, finances, procedures, FAQ,timeline, our programs, and how to contact us!
Mission Statement

The Lifeboat Foundation is a nonprofit nongovernmental organization dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive existential risksand possible misuse of increasingly powerful technologies, including genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics/AI, as we move towards the Singularity.

Lifeboat Foundation is pursuing a variety of options, including helping to accelerate the development of technologies to defend humanity such as new methods to combat viruses, effective nanotechnological defensive strategies, and even self-sustaining space colonies in case the other defensive strategies fail.

We believe that, in some situations, it might be feasible to relinquish technological capacity in the public interest (for example, we are against the U.S. government posting the recipe for the 1918 flu virus on the internet). We have some of the best minds on the planet working on programs to enable our survival. We invite you to join our cause!

The Lifeboat Foundation is working on a prototype Friendly AI and also has launched the world’s firstbitcoin endowment fund.
Top Ten Transhumanist Technologies

by Lifeboat Foundation Scientific Advisory Board member Michael Anissimov.

https://lifeboat.com/ex/transhumanist.technologies

A lot of prominent trans-humanists and quotes are used and discussed on this site, so it seems to be partially warning but I'd say mostly promoting, a trans-humanist ideology/agenda if you ask me.

From the “Existential Risk Programs” section (click on “Programs”)



Quote:

Overview

An existential risk is a risk that is both global and terminal. Nick Bostrom defines it as a risk “where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential”. The term is frequently used to describe disaster and doomsday scenarios caused by non-friendly superintelligence, misuse of molecular nanotechnology, or other sources of danger.

The Lifeboat Foundation was formed to prevent existential events from happening, as once they occur, humanity may have no possibility to correct the error. Unfortunately governments, and humanity in general, always react AFTER a disaster has happened, and some disasters will leave no survivors so we must react BEFORE they occur. We must be proactive.

The Lifeboat Foundation is developing programs to prevent existential events (“shields”) as well as programs to preserve civilization (“preservers”) to survive such events.

Quotes

Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach — see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience — is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions.”
Nick Bostrom

We cannot rely on trial-and-error approaches to deal with existential risks… We need to vastly increase our investment in developing specific defensive technologies… We are at the critical stage today for biotechnology, and we will reach the stage where we need to directly implement defensive technologies for nanotechnology during the late teen years of this century… A self-replicating pathogen, whether biological or nanotechnology based, could destroy our civilization in a matter of days or weeks.”
Ray Kurzweil

Resources

Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazardsby Nick Bostrom – Yale 2001 PDF version

How unlikely is a doomsday catastrophe?by Nick Bostrom and Max Tegmark – December 18, 2005.

Immortalist Utilitarianismby Michael Anissimov – May 2004

Memes and Rational Decisionsby Michael Vassar – 2004

The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Eraby Vernor Vinge – San Diego 1993

Why the future doesn’t need usby Bill Joy – Wired April 2000

Books

Catastrophe : Risk and Responseby Richard A. Posner – 2005

A Choice of Catastrophesby Isaac Asimov – 1981

The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinctionby John Leslie – 1998

Our Final Hour: A Scientist’s Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind’s Future In This Century — On Earth and Beyondby Lord Martin Rees – 2003

The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Deadby Frank J. Tipler – 1997

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biologyby Ray Kurzweil – 2005

Quote:

Our LifeShield Bunkers program now enables you to participatein a local LifeShield Bunker.

https://lifeboat.com/ex/lifeshieldbunkers#form

Overview

Our LifeShield Bunkers program is a compliment to our Space Habitatsprogram. It is a fallback position in case programs such as our BioShieldand NanoShield fail globally or locally.
I guess if you are wealthy enough, perhaps you too can buy one or invest in these high tech survivor bunkers and/or technologies that are described as attempting to safe guard a small tiny portion of the population (in bunkers), or perhaps even try to protect the entire world (to the best of their collective scientific ability I suppose) against terrorist and/or governmental de-population attacks. Right.


Quote:

7 eco-shelters for surviving the apocalypse

https://inhabitat.com/7-eco-shelters-for-surviving-the-12-21-12-apocalypse/6-best-apocalypses-recycled-bunkers-4/

VIEW SLIDESHOW

Are you worried about the imminent end of the world? If you have been distraught by the hype and rumors of the apocalypse, now is time to cut out the anxiety and start looking for an indestructible shelter to save you and your loved ones. From recycled luxury pads under the Mohave Desert to a bunker-nightclub in Moscow, here are 7 eco-shelters to get you through the apocalypse in comfort and with style!

7 Best Life-saving Apocalypse recycled bunkers

If you were looking for a totally indestructible shelter for surviving the approaching doomsday, a converted nuclear ballistic missile silo could have been a good option, but sadly this particular model is completely SOLD OUT. Retailing forjust $2 million per apartment, the Survival Condo in Kansas, is a 14-story shelter with enough food to feed 70 people indefinitely. It also comes with a fitness center, a bar, a pool and a movie theatre showing videos of how the Earth looked before it all went down in flames.








Some of these look like the ultimate doomsday super prepper bunkers no doubt
biggrin.gif
! But I bet they aint shit
icon_doh.GIF
compared to the military industrialist govt. underground city complexes.


Last question in the FAQ section



Quote:

I only have $10 in the bank. Is there a chance I could get on a lifeboat?

In the tradition of Harvard’s admissions policy, we expect lifeboats to not be exclusive to the rich and powerful. We expect that there will be lotteries for spots on lifeboats and there will also be trust funds to provide “lifeboat scholarships”.
“Lotteries” and “lifeboat scholarships”, awesome
biggrin.gif
! Expect that to save maybe a few hundred to maybe a couple thousand people world wide from the de-pop culture.


I wanna come back to this article in another post,

The long read

God in the machine: my strange journey into transhumanism

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-transhumanism

by Meghan O'Gieblyn

I think this interesting, given various religious/philosophical views, is trans-human/AI really possible, or is there some “divine” limit(s) placed upon human ability to create such, can technology only go so far? It could provide some intuitive reasoning on the level of concern, yes or no, how worried should we be about the possible extinction of “humanity” as we know it. Can humans as we are now also co-exist along side trans-humans or AI, robots and cyborgs, as is portrayed in lots of sci-fi? I think these are great and important questions for our generations as of right now.
 

gl69m

Member
Post #7 (from original thread, from patrick jane)
"Interstellar Posthumanity?" - Royal Astronomer connects AI/Transhumanism & Space Travel...

