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.