Official Culture Reprise VI: Moving Away From the Psychopath’s Dream (3)

 “No science is immune from the infection of politics and the corruption of power.”

Jacob Bronowski, English scientist

The reader might be tempted to think that I’ve invested in my own belief system by placing the all the world’s problems at the door of the essential psychopath. While it is true that I think the majority of our struggles have at their root a great psychological component it could also be said that beyond this “nuts and bolts” cause is the more profound conundrum of how we perceive reality and the human constructs we have erected around it. One might say, at heart, all of our problems are ultimately of a spiritual nature.

The very word “Spirituality” – rather like “conspiracy”- will have loaded connotations for all of us. For some it means all that is outside science and therefore, to be distrusted. For others it has religious or New Age connotations. Still more cite indifference or become uncomfortable at the mere mention of the word. Most people however, while not necessarily believing in a religious God, do place value on the idea of our existence having purpose where getting along with others is a prerequisite for the betterment of one’s life. Some would say this has more to do with reflecting insecurity and fear of death rather than any true belief in a Universal purpose, but this misses the point.

The key principle enshrined in the notion of spirituality is one of establishing growth which moves toward harmony in oneself and thus as a natural consequence, those we meet in our daily lives. It need be as simple as that, although in practice is anything but. But when things begin to slowly – usually very slowly – change, then so does the external world. But Or as the ancient Taoist mystic Lao Tzu succinctly put it: “When you accept yourself, the whole world accepts you.” Self-acceptance only comes when we have divested ourselves of the majority of conditioning however, and that is something that the controllers of our world definitely do not want to see.


Technocracy XVI: A Post Human World? (2)

“One can’t deal with irrational luddites unless one understands them.”

– a transhumanist

It seems it’s not possible to be against some of the fundamental principles upon which transhumanism stands without being tarred with the Luddite brush.  This is despite the fact that Luddites were absolutely right in their fears, in that such an enforced change would rip out the heart of community and replace it with Blakes’ “Dark Satanic Mills” of the Industrial Revolution. Ultimately, it reinforced slave labour, poverty, class divides, the globalisation of the factory line and environmental destruction on a grand scale. This would develop into the corporatist-collectivist Three Establishment Model that would enforce a cartel banking system of debt sustained by perpetual war. The level of technological sophistication has advanced but the transhumanism revolution is based on the same mindset: Machines will do it all. It signifies “progress.”

Progress for who and by what means?

One might also say: “One can’t deal with irrational transhumanists unless one understands them – as tiresome as that may be.” (The last bit is optional).

TRANSHUMANThe Ultimate Hubris of Deux Ex Machina? | © unknown

Looking back at the themes in previous posts the reader may see that transhumanism and technocracy are potentially two sides of the same spinning coin which has yet to settle. Military, government, corporate and family dynasties are (s)warming to this new SMART vision of the world, a large percentage of whom follow specific esoteric traditions of the negative “left hand path” in occult fraternities. They believe themselves to be Divine Kings or mini-Gods in human form destined to rule over their inferior minions. It is largely for this reason that popular culture is now awash with transhumanist philosophy as part of a natural excitement surrounding the future of this technology and more covertly, as a continuance of social engineering care of Rockefeller social science and its numerous offshoots. Transhumanism is extremely important to the Elite despite what appears to be a hackneyed interpretation of biology and consciousness. Indeed, blurring the boundaries between man and machine is essential to the success of these extraordinary technologies.

The acronym “GRIN” is now commonly used to describe educational technology, information technology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, cognitive science, robotics, and artificial intelligence, all of which taken individually or as a generic platform have the capability to utterly transform societies. Ray Kurzweil agrees and recently told the Foresight Institute’s Eighth Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology: “By the end of this century, I don’t think there will be a clear distinction between human and machine,” [1] There is also the Harvard research team led by Professor of Chemistry Charles M. Lieber who has: “… developed a system for creating nanoscale ‘scaffolds’ that can be seeded with cells that grow into tissue.” Lieber reiterates the limited effectiveness of present monitoring and interaction of living systems but he believes: “Ultimately, this is about merging tissue with electronics in a way that it becomes difficult to determine where the tissue ends and the electronics begin.” [2]

If that fills you with dread then you might be holding on to the quaint notion that consciousness and the concept of immortality lie outside the limitations of the mind and body, let alone a bio-computer. Does that mean we cannot utilise technology to extend life as an add-on elixir fixed to matter alone? Perhaps not. Yet, it could be said that adding machine to flesh in an endless loop of self-assembly lines until the body is subsumed is a symptom of a human frailty; an official Culture of addiction and death as nihilistic void. In other words, the attachment to an idea – especially if it promises so much and casts out fear of the unknown – is tantalising beyond measure but that does not mean it is somehow anything more than another techno-religious overlay to assuage instinctual fears.  For transhumanists that’s probably a good thing until the complexity of machine literally outstrips biology. For with greater and greater complexity the more probability there is for consciousness to ignite. Nonetheless, for many, there is still a natural disquiet about the whole notion of the human BE-ing, with its mind made manifest in human form, left on the hard shoulder (or hard drive) of the information superhighway.

