|
DEPOPULATION, GENETIC ENGINEERING, AND THE
"NEW WORLD"
APRIL 1, 2011. Yesterday, I was on another
radio show; a station in Oregon, AM 1440 KMED.
The host, Bill Meyer, has the number-one
rated program in the Medford area. He and I had a very interesting
conversation about human genetic engineering. He extended our segment,
and we talked for nearly an hour and took calls.
This subject is hot. People want to know
about it. They sense that researchers are willing to overstep legal and
moral boundaries and try to design "an improved human being."
They understand that promises and pretty
pictures conveying "amazing genetic breakthroughs" in curing diseases
are mostly PR, because the hard evidence is not there.
On my own radio show, which airs live every
Wednesday at 4 PM
Pacific Time, at www.ProgessiveRadioNetwork.com, I did an hour of commentary this week on
gene engineering and the connection to IG Farben, the infamous Nazi
chemical cartel. You can catch it in the archive at that URL. (There
are many shows of mine you'll want to listen to there. Interviews with
Peter Breggin, Peter Duesberg, Jeffrey Smith, etc.)
Bill, the KMED host, broached a very
interesting question: are we nothing more than the sum total of our
genes?
You see, this is where the discussion
ultimately leads. People feel the gene researchers are really fronting
for a materialistic philosophy that claims we are "particles and
particles only." Well, this is the great theme of 20th-century science.
And our experience tells us it is rubbish. We
are aware. We are conscious, and this irreducible fact carries a
message: you can't make science out of the core of life itself. You
can't describe it in equations and technology. Consciousness isn't a
quality the world of science can capture.
It can pretend to surround it. It can pretend
to ascribe it to the organ called the brain. But it fails.
Consciousness doesn't come in a bottle. It doesn't arrive in a welter
of formulas. It isn't synapses and neurons.
Both the infamous CIA mind control program,
MKULTRA, and the current gene-engineering mania are trying to make
consciousness into a matter of pure conditioning-but it doesn't work.
We aren't dogs waiting for Pavlov to ring the bell and feed us.
Some of you will remember two Nazi-like
researchers, Jose Delgado, and psychiatrist Ewan Cameron. They were
obsessed advocates of re-engineering society. They both stated that an
individual human doesn't have an intrinsic right to his own
personality. For the good of all, that personality should be modified.
At the bottom of their heinous experiments
was the belief that the human being is simply a collection of cells. An
aggregate of atoms.
Therefore, re-arranging those particles would
be no crime.
A car uses too much gasoline? Build a more
efficient one. A human being doesn't fit into the overall plan of "a
better society?" Build a better human.
Those people who see a nasty globalist planet
over the horizon should think very seriously about the long-range role
of genetic engineering in that framework. It's there. It's part of the
growing technocracy that wants to inject "the genes of Paradise" into
favored individuals and slip other kinds of genes into "lesser people."
Talk about depopulation? You're talking about
genetically canceling the ability of certain populations to reproduce. Quietly done over time, it's a much more
likely scenario than overt destruction.
Consider this quote from Psychology Professor
Richard Lynn, director of the Ulster Institute for Social Research, and
winner of the US MENSA Award for Excellence (1985, 1988, 1993, 2005-6):
"What is called for here is not genocide, the
killing off of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think
realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such
peoples...Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less
competent." (interview in Newsday, January 9, 1994, cited by the Center
for Genetics and Society)
And how does this go down with your morning
cereal:
"Many people love their retrievers and their
sunny dispositions around children and adults. Could people be chosen
in the same way? Would it be so terrible to allow parents to at least
aim for a certain type, in the same way that great breeders...try to
match a breed of dog to the needs of a family?" (Gregory Pence,
professor of philosophy, School of Medicine and Humanities, University
of Alabama at Birmingham, "Who's Afraid of Human Cloning," cited at the
Center for Genetics and Society)
Here is one more:
"Some will hate it, some will love it, but
technology is inevitably leading to a world in which plants, animals,
and human beings are going to be partly man-made...Suppose parents
could add 30 points to their children's IQ. Wouldn't you want to do it?
And if you don't, your child will be the stupidest child in the
neighborhood." (Lester Thurow, professor of economics and management,
MIT, "Creating Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals, Companies and
Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy.")
This last quote makes me want to coin a new
mental illness: BLITHE INSANITY OF THE UNIVERSITY-CODDLED SUPER-PUNDIT.
JON RAPPOPORT
www.nomorefakenews.com
Visit the site, sign up for the email list,
and receive free articles, and order a copy of my e-book, THE OWNERSHIP
OF ALL LIFE, in pdf or Kindle format.
|