Martin Rees is not your average astrophysicist... He is arguably as deeply entrenched in the monolithic edifice of Scientism as one could possibly be. And lo and behold, he too, is a fervent believer in the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, and believes that extra terrestrials would most likely be AI, or beyond biological physicality, and that such a "post-human" existence is our own inevitable fate as well...

Astronomer Royal: If we find aliens, they will be machines - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scien...

The Future of Human Civilization - Cyborgs, AI & The Posthuman Era - Prof. Martin Rees (Full Interview from "artificial intelligence channel") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50iof...


__________________
Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt..._as=subscriber

Post #8 (from original thread, from patrick jane)
Creepiest Transhumanist Propaganda I've Seen Yet...

__________________
Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt..._as=subscriber

Post #9 (from original thread, from patrick jane)
Goertzel's Golems: the link between Cosmism and AI...

So Ben Goertzel, (main AI developer behind the Sophia robot) is actually a COSMIST.... How did I not realize this until now?? I did a video on Cosmism back in April of 2016 called ""Upload to the Heavens": Cosmism, Transhumanism, & Flat Earth Cosmology " https://youtu.be/9TVsit5re4M



__________________
Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt..._as=subscriber

Post #10 (from original thread, from griff)
Quote:


Originally Posted by gl69m View Post

...I wonder, do they realize that Jesus, if he actually existed was probably a black man or maybe he was mulatto (he was Hebrew right?)?...
Will provide input on more of your post later as time allows, but just wanted to state that I totally agree that Jesus was not Caucasian, it just wouldn't make sense.
icon_thumleft.gif


__________________
~(G)Q Know your enemy!
Ephesians 6:12 James 5:16 Romans 8:31
The glass being "half full or half empty" is irrelevant: I have this much water, how can I maximize its utilization...
 

gl69m

Member
Post #11 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Wanted to add a few vids and info to the thread, have been severely neglecting doing anything with it for the longest.


AGENDA 21 TOP SECRET UNDERGROUND CITIES, HAARP & PROJECT BLUE BEAM

You Tube
HASSAN CAMPBELL
Published on Nov 5, 2018

This guy has 2 channels it looks like, over 700 videos, haven't watched beyond these two videos. Very interesting info, most of it I've probably ran across these ideas before, and also shows that other people are seeing these kinds of things going on and sort of "waking up" as it were.

Most interesting idea he has (paraphrasing) is the elite, "caveman" he euphemistically calls them (kinda reference to white people in general as well): when/if they go back in their caves, which I think underground fortified military style bunkers is probably more accurate (or even the "underground cities conspiracy theory"); they will take all the most advanced techno with them. He expands further and says within the earth's history, wouldn't be the first time it has happened. Makes sense to me. Kind of recycling a new age each time after "renewal" (de-population have to assume). Reset, reboot.

Yeah, also he says no way that all of today's technology was developed in ~139 years, probably always been there (in underground hidden cities) and gets marched back out, recycled in stages, I agree with that, but or IMO could have to be reverse engineered again every time from old ancient texts and scrolls, weird devices. Either way their not just inventing it now out of nothing.

One idea he says that I would basically can't agree with, is that they are a "1000" years more advanced than what they reveal to the public, to me that seems over reaching conclusion. If that were true IMO, it would hardly seem they would need the rest of us at all, would be wiped out already without continuing to collect and study and store everyone's genetic material. Unless they just sadistic fucks just toying with us and dragging it all out.


AGENDA 21, EYE IN THE SKY BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!

You Tube
HASSAN CAMPBELL
Published on Jun 3, 2018

His commentary here is likely spot on, extreme surveillance and the technology to monitor with all your devices and electronics, and control your vehicle if they want to, His info and take is very reminiscent of Griff's video he post of the Corbett on the radio with a female talk show host. Both very informative discussions, every teacher in all schools should be giving out information like this instead of propaganda, but that's the system I guess.


"Smart" Tech And The End Of Privacy
http://letsrollforums.com//showpost....54&postcount=1



Quote:

I cannot help but to underscore the extreme severity of this invasion (and why I am living as close to the trailing edge of technology as possible).

Worthy of watching in it's entirety with close scrutiny, while comparing your own personal exposure.

Courtesy: The Corbett Report
Hassan also discusses the racial aspect of these topics, and how the system targets blacks more than anyone else, and I have to agree, the evidence overwhelmingly proves that. He strongly suggests that it's because on a genetic level most blacks were descended from a warrior class (he mentions Shaka Zulu), and they have more defiance against the system.


Interesting commentary about AI, race and racism, and will machines become more intelligent than humans and decide humans should be wiped out? Zennie says if the machine wants to kill us all off, (paraphrasing) it would be because it was not more intelligent than us and was given psychopathic paranoid schizophrenic programming. Makes sense to me.

On Artificial Intelligence, Stephen Hawking, And Racism

You Tube
Zennie62 Oakland Latest News Today Commentary Vlog
Published on Dec 2, 2014


On a hopefully less grim note, flying car available by 2019? Anybody remember the Jetson's cartoons? This one doesn't quite look like that yet. Gotta love the open blades of death with no protective cage, so that sooner or later some idiot will get their head or other body parts chopped off after moving to close to it, or too close to it when it starts up.

One wonders the laws and regulations (of there are any yet?) regarding these types of craft, they said right now no license is needed to own and operate. Imagine the number of extra air crashes this will add every year, when people flying small planes and helicopters with licenses crash as much as they already do! It looks cool, could be fun, I'm sure the 2030 models will surely be a lot better and safer than this one, what a fucking genius who gives us the open blades, hell the movie "Elysium" (scifi 2013) showcased vehicles with propellers with protective cages, but oh no not at the start of the industry building they I guess decide initial profit over safety every time, just like autos first came out with no roofs and no seatbelts (and a bunch of other safety features).

Silicon Valley Company Preps Affordable Flying Car for 2019

You Tube
KPIX CBS SF Bay Area
Published on Jul 12, 2018
 

gl69m

Member
Post #12 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Been a little bit since I last posted, busy at work and home, you know the drill.