Rather than an obsession with what can be augmented and improved in the world of matter, ancient wisdom taught us to look within first, one might say to the world of “Spirit”, in order to change ourselves, to know ourselves and that this would naturally be reflected in external reality; building a centre within through which the Creative Universe may flow, unimpeded by implanted cortical processors and nanotubes. If we live from the assumption that the brain is all there is, if one’s belief system demands that there is no consciousness outside the friction of a man-made machine, where intelligence, intuition, biology (and countless anomalies) is merely a Darwinian by-product of selfish genes… then hitching a ride on the sparks created from such an effort may be as good as it gets. Where it will lead you however, might depend upon your essential “frequency” of awareness rather than the ever greater nanoengineering of your nervous system.

Is it possible to create a synthetic mimicry of soul growth? Is uploading the mind the same as uploading the soul? Do most transhumanists give credence to such a thing? Or is it merely a superstitious myth to be outgrown so that we may merge into something more akin to matter?

History tell us the latter comes by stealth every time, deceiving those whose bull-shit-o-meter isn’t sufficiently honed.


Illustration on Transhumanism and SMART society

Central to transhumanism is the idea that humanity is so imperfect as to be a bad evolutionary joke. Only machines can tip the balance towards the perfection we all supposedly long for, neatly packaged with the belief that man and toaster can be fused in perfect triadic harmony. Happiness and even hedonism are often seen as prerequisites for the transhumanist hipster. Aligned with the bio-ethical school of abolitionism which proposes the use of psychopharmaceuticals and genetic engineering to eliminate the possibility of painful sensations and emotions, we are again harking back to the work of Aldous Huxley’s use of certain drugs as a form of synthetic “paradise engineering.” Creating a form of emotional doping means that the ability to truly distinguish between objective and subjective reality becomes blurred. It becomes a) an escape into an inner comfort zone that uses a synthetic façade to dull the senses and cover up the human condition rather than confronting it. Or b) hot-wires the brain to create short-cuts to multidimensional pathways which may leave the mind reeling from such a premature exposure, though many have been changed positively from such revelations its a bit of a crap-shoot. Either way, this is useful to those overseeing a Technocracy. A neuro-pharmacological bind to virtual realities which by default, becomes Reality might be a rather convenient way to defang a generation of spiritual thinkers who already have the potential to ignite this Hieros Gamos, (the marriage of feminine/masculine) the alchemical seeds within, without recourse to merging with a fractal replication of low grade desire…

Perhaps part of humanity’s destiny is not to ping-pong from states of unhappiness to happiness but to go beyond this duality. Perhaps it is the case that for the human species to truly learn, suffering is part of our sojourn here on earth. When did anyone ever grow long-term wisdom from an artificially induced, state-mandated happiness? Most of the extraordinary creative brilliance has come from the “Dark Nights of the Soul” yet would these examples of creativity have had the chance to manifest under the philosophy of transhumanist hedonism that wishes to banish every shadow in favour of a subjective, synthetic perfection?

The drug culture of the 1960s and beyond may have led to spiritual revelation for many but it never reached practical application of that knowledge for the majority. In this sense, there is some cross-over between transhumanism and the less welcoming aspects of the New Age movement. The same lip-service is given to developing character and concepts of “Self” but little practical application above technology as saviour can be evidenced. Indeed, the very notion of what it means to struggle and forge a new human being within seems to be lost on transhumanists. This brand of transformation offers a complete “reboot” and upgrade – even a total refurbishment of the lowly organic.

Surely, instead of identifying exclusively with the external world and the technological horizons of urban life (which was already thoroughly disconnected with the natural world) they lose what it means to be biologically human. We may not need foreign bodies of nano-bots in the brain to realise our inherent potential because the latter may be beyond the whole idea of matter itself. Matter as tool, gross materiality as a symbol of higher dimensions, but not one to indulge and join. Unless that is, you choose the downward path of primal matter.

Primo_Posthuman Transhuman Body Prototype authored and designed by Natasha Vita-More (1997; 2009; 2012).

The assumption that we can simply adapt the human mind – dare we say, Spirit – to the parameters of a machine and assume that such an adaptation is “destiny” appears to display a “little picture” view of human potential whilst claiming the opposite. It may well be that the concept of evolution exists at many levels of perception, seen and unseen. After all, if you can get a tattoo, why not pay for a chip to be embedded in your brain so that you can be just like Keanu Reeves and download a karate program – eh viola! Instant learning. If you happen to be wealthy then your child’s education will move closer to brain-chip upgrades than any real notion of deep understanding and effort. Unpleasant memories? Just indulge in some cosmetic neurology and tinker around with the brain so that you can delete all the icky parts of your life you’d rather not remember, even though this is what makes us human and helps us build wisdom. The holographic nature of the brain and its plasticity also calls into question the spiritual efficacy of such augmentation. When non-local becomes local, does this root us to matter or as transhumanists claim, bootstrap us away from it into higher dimensions? Seems like we are back to the short cut route of psychopharmaceuticals.

As stated above, the more complex an organism whether made from circuits, flesh or combination of both, it is only a matter of time before consciousness develops and thus self-awareness. It may even be possible that there are no barriers to the seeding of sentience. However, the quality of that consciousness is the key issue. Once we are all plugged into SMART society we will be free to push our virtual reality to untold potentials – just as long as we’re plugged into the mainframe and suitably “modified and “enhanced” so that we can accommodate all that extra “intelligence.” Yet, enormously intelligent is surely not the same as enlightened. It just represents computational power. If that’s disbursed through a virtual matrix wired up to the same pathocratic visions, then all circuits and chips will lead to a technocracy characterised by yet another manifestation of neo-feudalism.

What is emerging is a cult of transhumanism which gives a bad name to technological progress because it offers a wholly simplistic view of the human being, while appealing to the biocentric narcissism. When you are divorced from healthy psychological living – which, to various degrees most of us are – no amount of wishful thinking will derive wisdom from external modalities grafted onto flesh or tapping into the personality – even dreams – no matter how efficient and certain such an environment may be. Nature’s unpredictability and the sticky, messy earthiness of organic life has a connection with the human condition, perhaps through our very DNA which is made up of exactly the same qualities that cannot be reduced down to rigid, silicon-based parameters, whatever the touted sophistication.

>Regardless of the tenuous link to “silicon as Nature” the latter will always find a way to make the seemingly perfect, imperfect in order to adhere to its Universal-Cosmic program of learning through friction and the experience of opposites. Rather than “improving” human beings, the net result may actually take us further down the road to techno-psychopathy and the degradation of what makes us human: the development of emotions and conscience.

Technology in this context has implications for the conception and act of creativity. When everyone can download a program to “paint” and click a button to “compose” everyone will be an artist/engineer but entirely divorced from originality and thus individuality. We will all begin to think and act the same way without having mastered the art of living through experience which is necessarily a slow process of building quality. If everything is at our fingertips, where is the effort and friction that creates new pathways of learning? We may have an increase in optimum efficiency and sensation at the expense of deeper feeling and the spark of original thought. With such an all-encompassing hard drive to implement a massive mainframe of effortless and instant technical know-how where does the impetus come from to challenge our self-satisfaction and self-importance? Tension and resistance is not about a puritanical masochism but the lodestar of creativity which may ultimately go beyond humans’ technological constructs.


“EXTANT” (2013) CBS TV series produced by Steven Spielberg and starring Halle Berry. This is the usual fusion of Artifical Intelligence and Extraterrestrial life and government projects. The propaganda is easy to read as it is in most of Spielberg’s films and TV series. The message is overwhelmingly in favour of technologically advanced aliens, loveable transhumanist lab workers, cutesy androids and that we are all rather ignorant and hurtful if we think otherwise.

Nature and art are reflecting more and more the replacement of a buffered and synthetic reality where the subjective (ignorance, illusion, self-deception, Non-Being) is God rather than striving to know (Objective truth, Love, Knowledge, Being). All artists will continue to create but they will do so not from any intrinsic connection to objective reality but from a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. This is the nature of replication. It’s wonderful for uniformity and functionality but lacks originality. It is necessarily divorced from the purely organic which ancient and modern wisdom alike tells us has a power or “chi” that is rooted in the bio-rhythmic cycles of Nature.

That does not mean that extraordinary new art forms cannot be born in virtual reality and new technology but cognitive roots must surely source their inspiration from the original as far as is possible. Otherwise, it can so easily lead to the homogenisation of “talent” where mediocrity rules, as explored in Official Culture. Inspiration and creativity demand the friction of experience tied to an organic emotional resonance; a direct contact with the elements of Earth, fire, air and water as a living, breathing system of  unmediated resonance. Just as social networks and technology are leading to definite benefits of networking there is also clear cognitive and neurological impairment in the young as well as increasing isolation and depression as a result of living our lives through mediated technology i.e. real-time separation through technological barriers as opposed to real-time contact.  It is the path of the alchemical shaman meeting the archetype of the trickster that lures you into lessons for soul growth, learning that shocks you awake, not by further augmenting our already inflated emotional buffers.

transhumanism-pop-culture1Transhumanism in popular culture

What of death?

Transhumanist philosophy, while rejecting religion, seems to embrace an evangelism against death as the archetypal grim reaper rather than a release and liberation; an aberration rather than the natural consequence of birth. The decay and renewal is part of organic life and it is the belief that we are separate from the natural world and not in control that distils a potent fear into an ideology that is supposedly sophisticated, but could just be an intellectually-heavy rationalisation stuck with software and hardware as insects to fly-paper. A techno-spiritual salvation as protection offers a short-term relief from uncertainty and eventual death of the body that lies behind it.

Freud would have been proud.

Antoine Wiertz Une tete de mort

“Une tete de mort” By Antoine Wiertz (1806-1865)

After all, a human being is not a computer though it may share many characteristics. As stated, the brain has remarkable plasticity and can change and grow according to an almost holographic template. We are made up of a microcosmic soup of infinite complexity at the cellular, molecular neuropsychological and perhaps even multi-dimensional level of consciousness. In this sense, is not transhumanism highly reductionist in its approach to social problems and their solutions? If so, implicit in these desires is the need for a fear-based immortality. Indefinite life-spans are to be engineered by transporting brain and mind (because the brain is the mind in the transhumanist reality) to a non-biological form. It is this same Social Darwinist assumption that the psychological sub-strata of all humans are alike and if we just manipulate the mass mind into a technological cure-all, everything will be rosy. Consciousness studies, neurology, quantum physics and the nature of awareness outside of the human body doesn’t even enter the picture.