Govt. shutdown from Chump I mean Trump, how ironic, their trying only now to cut off the flow of money (or at least to a trickle) that have made the elite like Trump and his conservaturd NWO ilk so fabulously wealthy beyond all of our wildest fantasies. Perhaps already now they have their underground mountain super prepper bunkers fully stocked and ready to go to start the depop, the purge, the hunger games, the logan's run agenda 21 domes, all the decades of predictive programming being played out, starting very very soon?, if all govt. assistance is cut off to the poorest? Even the prison guards who house the black and brown prisoners of war in the prison industrial complex, even they might get hung out to dry on their own, maybe.?

All conspiracy theorists have been seeing something like this coming for a very long time now, is it finally here? Most people are never really gonna be fully prepared for that, but that's the type of shit hit's the fan that the rest of the world experienced already for many centuries of colonialism anyhow. To the doomsday preppers of course, it's part of their religion, probably they are more prepared than most.


Florida prepper has message for preppers everywhere, the central part of U.S. is at far more risk of total mayhem if the system collapses now. I think he has at least some actual strong salient points that make at least part of what he is saying true, and shouldn't be totally ignored.

MIDWEST IS A DEATH TRAP(!)YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE(!)GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN(!)

You Tube
Florida Maquis
Published on Jan 4, 2019

I think his main point is that the coasts, particularly NY, CA, FL, TX, access to foreign materials and trade from the oceans, more money in their budgets for, well he says "security' (so-called), than the interior. I would think he's right about that. He says prisons with cut off funding will be letting prisoners go, where will they go? Un guarded suburbs of course, well on the coasts more money, more police and better funded security right?, less up tick in crime right? Maybe an up tick if they do get released, but this is also white supremacist code, most prisoners are black and brown, percent wise of course. Some commenters in the video say prisoners will be executed en mass, AI/chemical style perhaps, they wouldn't dare let them all out they say, I don't how true that might be or not.

This is all basically a thinly veiled coded message for white people to be scared of and practice racism and armed violence if and or when they might see an increase in black and brown folks in their neighborhoods or even near their mostly all white towns; if a large release of prisoners would actually come to pass. I don't think he said anything about race of any of the convicts, but people using at least a few brain cells will pick up on that code relatively easily.

I assume these kind of white preppers are also saying or predicting this type of result and interaction with poor people from govt. assisted or Section 8 housing if all SNAP and rent (evictions) is cut off indefinately and if the shutdown continues well past February. Food riots are easy to predict, no shit sherlock- people need to eat or die, doesn't anybody remember movies like Soylent Green (came out before I was born and I'm 49 now)?; anybody remember Arnold in the movie Running Man "All they want is food for god's sake!!" when he was framed for massacaring people in a Bakersfield CA food riot??

EBT Food Assistance Shut Down USA will Mimic Global Food Shortage Reactions (770)

You Tube

Adapt 2030
Published on Dec 30, 2018



Quote:

With EBT food assistance programs set to cease payments Feb 01, 2019 as Trump squares off with Democrats, neither willing to give an inch, it will come down to the people to decide which sides policies is correct to get the government open again and food assistance flowing again. Sudan experiencing bread shortages as the economy collapses, so this in my opinion is a dry run for governments across the world to see how citizens will react to food shortages, American style !
Being in the IL with my family myself, I don't relish the prospect of Florida Maquis being right about a collapse in the midwest even while the coast population centers are more secure, but the logic there is, if goods and raw materials, oil to refine to gasoline ect., river traffic and foreign and even domestic trade gets cut off, economy for the interior will suffer much earlier and much more harshly than the other states with more money and outside trade access, he has a point I find very hard to ignore.

I'm not mister Rambo, I have no weapons other than softball bats in my house. Certainly I will risk my life to protect my family, but not foolishly if I can use my wits, if any situation arises. I have no wish to be suspicious of people in need, but I know my wife harbors that type of suspicion, hell my own kids too. That puts me in a very tough situation not to call upon abuse if we happen to encounter such civil unrest if food shortages begin to occur, people get evicted from Section 8 or other govt. assisted housing (of which at least half of recipients are white btw); not to victimize the poorest further from this system which already victimizes them, and I also have to protect my family too. But alas this may be more fearmongering than necessary; that is if local states and townships would at this time; would actually begin to ban together and form true means, contingency plans, of equitable and just local food and resource distribution, and tell the corporate fascist scumbags in Washington and London and Rome to fuck off, and don't fall for the racist WS race baiting so that a racist and (and certain amount of poor white collateral damage also) purge does not occur; but this kind of purge is what the elite want.

Scum the likes of Trump is itching to be dictator it appears to me, and is holding the govt. hostage to fund a wall that they don't even give a shit about, the Dumb Ass Crats are in league with the whole thing, got rich off if the govt. too, now being stingy with a measly 5 billion??!! a drop in the bucket, nay a drop in the swimming pool of corporate welfare, and they claim to give a shit about the poorest of Americans. I've said before, no useless wall will stop 'illegals' from pouring in anyway, there is thousands of miles of coast and planes to bring them in, hell they might build ladders or tunnels over and under (or through) the wall for them, included in the 5 billion (well that might cost a little extra). The only reason they want a wall at all is to milk more money out of the govt. which is what they are the best at. If it was so fucking important for so-called 'national security', 'border security', him and his wealthy fucking rothchilds and other cronies could have paid for it and built the fucking thing already.

Even if they build a worthless fucking wall, they will still bring in 'illegals', for no other reason than apparently they need the labor. Unless they have automation ready now, in which case maybe they won't need them for much longer, and a lot of us low caste people either perhaps.



Here is a few recent articles on the Hypocrisy of Chump and the other conservaturds who scream bloody murder about 'illegals', but there is ample proof that they are the ones benefiting the most from all of that 'illegal' labor.

Making President Trump’s Bed: A Housekeeper Without Papers
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/u...d-workers.html
By Miriam Jordan
Dec. 6, 2018


Trump Organization responds to claims it hired illegal immigrants
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...illegal-aliens
By Frank Miles | Fox News
Dec. 6, 2018



Quote:

The Trump Organization hit back at a bombshell report in The New York Times that said President Trump’s elite resorts had numerous illegal aliens as housekeeping, maintenance, and landscaping employees.