With psychological reductionism aside, a total absence of psychopathy awareness handicaps any movement from the outset, whatever the perceived potential. Moreover, psychopathic personalities have no capacity for higher emotion and are ideally suited to the very technological accoutrements currently being pushed. If you have no conscience, no capacity for higher emotion and seek more and more sophisticated means from which to extract your “food”, what better way than to take your predation to the next level via high-end technology ? Yet, even here, the optimism of normal humanity is so in love with gadgetry that, with the best of intentions, this may be one Pandora’s Box that will be very difficult to close even halfway.

As Hadas Elber stated in her essay “Visions of Humanity between the post-human and the Non-Human.”:

“Contemporary history has been plagued by attempts to cure humanity of its schisms. The Third Reich, the Soviet Union and the Cultural Revolution in China were all ideological projects devoted to abolishing contradiction from the human subject and thus reconstituting him as the harmonious post-human. Whether or not these projects were faithful to Nietzsche’s original vision remains a matter of debate, but clearly they drew upon his tropes of human disease and post-human salvation.” [3]

The transcendent super-human as ideology is essential to this futurism and therefore doomed, precisely because of this  brand of hubris. If you have an external salvation there is no need for any sacrifice or faith which is where an inverted alchemy comes in. Sacrifice and faith is distorted to follow its shadow side. (More on this later).

As part of yet another curative attempt on behalf of this post-human harmony, early 2015 saw a landmark in human genetic modification. Despite significant scientific, ethical, and legal objections,the United Kingdom became the first country to allow human germline modification, genetic changes of which will be passed on to future generations. germline genetic modification allows “three-person in vitro fertilization,” which combines genetic material from two women and a man. Aside from giving more women the chance to have children – a laudable goal indeed – Marcy Darnovsky and Jessica Cussins of the Centre for Genetics and Society (CGS) highlighted the wide-ranging implications of what this really means:

“Genetic-engineering techniques now being developed, including “precision gene editing,” soon may enable specific changes to nuclear DNA in embryos that would directly influence specific inherited traits. How do we ensure that we don’t sleepwalk into a world of biotechnological eugenics in which genetic alterations or “enhancements,” driven by parental preference or fertility industry marketing, exacerbate existing social inequalities?” [4]

The answer is: we don’t. The genie is already out of the box.

geneticen.1Transhumanists are liberally sprinkled throughout the NSA and the DARPA team. Turning the human being into a programmable machine has long been the goal of the Elite, after all. Now it seems, they may have their wish by digitising our very DNA. With the usual preambles of “protection” “pollution control” and “greater healthcare” the White House gave tacit approval to the manipulation of DNA in the bid to create new life-forms. Of special note is the J. Craig Venter Institute which rivals Ray Kurzweil’s soaring optimism for automation and post human weirdness. Venter is a leading scientist in the field of gene mapping which has the omnipresence potential to merge with the surveillance state and the growing DNA database. Indeed, Venter’s goal is to plug into the Internet of Things in order to provide everyone with access to instant vaccines and “tele-transport medicine” via:

“… a box attached to a computer that would receive DNA sequences over the internet to synthesise proteins, viruses and even living cells.” He explains: “It could, for example, fill a prescription for insulin, provide flu vaccine during a pandemic or even produce phage viruses targeted to fight antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

On the more fanciful side, Venter also imagines the ability to transport the information to colonists on Mars, but even that apparently can’t be completely brushed aside. As he clearly states, “‘This isn’t a fantasy look at the future. We are doing the future.”  [5]

It is not the overall hubris that is worrying since that has always been an all too human frailty. It is the choice of a singular perception, this “doing the future” as Promethean benefactor. It can only become tied to the same 0.00001%” who would use it just as they have a fiat currency, television, media and factory lines of the past. It is here that normality swiftly becomes pathology before we have had time to blink. Recall one time Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, who in 2004, a few weeks before the election of puppet psychopath George W. Bush had this to say about journalist Ron Suskind and others who might consider truth rather important:

Guys like [Suskind] were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”  [6]

A pathologically egotistical and reflexive call to action that brushes aside objective reality in favour of stuffing the Creative Universe into their own tiny, subjective perceptions of reality. It is akin to much of the New Age philosophy of Create-your-own-Reality meme and mirrors the tunnel vision of transhumanists. If Venter and others like him see life as nothing more than a software program so, of course, that’s where the trajectory will take us. Unfortunately, we will all be sucked into that “future” as defined by technocrats and genetic engineers who see Nature and the Cosmos as a laboratory specimen to be broken up and fragmented into constituent parts in order to be manipulated and “improved.”

When man and machine can’t be distinguished or separated will that mean that timeless, unbounded consciousness is “upgraded”? Perhaps the quality of consciousness is merely another analogue of Wi-Fi, and we the physical GWEN towers of its radiation. All we need are greater and greater upgrades to a techtopian perfection which doesn’t exist….

transformers-3God-like Cyborg Aliens and apocalyptic effects, Michael Bay (2013)

There are many engineering visionaries waiting in the wings of bio-genetic “innovation” ready to fuse man to a synthetic biology. Men such as George Church who display the same nonchalant, eugenic inevitability as the eco-fascist who sees the culling of a few million people as part of the same fateful Directive. Yet, Church’s logic is hard to refute when set against the current inexorable drive to expand bio-ethical and technological frontiers.