“We have tens of thousands of employees across our properties and have very strict hiring practices. If any employee submitted false documentation in an attempt to circumvent the law, they will be terminated immediately,” a spokesperson for the Trump Organization told Fox News via email.
I don't buy the lame ass lying grandstanding defense by team Trump on this bombshell for one second, but I imagine their hiring really is strict and racist though, for the jobs with real authority and salary of course that would be true.


Trump business empire shuns E-Verify, hires illegal immigrants
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ify-hiring-il/
By Stephen Dinan and S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Thursday, December 6, 2018



Quote:

Just five of the 565 companies in President Trump’s business empire are signed up to use E-Verify, the government’s best tool to weed illegal immigrants out of the workforce, according to a Washington Times analysis that suggests the president could personally be doing more on that front.
He could be doing more??!! Really!? If that number is true, 5 out 565?, that's like 0.88% of his companies, that would surely prove the hypocricy is deliberate; they are exploiting these people far more than what the immigrants are getting out of coming here 'illegally', which is the total opposite of the shoved down our throats conservaturd sjw narrative that these immigrants ('legal' and 'illegal') are a "burden" on the system; it looks to me like they may be what has kept it from collapsing for last three or four decades, labor wise, since white people are not reproducing themselves at replacement rates apparently, and they have been continuing an ongoing mostly slow paced race soldiering genocide on the black communities ever since "slavery" ended. Blacks were the main labor force in the "service" sector industries and agriculture in the U.S. until a large portion has been replaced by brown and hispanic peoples from south of the borders for last four decades or longer. White people generally don't want those jobs because most feel it is beneath them, or the labor might be in general too hard for most of them anyway.

Supposedly though immigrants taking too many "american's" jobs, but white unemployment is still much lower than black unemployment; why, because blacks are less qualified (racist code for 'less intelligent')? or (most, maybe not all) whites still practice a great deal of racism, in the work place as well? Everybody knows that answer even when they are not honest about it.


Feds targeting more worksites crack down on undocumented workers – but not their employers
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nt/2263656002/
Alan Gomez, USA TODAY Published 12:13 p.m. ET Dec. 11, 2018 | Updated 5:01 p.m. ET Dec. 11, 2018



Quote:

The Trump administration ramped up arrests at businesses suspected of employing undocumented immigrants in 2018, but data obtained by USA TODAY show that federal agents did so by mostly targeting those working illegally and not their employers.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was ordered to quadruple worksite enforcement this year, and it did just that. In fiscal year 2018, which ended Sept. 30, ICE set 10-year highs for the number of worksite audits conducted (5,981) and criminal charges filed (779).

ICE leadership claimed its crackdown is focused on employers and employees equally as part of a balanced approach to worksite enforcement, but the data show that the majority of arrests in 2018 were of workers.

The 113 members of management charged with criminal violations in 2018 increased 82 percent from the previous year, but the 666 workers charged with criminal violations increased by 812 percent. The number of "administrative arrests" – those for basic immigration violations that are predominantly used against workers – spiked from 172 in 2017 to 1,525 in 2018. The 121 federal indictments and convictions of managers in 2018 represented a 10-year low for the agency.
In 2017, the chart further down shows that only 62 management arrests were made, definitely lower than Obama's numbers, if this chart is true, but a huge spike in targeting the 'illegals' as the only real culprits in this labor operation.



Quote:

"We're going to do it a little different," Homan said. "We're going to prosecute employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens, (and) we're going to detain and remove the illegal alien workers."

That strategy played out during a raid of a meatpacking plant in Bean Station, Tennessee, in April. In that case, 97 workers and the owner of the plant, James Brantley, were arrested.

Brantley pleaded guilty to four federal crimes, including knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants. Federal agents seized $107,000 in cash they found during the raid that was meant to pay undocumented workers to avoid taxes, he was fined $41,000 by the state Occupational Safety and Health Administration for "serious" violations of worker safety rules, and he could be forced to pay $1.3 million in unpaid taxes during his sentencing hearing in February.

Robert Hammer, who heads Homeland Security Investigations for ICE in Tennessee and oversaw the Bean Station raid, said that case originated as a financial one and the immigration violations were "not the overarching goals."

"While the public's perception may have been that we solely went in to get (the workers), there was a broader strategy at play here," Hammer said.

Immigration experts on both sides of the debate have serious doubts about that strategy.
Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of business owners that advocate for improved guest worker programs, said the increase in worksite enforcement punishes businesses that are trying their best to operate in an outdated immigration system.

Quote:

That “absurdity” of the guest system is one point that advocates on both sides agree on. Esther Lopez, secretary-treasurer of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents 1.3 million people who work in farms, plants and factories around the country, said the administration should work with Congress to improve guest worker programs rather than “deliberately targeting” hardworking immigrants.
Absurdity of the "guest worker programs", understatement of the century, when in control by the elite racist white supremacists, recruiting and transporting most of them and exploiting brown (and some immigrant black) labor to the fullest while pushing the narrative of blaming them as the only real criminals in 'illegal' immigration, and then punishing them (the workers) when they do their selective raids and very few white racists in control of it (the managers) getting punished for it, and probably let off from white collar lock up early for good behavior in short time to go back out and do it all over again. Aint they so fucking patriotic.



Quote:

“It is time for our nation’s leaders to recognize the incredible contributions these workers make to our economy and focus on policies that create good-paying jobs that help every worker succeed, not tear innocent families apart,” Lopez said.

Derek Benner, the head of ICE Homeland Security Investigations, sees things differently, characterizing his agency's crackdown on undocumented labor as a border security issue. If undocumented immigrants don't have jobs waiting for them in the USA, he said, that will lower the flow of illegal immigration across the border and lessen the power of cartels that control human smuggling routes throughout Mexico and Central America.

He said the most important number to look at is the increase in audits of companies, from 1,360 in 2017 to 5,981 in 2018.

Benner is in the process of hiring 60 auditors to add to the 120 conducting worksite audits to increase that number even higher. His agents are doing more direct outreach to businesses about worksite enforcement, using new technology to speed up audits and creating a more centralized auditing center to streamline the entire process.

The goal, Benner said, is to change the impression business owners have that they're unlikely to get a visit from ICE to check their workforce. Instead, he wants business owners to fear an ICE immigration audit as much as they fear an IRS tax audit.

"People feel there's a pretty good chance that their (income tax return is going to be audited by a computer or seen by human eyes," Benner said. "People at some point will feel like there's a legitimate possibility that ICE ... is actually going to come audit their employment records."
The height of absurdity and hypocrisy by the right wing, not that the 'left wing' isn't in cahoots with them of course they are, they ('liberals') "act" like they give a shit about the non-white people doing most of the labor, but that's a facade and a farce, their just as bad as the conservaturds but most brown and black people appear to be very confused about that and fall for the sjw 'liberal' act and narrative, to their detriment of course.

None of this is absurd though, and should be totally expected, if it understood that we do live in a global system of racism/white supremacy, driven by the fear of white genetic annihilation, the dedicated and targeted and disciplined goal of white genetic survival. I can wish it wasn't that way, and that a land of and society of true justice is around the corner, but their are just too many facts and evidence that points to this being the truth which can't be dismissed, or ignored. Especially at our own peril, for not banding together and quit practicing racism. Too many white conspiritards keep justifying and explaining away WS racism to black people on the Youtube comment wars, saying it's just race baiting divide and conquer by the 'jew supremacists' and their supposed to ingnore it and it will not affect anyone but they themselves damn sure aren't dismissing what they consider "anti-white racism", which really is an oxymoron in real terms now, but I suppose that could change eventually right?

How many white people want to be among the white collateral damage of this (possibly coming) purge? I think the preppers are raring to go it looks like. The conservaturd big mouths who haven't prepped, they better hope they have trained and worked out hard, "prepare for slaughter" as the Hebrew Israelites preach on the streets that they say Yahweh and Jesus is coming back to bring an end to white rule and the edomite kindom, they say god is gonna help them put white people into slavery, karma what goes around comes around, "he that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity", etc. etc. I don't want to be enslaved nor my children, but these hatefilled white nationalists, wouldn't bother me to see them in chains, or slaughtered if they continue their racist drivel, be hard pressed to say they don't deserve it.
 

gl69m

Member
Post #13 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Just wanted to add a quick note, comment worth noting, the govt. workers expected to show up to work (those who are considered "essential" personnel) without getting paid, indefinitely, if they drag on the shut down, couldn't that be viewed as a simplified definition/version of slavery? How the fuck are the ones still showing up to work even eating while on the job right now? I've seen some Youtube vids, commenters saying that some of these workers may be turning to food banks to eat, gofundme pages, charities etc.

Now I think, just like conservatives will say, a lot of the govt. service apparatus is parasitical on the economy to begin with, but that was built along with corporate fascism, which is no real difference from communism/marxism (that is just a repackaged corporatism anyway, miss me with that bullshit conservaturds), and they have benefited hugely from the corporate/govt. fusion welfare state just like the liberal sjws.

My job hasn't been affected yet, the grain industry here I don't think has been affected yet, but the longer it drags on, the more the penny pinching corporations will cut back on everybody, longer hours for less pay and layoffs, the usual corporate way. Only the elite get to have jobs with more pay for less work, everybody wants that, don't they?


I listened to an interview, I believe a Khemetic Sa Neter channel, interviewed a native american tribal representative I think from North Dakota or maybe Minnesota, just don't know where I saw it at right now. He was stating the obvious, they are working hard to find alternatives for resource providing for people under their tribal jurisdictions. The wealthier 5$ indians who are 1/2 to 1/16 indian and mostly white are most likely way better off than more genetically legitimate indigenous peoples here in the americas; it should be obvious they have practiced racism as outlined by the system in order to have the wealth they have, and still they lay claim to tribal cultures and heritage.


I would love to see Trump removed from office, impeached, for treason, attempting to destroy the country, but I seriously doubt that will happen. I think that if any "food riots" occur, it will be an excuse to roll in the military industrial complex (they are not on full shut down I don't think); I would look to places like urban poor Chicago and Milwaukee for something to pop off: not that they aren't already living under veiled martial law anyway (secret police shootings and organ harvesting).

Alternatively, a second 9/11 may occur to provide this pretext, so that the U.S. military will be used under the excuse of providing order out of chaos to get the purge started and rolling.


Sounds like a lot of doom and gloom, sorry but let's get real here.

Post #14 (from original thread, from Truthissweet)
From gl69m:


Quote:

Alternatively, a second 9/11 may occur to provide this pretext, so that the U.S. military will be used under the excuse of providing order out of chaos to get the purge started and rolling.*
I do believe that Jade Helm 15 (maybe 16,17,18 secret Jade Helms as well, for all we know), practiced martial law. Are we seeing in the past three years, exactly, or close to, what Jade Helm was about: creating a state where a number of mind-numbing events (mostly courtesy of the tanned one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) are taking place simultaneously, so that the only option (the perps assume the population has been conditioned like a marinated London broil since at least 9/11), is to declare a "state of emergency", meaning martial law?

Those who still back Trump (I have to be nice here), should really look hard at what is going on. You have a horrible businessman who most likely took on the roll of president ( via get out of jail free card and Deutsch Bank) as way to escape legal and financial crisis. This past two years has been like Dallas. Is there a difference between JR and Donald (other than the accent)?


146835c45e954146d2.jpg

We might see a "who shot Donald" episode, but we won't see a Bobby in shower scene saying the past two years have been a dream.



From gl69m:


Quote:

Soylent Green
I saw the movie when it was released. This was a good follow-up to Planet Of The Apes for C. Heston. I was 12, but the movie still resonates with me today. I don't know if things will get as bad as depicted in the movie, but considering post WWII to current times, there has been a definite push to "them against us" and I think "them" is behind schedule and desperately trying to catch up.
 

gl69m

Member
Post #15 (from original thread, from gl69m)
I was thinking of something today, a wild thought came to my mind; do police body cams use facial recognition (software or other tech)?

Mainly this thought came to me because I have seen a large number of racial profiling videos lately; race soldier white supr/blue isis, harassing and arresting and mainly terrorizing, mostly black people (well the ones i've seen seems to be about 99%+); and so this thought here I have thought about this years and years ago is-

can video be altered such that an identity of someone on video (their image) can be replaced with the image(s) of another person (who looks similar enough, height weight, other features ect.) and make it look authentic?