He states:

“Almost all technology in this area is banned until it works,” … “In vitro fertilization was banned, and now it is immoral to deny an infertile couple their birth-right to have a child produced by their bodies. At some point, someone will come up with an airtight argument as to why they should have a cloned child. At that point, cloning will be acceptable. At that point, people will already be choosing traits for their children. What politician will tell a parent that they can’t spend their hard-earned money on getting an extra 50 SAT points for their child as long as it’s safe?” [7]

ChimeraAnd if you are busy cloning your mind to upload into NASDAQ listed avatar it is hardly likely at this stage that cloning one’s synthetic offspring will prove morally challenging. Ethics and morality are already undergoing a strengthening in relativism which is not in accordance with what we consider to be our basic human values. Perhaps the innovations will extend to unaccountable R&D teams stretching the boundaries of stem-cell research and who indulge in the marriage of both nanotechnology, tissue and “chimeras” – named after the creatures of Greek mythology. Human stem-cells added to animal foetuses are taking place under federal mandated programs. With no guidelines ethical or otherwise, what will be the outcome? Who defines how human a chimera must be before regulation and rules are applied? Pigs being born with human blood in their veins; sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human and mice with human brain cells are not science fiction but cold-blooded fact. Medical advances may eventuate but what of other, more long-term societal implications? The Pathocrats would see no disadvantage at all in using human-animal hybrids just as we use machines.

>Robert Streiffer, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin offers this chilling scenario: “Imagine a human-chimpanzee chimera endowed with speech and an enhanced potential to learn — what some have called a ‘humanzee.’ There’s a knee-jerk reaction that enhancing the moral status of an animal is bad, but if you did it, and you gave it the protections it deserves, how could the animal complain?” [8]  If we believe that those “protections” would be forthcoming in a world of enforced supply and demand and disappearing ethics then we are sorely mistaken. As Harvard Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel observed: “”Chances are we would make them perform menial jobs or dangerous jobs …” [9]

There are more human slaves on this Earth than ever in history. Now we have the potential for a state-sanctioned resource for more. What about a future conjoining of ape and machine? This makes the film The Rise of the Planet of the Apes another case of predictive programming. There is also a possible reference to the very small breakaway civilisation of an Occult Elite who see global humanity as merely unconscious bio-chemical “machines” at the level of ape consciousness. (Perhaps they are right). Yet, transhumanism offers the bridge between the animal-human to a new alchemical transcendence.

Be nice. Humanity is awakening…Evolution becomes revolution … Managed awakening.

2011_rise_of_the_planet_of_the_apes-wideRise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) “Evolution becomes Revolution”

aiSteven Spieberg’s Artificial Intelligence (2001) Appealing to our emotions in order that we anthropomorphize new technology.  “His love is real, but he is not.”

SMART society, UN Agenda 21, sustainable development, nano-technology, the surveillance state, the Human Genome Project, and animal /human genetic engineering amassed together under techno-pathocractic state control: this is the kind of integration of technology that is hitching a ride on the euphoria of transhumanist visions. More importantly, this is about imbuing with new energy an ancient re-enactment of a techno-spirituality – if we can call it such – as part of an occult eschatology of the World State Establishment.

It is the monotheistic delusion of Hadas Elber’s stated “salvation” based upon authoritarian violence against freedom of thought, freedom of bodily expression and freedom of emotion that creates a false deity, a blood-thirsty Yahweh of Judeo-Christian doctrine and which continues to bind humanity today. It is the totalitarian nature of organised religion that demands obedience to intermediaries so that self-empowerment and responsibility is sucked into its maw.

Monotheism is an enormous lie based on Bible propaganda and the falsification of history that cuts the umbilical cord to the Universal Spirit. It has replicated that same authoritarianism in countless smaller cults which promise salvation via the subjugation of individuality and the fear of divine retribution. Consequently, these legions of intermediaries have been created between humanity and their Patriarchal God/Allah etc. Yet, transhumanists offer up the same intermediaries in the form of technocracy and technology; bodily self-harm and defilement of God in microcosm, under the guise of a technological transcendence. The negation of the ebb and flow of natural order is the antithesis of free-will and freedom and gives rise to the science which has particular relevance from the standpoint of coerced “group consciousness” where society integrates towards a New World Synthetic Organism.

In a metaphysical sense, can it not be said that there has always existed the potential for a “Christ consciousness” to  flow through co-linear units of individual consciousness who, by dint of their self-development across the personality spectrum, live to serve? By serving others they naturally anchor a qualitative energy disbursed across that network. It is the “one in manyness”, different, yet going in the same direction, that of Truth and the hope of Unity.  Is not the true disjecta membra of ancient wisdom the science of the soul? Perhaps, as certain archaeological finds now suggest, there may have been extremely advanced technology in the very ancient past, empirical evidence of which has all but disappeared due to catastrophic environmental upheavals. Nonetheless, some experts increasingly cite evidence suggestive of ancient technology within civilisations long since destroyed.