How many more false convictions by 'law enforcement' could be obtained by such a tactic than already has always occurred? And make the evidence look legit enough to fool even people who would be skeptical?

A simple scenario is, that 'law enforcement' utilizes (or really more accurate to say "employs") "confidential informants", as people who they gain information from and also as criminal witnesses sometimes (perhaps eye witnesses as well), to make arrests and get convictions.

Suppose someone innocent is arrested and even convicted of a crime they didn't commit; in some case there may have actually been no crime at all just a fabricated crime/incident, but in some cases an actual crime has been committed but by someone else- who in all likelihood is a "confidential informant". I think this is a good explanation for a lot of crime in high crime areas, especially poor black and brown neighborhoods. Lots of "gang' members are probably "confidential informants" (probably MKUltra'd or manchurian candidate like).

I'm not saying this explains all crime there or anywhere else, this is just one type of scenario among many; but we really just have no way of knowing how much the crime rates are falsified and how many innocent people are arrested and convicted, to fill up people inside the prison industrial complex, which is really the modern day slave facilities (google how many companies are now using prison labor for products/services, it's enormous).


Has anybody seen or heard of this company (or brand?) before,

Veritone

I googled my question about police body cams using facial recognition, and a Veritone ad popped up I think was at the bottom of the page first time I searched it.

Quote:

Veritoneredact.com | Veritone Redact | Download the Solution Brief‎

Adwww.veritoneredact.com/redact‎


Save time & improve efficiency using AI to automate face redaction & sensitive information. Streamline, accelerate & reduce costs linked to video evidence redaction workflows. Automated Solution. Get a Demo. How It Works. Download Brief.
Now when they use the term "redact" or "redacting", I'm sure it would be argued (by legal teams) that they are not altering the evidence to falsify it in order to falsely prosecute anyone who was innocent: but if you have a skeptical mind like I do, I have to ask- how in the hell is it really possible to completely insure that that could never happen; particularly in an already totally corrupt system?

And for black and brown people, how can "justice" possibly be assured with this technology in a thoroughly racist whitesupr system?

The answer to those two questions seem obvious to me, no way in hell or on earth can it be assured that such abuse will not take place in the current system (NWO) we have now.


Here's a flavor of the wording from this ad,

Quote:

SAVE TIME & INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY BY AUTOMATING THE REDACTION OF VIDEO & AUDIO EVIDENCE WITH AI

Easy-to-use: Turn-key solution powered by AI

Secure: Hosted in AWS GovCloud to support CJIS compliance requirements

Flexible: Use it anywhere. All you need is a desktop, browser, and internet connection

Agnostic: Works with all commonly used cameras and video or audio formats

Reliable: Automatically redacts faces and objects with high accuracy

Fast: Results in up to 90% time savings, freeing
up resources


Accelerate Your Video & Audio Redaction Workflows With Veritone Redact

Developed for law enforcement, judicial agencies and legal & compliance teams,
Veritone Redact automates the process of redacting video and audio evidence.
Gone are the days of time-intensive, frame-by-frame evidence redaction! With automated face detection and automatic tracking of manually selected sensitive imagery, Veritone Redact enables you to quickly tackle massive volumes of video and audio content at incredible speed and efficiency.


LAW ENFORCEMENT

Expedite compliance with pubic records requests
Reduce time required to redact files, saving costs and freeing up resources
Protect privacy of witnesses and others appearing in footage
Preserve the integrity of video and audio evidence for cases

LEGAL & COMPLIANCE

Remove privileged information or PII from evidence to be produced
Identify and label redacted files for specific cases
Mark redacted evidence as relevant or privileged
Include redacted copies in discovery productions


3 EASY STEPS TO REDACTED MEDIA EVIDENCE

Simply share or download once you're done!

14f4b21a-screen-shot-2019-01-25-at-5-06-26-pm_08605407l054000000001.png

STEP 1

Upload video evidence from any source

be1257c9-screen-shot-2019-03-04-at-3-04-08-pm_07y05407l054006000001.png

STEP 2

Auto detect and review faces and objects, select items to redact

0718aabe-screen-shot-2019-03-04-at-3-04-08-pm-redacted_0ll0fc07l05s0dr09k001.png

STEP 3

Start auto redaction


EXPEDITE REDACTION OF
ANY SENSITIVE ITEMS
Automatically detect faces and heads within video and audio evidence
Expedite a once manual process by tracking defined images forward through the file
Check your work in application with redaction preview filters
Redact detected faces, heads and selected images in video evidence automatically with one click
Copy of redacted media file is downloadable to a local computer


FULFILL CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS
Capture comprehensive reporting of all actions taken against redacted evidence to support compliance with chain of custody requirements
Download all actions as audit logs in Excel file format along with the redacted video or audio files


COLLABORATE ACROSS
AGENCIES
Manage digital evidence redaction workloads by tagging evidence with its status in the approval workflow
Download and send shareable redacted evidence files for quick distribution in existing inter and intra-agency workflows
"Automatically detect faces and heads within video and audio evidence"
Check your work in application with redaction preview filters
"Redact detected faces, heads and selected images in video evidence automatically with one click"


Does everybody see what I mean here, how I think the term "redacting" can be used in multiple ways?


Now I saw in another link (not sure which link right now) for Veritone they used the term obscuring or blurring to describe "redact" or "redacting" of someones face in video evidence, they say for "privacy protection"(?, like who gets this protection and who doesn't I wonder). To me, or am I just crazy, that to "redact" or "redacting", someone (a technician) could also alter a face to someone else's face, and with technology like this? There are tons of examples of celebrity revenge porn with altered heads on the bodies of porn models, although in photos they usually don't look very convincing that it hasn't been photoshopped.

And they could do it damn quick with this also, perhaps even in real time, like in livestream social media videos? Perhaps like even in a massacre like the recent one in Christchurch New Zealand. Perhaps even the audio can be altered, switching actual voice of someone else onto the person in the video.

Suppose the alleged terrorist Brenton Tarrant in his livestream of that attack, is actually a military/intelligence special forces operative, they could have switched Tarrant's image and voice onto another man doing the actual attack.