According to the Bagavad Gita, the Sumerian Texts and passages from the Bible, cross-cultural mythology and recurrent motifs allude to a destruction intimately connected to the withdrawal of technological power which echos the myth of the Edenic Fall. Could it be when technology becomes the new messianic intermediary, where sensate power becomes paramount, that the descent of humanity is once again re-enacted?

ancient_technology_abydosThe Abydos carvings showing what appears to be helicopters and other futuristic Vehicles Located in the Temple of Seti The First – Abydos, Egypt. Does this rise of technology ultimately destroy us in cycles of catastrophe? Source:

The mythology of Atlantis is said to play a large part in occult lore, particularly within Rosicrucian circles (essentially behind the Illuminati flagship) who traditionally see Francis Bacon as an Illuminist forerunner of great distinction, not least due to his alleged role as the playwright behind Shakespeare but more importantly, his novel New Atlantis. The existence of Atlantis, though largely dismissed by much of mainstream academia, remains a compelling mystery with many collected nuggets of circumstantial evidence accumulated down through history, ranging from classic literature to archaeological remains which are still being revealed today. Many scholars on Atlantis agree that this was not a city or an Island but an Empire which extended across most of the globe around 9-10, 000 years ago. This would explain why so many nations and indigenous peoples have remarkably similar myths and folklore.

Illustration from the title page of one edition of New Atlantis by Sir Francis Bacon

Illustration from the title page of one edition of New Atlantis by Sir Francis Bacon

Reading between the lines of religious beliefs, much of the old theosophical “psuedo-history” and cross-fertilised mythology drawn from a variety of sources (Bible, the Bagavad Gitas, the Vedas, Plato, Sumerian Texts, Mayanism and modern day intuitive sources) all indicate that Atlantis was destroyed by a combination of earth changes, cyclic cosmic catastrophe and interestingly, as a result of the misuse of technology by an Elite priesthood that were initiates of an alchemical science which subsequently became ponerised.

According to Joseph Farrell and Scott De Hart writing in their 2011 book: Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas:

“The old Masters who made it the object of their lives to gather together once more these scattered fragments, and to thus reconstruct the Occult Doctrine of the Atlanteans, found a portion of their material in Egypt, in India, in Persia, in Chaldea, in Medea, in China, in Assyria, and in Ancient Greece, and also in the mystic records of the Hebrews, such as the Kabbalah and the Zohar. The common source, however, may be regarded as distinctly Oriental. The great philosophies of the East, in fact, may be said to have been built upon the base of these still more ancient teachings. Moreover, the great Grecian Secret Teachings are believed to have been based upon knowledge obtained from this same common source. So, at the last, the Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians may be said to be the Secret Doctrine of Atlantis, transmitted through the descendants of the people of that great centre of occult knowledge.

… an elite was established after the “Tower of Babel Moment,” after the fall of “Atlantis,” and that this elite was tasked to preserve the core doctrines that made the advanced civilization of “Atlantis possible.”

But what exactly was that doctrine?

Not surprisingly, the core of that doctrine is the by-now-familiar topological metaphor of the medium within Rosicrucian symbolical lore, the circle and cross, and even the swastika, become symbols of this primordial androgyny. But most importantly, this “bi-sexual” androgyny, or alchemosexuality. It is this bi-sexuality and in particular a masculine androgyny which has been interpreted materially in an atheistic framework.” [10]

And this “topological metaphor” was one of socio-cultural unity as a mirror of the Divine and achieved through a form of alchemy or esoteric self-development. The interest in powerful psychotronic weaponry, ethically dubious genetic engineering of food, animals and the resultant “Chimeras”  were all implicitly and explicitly described within these ancient writings and seen as a crucial part of both their ascendance and downfall. From one Edenic Fall to another within Atlantis itself. A similar “scientific technique” was the arbiter of what may have been a global totalitarian worldview. Rather than some obscure allegory or symbolism – though these are certainly present – such themes may suggest a recurrent fall from Edenic grace extending back to the very dawn of time.

Did the Atlantean elect and its people reach a point of cultural and socio-political decay as characterised by institutional psychopathy in much the same way that is manifesting today? Could we be facing an Atlantean re-run with the same patterns manifesting through a transhumanist reliance on technology as saviour?

Extremely speculative, but a line of inquiry that offers not only a vast field of possibilities, but distinct patterns of circumstantial confirmation.

Atlantis aside, America is clearly the nexus point of an historic pathology and together with Europe represents a modern Anglo-American Empire in the latter stages of a disintegration and prior to the strengthening of a full blown Pathocracy. The Occult Establishment might well be re-enacting the idea of an alchemical ascendance – an individual and collective spiritual “improvement” yet consciously inverted toward omnipotence as Divine Right. For this to occur, normal humanity has to be leveraged into its New World position according to such a Plan, where the philosophy of transhumanism as occult inheritance will allow a modern day hierarchical priesthood to become the Demi-Gods of old.

Perhaps this time, cognisant of cyclic catastrophes (if not their relationship to human-induced entropy) this breakaway elite is in the last phase of such a Grand Plan?

In the next post we will look at more ways in which transhumanism is very much part of the Occult Establishment traditions and how human sexuality and conscience is still being subverted to achieve a form of inverted alchemical transcendence for a select few.


* For more on the relics of ancient technology and hidden history a recommended article is: Houston anthropologist reveals irrefutable proof that recorded history is wrong by Debbie West,Tue, 12 Nov 2013.