I'm not saying Tarrant is innocent or guilty, right now I have no idea, I'm saying with this kind of tools at their disposal, it seems quite probable they could pull that kind of shit off. Reminds me of the fight scene near the end of the "Running Man" movie where the face of Arnold was put onto a stunt double and Arnold's (the governator) character wasn't even there fighting the other gladiator guy (who they had also switched his image too, Jessie Ventura's character, the other governator).


To me this is scary shit, because if they get the capabilities perfected here, just about anybody could be seen and heard on video doing things they never did, and in places they had never been, in real time even, and maybe even eventually they can do all this with cgi and not even using stunt doubles. If the cgi gets life like enough, will we be able to tell the difference?, than all bets are off about the truth of what we're seeing anymore.

Some of the articles about facial recognition underscore that in the last few years the early trials had very high rates of false positive returns, mis-identification (some as high as 98%!). Some articles also noted that there is a growing data base of faces from the entire population, and that with using AI that is getting faster and faster at connecting data, this can be used (at least potentially I guess) for very quick positive (well that depends!) ID of "suspects' on scene by LEOs.


This Forbes article claims such facial recognition technology can provide a "defense" (notice why I quotationed this) against accusations of racial bias (in 'law enforcement'),

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoff.../#bdbfc401ff32


Quote:

Setting Boundaries
The use of facial recognition on bodycams also offers a defense against accusations of racial bias. Policies can be set to prevent officers searching those not identified by facial recognition, even when stopped.
Where the accusation is made that stop and search over-polices low-level crime in specific communities, facial recognition on bodycams offers a balance. It is this kind of safeguarding that will help prompt broader adoption.

Facial recognition on bodycams will also provide secondary verification for matches from surveillance vehicles and CCTV cameras. Following an initial match, an officer on foot approaches the person and runs a second check from a bodycam, running from the exact same watch list. Only if there is also a match is anything taken further. In of itself, this is a very material safeguard against so-called false positives. It also provides a person to person interaction before any final decision on an arrest is made.
The part I underlined and bolded, I highlighted this from the article, no one who will admit how thoroughly racist this system is should take this at it's word that it won't be used in a racist manner, possibly making it even worse for black and brown people being falsely targeted and racially profiled, and be used to make it all seem legit and the 'evidence' more 'solid' and fool proof for the media and courts, juries ect. It should not be believed nor trusted in my view.


And yes, even white people can be falsely targeted, arrested and convicted by these means; but we all know that within the racist WS system that white people are not racially profiled (falsely); obviously racists will not admit to this truth. In my opinion it will happen to white people but just like it's always been it will be quite rare. Unless more and more non-white people get access to such technology? I don't see the dedicated RWS elites allowing that.

This technology can also track all kinds of objects and "redact" them too; in my view I think probably they can be adding and deleting objects and people in whole scenes, and completely changing the reality of what is seen and heard. FEers will no doubt say they been doing this all along to make us believe the earth is round and that space exists, blah blah blah, I really won't even type any more scribble thinking about Flerfer nonsense
biggrin.gif
.


Enough for now, hopefully that will wake up a few people's eyes (and minds) when they see this post. I just thought this was important enough that I wanted to add this today and not wait till later while I was still thinking about it.
 

gl69m

Member
Post #16 (from original thread, from gl69m)
Has anybody heard of this company and app called "Banjo"? Or the man Damien Patton (guy with the Duck Dynasty beard, or is he the 666 "Omen" Damien
biggrin.gif
?),

Just recently seen this on youtube, first time I'd heard of it,

How a Tech Startup Is Using Artificial Intelligence to 'Know Things Before Anyone Else' | Inc.


The founder (or co-founder), according to Google,



Quote:

Founded by Damien Patton and David J. Phillips in Redwood City, CA, Banjo launched on June 22, 2011. The app was originally conceived of as a tool for ensuring you never missed out on friends nearby. The app reached 500,000 users in six months and one million users in nine months. ... Banjo currently has 6 million users.
I watched Patton's talk, and I have to say I found myself feeling pretty skeptical about some of the details of his life story there, supposedly he dropped out of high school at 15 and became a homeless hobo for about 2 years (according to this article, The Most Important Social Media Company You've Never Heard Of https://www.inc.com/dell/technology-is-fueling-a-new-type-of-space-race.html), then before moving in with his dad, and then he joins the Navy and and served in "Desert Storm" and oversaw sorties flying into Iraq during the merciless bombing phase in 1991 I assume. I think I'm mainly skeptical of that homeless part, sounds too much like a business guru/hero with too humble of a background story to me.

After leaving the military, Patton then spends a year learning welding and mechanics in San Diego in order to schmooze his way into then becoming a Nascar pit crew guy. After rising to chief mechanic, he then gets a degree from University of North Carolina in Greensboro (magna cum laude) in less than three years no less, but I didn't see from the article or his talk that I recall (only watched it through 1 time) what his degree was in or was it just a B.S. or Masters PHd or what. Then he helps run a software business, then becomes a "crime scene investigator" (he gets so good he ends up training the local police force, so he is an obvious race soldier RWSicst I would say). This guy's a regular jack(off) of all trades here, a real "Buckaroo Banzai" for sure. To me it smacks of he is probably jesuit trained and still part of the military apparatus in my opinion.

The guy wins 2 Google "hackethons" in Silicon Valley, while supposedly knowing no one there, and then gets the inspiration and the money from that to start up his company that becomes "Banjo", the usable app from it was released in 2011.


Now I haven't read or digested all of what his company does or where it's based, but my impression is that it has a network of AI computers that get "signals" (data of all kinds) from social media, cameras, audio, perhaps surveillance cameras video/audio ect.? Probably from every cell phone out there too for all we know, who the fuck knows??!! That is the tagline kinda of the company, "know anything (and everything really) before anyone else knows". With this kind of information gathering (on literally possibly every device out there that can generate any kind of signal or data?) and combined with the military/intelligence tools like "Veritone" (see post #15), I would say you have a recipe for history "redaction" or revision (in real time almost quite possibly, in hours or maybe even minutes eventually?), like "1984" (George Orwell) style.