[1] ‘Kurzweil: Rooting for the Machine,’ Wired News, 3 Nov 2000.
[2] ‘Merging the biological, electronic’ – Researchers grow cyborg tissues with embedded nanoelectronics.By Peter Reuvall, Harvard Gazette,August 26, 2012.
[3] ‘Visions of humanity between the Human and the Post Human’ by Hadas Elber-Aviram, Tel Aviv University, 2012.
[4] ‘Britain is on the Brink of a Perilous Vote for ‘Three-Person In Vitro Fertilization’ by Marcy Darnovsky and Jessica Cussins, Los Angeles Times, February 8th, 2015.
[5] ‘Craig Venter: ‘This isn’t a fantasy look at the future. We are doing the future’ By Zoë Corbyn The Observer, Sunday 13, October 2013.
[6] ‘Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,’by Ron Suskind, New York Times MagazineOctober 17, 2004. Quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove).
[7] ‘Synthetic Biology Is Closer Than You Think’ Bloomberg November 5th, 2012.
[8] ‘Of Mice, Men and In-Between – Scientists Debate Blending Of Human, Animal Forms’, By Rick Weiss, Washington Post, November 20, 2004; Page A01.
[9] Ibid.
[10] p.220; Transhumanism – A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas By Joespeh P. Farrell and Scott De Hart Publishered by FERAL HOUSE 2012.

Technocracy X: Nano-Science (2)

 “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, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

dna_nano_tech-wideThe military is the largest investor in the U.S. Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The share of the NNI budget given to the Department of Defence (DoD) since the program started has reached $6.6 billion with part of the expenditure going to DARPA and the departmental laboratories of the Navy, Army and Air force, the rest ending up at universities as research grants or as part of the Multi-University Research Initiative (MURI).[1]  Though spending has been fluctuating since 2007, there remains steady interest in nanotech’s military capabilities. Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) revealed from their research that: “… government funding for military R&D dwarfs that spent on social and environmental programs across the industrialized world …” with military R&D fixed towards “… a narrow weapons-based security agenda.” [2]  Which means the marginalisation of conflict prevention and analysis of the roots of conflict and its links to poverty, the environment, security and health issues continue to be under-funded. Nanotech advances are being hijacked away from improving civilian life with “game-changing” technology as the culprit.

A fervent need to make these grand visions a reality was given a sturdy platform for realisation back in 2007 from the DoD and their little known advisory body called the Defence Science Board (DSB) whose paper entitled: “DSB 2006 Summer Study on 21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors” laid some important groundwork for the future. In an attempt to place nanotech at the top of the military agenda the paper drew their attention to “synergistic combinations” of all forms of nanotech and their “… truly revolutionary capabilities in human performance enhancement, medical treatment and prophylaxis, miniaturization, life extension, robotics, and machine intelligence …” [3]  It was unabashed in its agenda for clandestine tagging and tracking, where: “A combination of nanotechnology, biology, and chemistry promises to provide significant increases in capability to conduct pervasive surveillance on a global basis.”


prototype for cyborg-bee © unknown

Some of these other applications currently in R & D or primed and ready for action include the following:

Nano-biotechnology – or miniaturized biotechnology is the recent development of merging biology research with nanotechnology, most notably using biomolecules, bio-membranes and nano-photonics for vaccinations and virus research. Particularly active in medical fields the new science is seeking to generating cures; develop stem cell treatments, creating muscle tissue and artificial proteins. The convergence between computers and biology is of primary interest where eventually computing will be sourced from a biological platform where “Colonies of live neurons can live together on a biochip device.” [4]

Nano-electronics – The development of molecules with useful electronic properties which can then be used in nano-devices. This includes synthetic chemical methods and the creation of synthetic molecular motors. Other forms include carbon nano-tubes which have taken over from silicon-based chips. Now, the race is on to fit billions of these tubes onto computer chips thereby increasing the chip performance to “… run at more than three times the frequency and consuming just a third of the energy.” [5]

DNA nanotechnology – the construction of structures out of DNA and other nucleic acids. This branch has a special relationship to nano-medicine and “SMART drugs” for targeted drug delivery, the development and creation of vaccines and the adjacent field of nano-electronics with real world applications in both fields looming large. [6]

Nano-robotics/weaponryself-sufficient machines operating at the nano-scale. Applying nano-robots in medicine are proving difficult due to a multitude of problems adapting to the biology of organic systems, though progress is there. However, military nano-robotics in combination with cybernetics is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. There are still very little scholarly articles on the nature and pace of advances on military robotics along with only a sluggish attempt at raising the ethical and moral issues inherent in the use of such weaponry. What is clear is that the military is getting very excited by it all due to the unlimited scope of applications. Reduced to the size of perhaps 0.1mm or less, autonomous mini and micro-robots could be deployed on the ground, in water and in air, using the same propulsion principles found in larger electronic and mechanical systems. All forms of movement are mimicked such as human legs, various types of hopping, flapping wings like a bird, flagella, and even side-winding movements of a snake. The multi-purpose nature of robotics means that weapons systems targeting, reconnaissance, communication and surveillance are easily utilized. Insects and small mammals are already being integrated into bio-cyborg hybrids with nervous system and brain interfacing with cybernetics, software and electrodes.

cyborg-mothcyborg moth | © unknown

Returning to our whacky friends down at DARPA and their various sponsored companies and subsidiaries, we find they are still churning out helpful prototypes for new ways to spy, maim and murder. Some of these latest offerings are still prototypes, in the manufacturing stage or on the drawing board. They comprise:

1) Nano-Scouts – real insects and simulated bird-like technologies which act as the eyes and ears of intelligence. Flies and mosquitoes have embedded nanotech capabilities which allow them to determine the presence of certain chemicals, changes in moisture levels or barometric pressure, and be able to sense movements, temperature, and vibration.[7]

2) Nano-Poisons – A variety of toxic substances with nanomolecules carefully tailored to illicit the correct responses. By interfering with neuro-chemical inhibitors and release agents introducing precise “onboard” quantities of synthetic poisons behaviour modification is taken to a whole new level. Almost any type of mind control would be available from encouraging the victim to lie obsessively to provoking suicidal thoughts; stimulating a person to react violently or to kill. And of course, a Brave New World of somatic release could be programmed where the person cannot help but love everyone and where anger and aggression is blocked. Nano-molecules would effectively quadruple the effectiveness of purely psychological methods of mind control.