Here's some portions from the article that I think reveal how this could be used by military/intel/media to do just such a thing, and rather quickly,



Quote:

The software itself is Banjo's secret weapon, which Patton says is capable of performing two quadrillion-plus calculations on the "hundreds of thousands of geo-tagged mobile posts" flooding in each minute: It simultaneously does linguistic and topic analysis, geo-data analysis, and photo and video classification, as well as some 30,000 other sorts of computation. Over the past four years, the software has documented the baseline state for each square of the global grid: This one is a featureless expanse of cornfield. This one's a war zone with constant smoke and fire. Here's Times Square--expect a steady flow of profanity and people dressed like Muppets. As posts rise from these specific locations and become visible to Banjo, the software compares them with that steady state: Deviations from "normal" (for example, a sudden uptick in the word gun, or images of fire or smoke or a riot in a normally serene area) trigger an alert back to the mother ship, where computers, aided by a handful of humans, can assess the alert and either disregard it or pass it on. (The number of humans required to monitor the system has shrunk to just a handful as Banjo's software has gotten smarter.)

It was through such an alert that Banjo found and recognized the significance of a single tweet sent just after 12:30 a.m. last November 20, from a location near the Florida State University campus in Tallahassee. Though the post contained no hashtag, Banjo's tripwire was triggered by the phrase "scared shitless," as well as by the pattern of words and the surge in Twitter and Instagram posts coming from that specific location. The software recognized the anomaly in that piece of the grid and brought it to the attention of folks at Banjo HQ--who then notified the local CBS affiliate. That channel became the first news outlet to report the wounding of three people in an FSU library shooting. This is why key media properties (including NBC and ESPN) are among Banjo's first paying customers. As one Banjo staffer puts it, "Banjo turns your laptop into a drone."

If you think that sounds creepy, you're forgiven. It's not hard to imagine how Banjo could be turned to a darker purpose in the hands of an Assad or a Putin. Except for one thing: "The drone is there only when you want the drone there," Epstein, the CMO, explains. "People want to be public, or they wouldn't post publicly. And they want their location to be known, or they would turn their location settings off."

In other words, you have the power to remain invisible to Banjo.
That last part I bolded, cause, well for one how bout in the hands of "Trump" or some other slime ball in the whitehouse or NSA headquarters? Just because you can maybe turn off your location settings on your phone, does that really mean it's off or actually "invisible" to "Banjo" or some other surveillance tool? I seriously doubt it.

Banjo apparently helped identify the Boston Bombing suspect in 2013?



Quote:

On April 15, 2013, when two pressure-cooker bombs exploded near the finish line at the Boston Marathon, it didn't take long for Banjo's staff of about a dozen (there's now more than 50) to realize they were learning about events on the ground faster than reporters were--and faster even than the police. Since Banjo uses location as its primary filter, the system could ignore the global noise and drill straight down to Boylston Street. Four days later, it followed the manhunt through Watertown, block by block, via posts from people mere feet from the scene.
And this part here about "social listening", or we would call that "Big Brother",



Quote:

"The idea of tracking visual data through the social Web--that's what people are becoming concerned with," Essex says. "When you're talking in pictures, how do you listen?"

Essex wouldn't name the companies he's met that claim to have solved this conundrum, but it was clear Banjo had shown him something radically new. " 'Social listening' is a fledgling field," he says, "but 'visual listening'--what Banjo is doing--is a field that's really not even born yet. The implications are staggering. And if you overlay location with that, then you're into some pretty remarkable intel. That you can measure it, that you can codify it, is head-spinning."

Banjo's "visual listening" capability is a function of what seems to be a major step forward in photo classification technology. Banjo asked me not to reveal certain elements of its solution, and I am certainly no expert in the field, but Patton's nontechnical explanation goes like this: Banjo combined two analytical techniques that "never would have been mixed before--and because we mixed it, it unlocked a 'Holy shit!' "

Image classification is a field in which Google has toiled for years. It recently announced that it had developed software with Stanford that can describe the entire scene depicted in a photograph, thanks to a combination of visual classification and natural language processing. Still, a key Google executive doesn't even try to hide his admiration for what Banjo has achieved. "I can't comment too much on photo recognition," says Waze founder Bardin. "But in general, the biggest problem is defining the question you want to ask." And what's unique about Banjo, he continues, is "they can ask the question better than anyone else: 'What is happening in the world that's different, right now, at this location?' That allows them to take out of the analysis the 99 percent of the data that is not relevant."
No sales team supposedly?, but I guess somebody at the company tells "customers" how to subscribe and get what signal mining they want from Banjo I suppose,



Quote:

Companies in stealth mode rarely generate revenue; Banjo Enterprise pulled in "less than $1 million" in 2014, according to Blue Run's Malloy. But that was just in the second half of the year--through word of mouth, with no sales team. Malloy says he fully expects Banjo to grow by a factor of 20 this year. One senses he thinks that estimate may be very low indeed. Malloy, who was, famously, the first investor in PayPal, says he thinks Banjo "could be at least as big an opportunity."

Several of Banjo's customers declined to comment for this story. But Banjo put in an appearance at this year's Super Bowl, powering the social media streams for Bud Light's House of Whatever, a massive Millennial-baiting frat party, and curating and serving images to Anheuser-Busch's various digital advertising platforms. "It also allowed us to become a customer service center," says Nick Kelly, who leads communications for the brand. "We could see what was working, what issues we had--'This line is too long' or 'I love this concert.' "

To me it all sounds like that military/intel is the real customer, and well really every part of the global corporate structure is just a branch of that, a branch of the "military" so to speak, especially law(less) enforcement (courts too) and the media, that's the way I believe it should be viewed anyway.

I have to wonder I think from his talk, I can very well imagine that Patton, being such an AI enthusiast, is probably quite likely a "trans-humanist" also, he sounds like he would be; but just a cursory Google search for that I didn't find any hits that made any connection of him or "Banjo" to trans-humanism.

Post #17 (from original thread, from 911conspiracyT)
Fascinating app, not available in my country per Google Play (the U.S.). However, one can download the app on Microsoft.com and possibly emulate the Android using the new Windows 10 feature. I'm on 7, so I can't participate in this experiment. Anybody else?


Edit... I just sent the company an email. We'll see if their service is still available.
Edit 2... I got the app downloaded by changing a setting in my phone, but its functionality is limited.

__________________
911conspiracyTV
 
Top