3) Nano Force Fields –nano-coatings which can hermetically seal a vehicle or building by allowing particles to seek out air gaps and block them.

4) Nano Mind Erasers – Want to take out a politician or spy without fuss or bother of assassination? Then, inducing the equivalent of instant Alzheimer’s is the answer. Wiping the sections of the brain clean using micro fields programmed to flare up as tiny, molecular neutron bombs would do the trick.

5) Nano Needles – With no visible wounds and invisible to the naked eye these weapons represent an up-dated version of the old KGB poison-tipped umbrella. The needles could be shot from a suitably modelled gun to paralyse people. Presumably the lethal nature of the needles would be dependent on their carrier capability.

6) Nano Heart-Stoppers – Nano-blood flow restrictors and Stroke Inducers – Long known to be a part of military-intelligence operations the assassination of sensitive targets such as politicians, heads of state and celebrities. Undetectable in the blood stream, nano-molecules could mimic heart attacks or strokes; restrict the blood flow causing an array of symptoms, even inducing personality disorders.

7) Nano-Naut Swarms These are ‘SMART dust’ particles which act as an information or sensor clouds capable of analysing areas with sharp detail and relying back information to HQ. As reported in the MSM in early February 2013, the British Army has been deploying tiny nano-drones in Afghanistan for over two years. At just 10cm long and weighing only 16 Grams they are used to relay full motion video and still images back to the devices’ handlers. But technology is advancing as fast as weapons can be bought.

8) Cyborg Insects – could be the delivery tool of much of the above allowing viruses and lethal substances to be to their individual or mass target, something that Bill Gates and his forays into mosquito-driven vaccines would no doubt happily welcome. Spying and surveillance capabilities have also been successfully tested and deployed. One of DARPA’s less malevolent offerings, the Nano Hummingbird was named One of Time Magazine’s 50 best inventions of 2011. Shaped like a humming-bird the mini robot is remotely-controlled without an external power source and can fly, hover, move forward and backward in the air while shooting Hi-Resolution video.

9) Programmable Matter – Starting in 2007, with DARPA support, Carnegie Mellon delved into the possibility of creating hardware and software to make material that can programmed to morph into 3-Dimensional shapes – essentially, shape-shifting. Named the Claytronics Project, the brains behind this venture believe that it has the capacity to change every facet of human experience. They consider claytronics to be a platform for a new form of called “Pario” with the reproduction of moving 3-D objects the primary goal. In other words, the quest to program the world around us. Just a few years later in 2010 with a “self-folding origami” robot which can literally fold itself up and crawl away. Meantime, shape-shifting sand made an appearance in 2012 where; “New algorithms enable heaps of ‘smart sand’ that can assume any shape, allowing spontaneous formation of new tools or duplication of broken mechanical parts.” This of course begins to the blur the whole fields of nanotechnology bioengineering, cybernetics, biological-based pharmaceuticals, programmable vaccines and the advance of synthetic biology.

The US Department of Defence is also researching the feasibility and applications of robotic mosquitoes. So far testing has found that they can be remotely controlled with an on-board camera and a microphone. They will be able to land on unsuspecting dissidents or terrorists with the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. Flying in through a crack in your window or attaching itself to your clothing in passing would prove no problem for these adorables. No doubt law enforcement and Homeland Security are salivating at such a prospect. [8] In fact, sightings of insect-like drones have been occurring for years in the US, most frequently at activist demonstrations and marches. According to a 2006 Flight International report: “… the CIA had been developing micro UAVs as far back as the 1970s and had a mock-up in its Langley headquarters since 2003.”

robot_insectAssuming such machines can fly onto a local protester’s arm and then wing its way back to its controller with a fresh little DNA sample to analyse, this compliments another disturbing scenario as described by authors Andrew Hessel, Marc Goodman, and Steven Kotler who “…outline futuristic human genome work that evolves from the very real GE $100 million breast cancer challenge.” In this scenario: “freelancers receive bids to design personalized virus offering customized cures for the sick.” An individual succumbs to colon cancer and instead of going the route of standard chemotherapy he chooses an immediate payment of $1000 to have his genome decoded over two days. Virologists of the near future will have information about the disease and the exclusive genome sequence. The design cure will be outsourced the winning bid providing the formula to rid your body of the specific cancer. Targeting the US President by criminal cartels or terrorist cells would be relatively easy.

A 2010 release of secret cables by WikiLeaks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered US embassies “… to surreptitiously collect DNA samples from foreign heads of state and senior United Nations officials.” [9]With that in mind, an article by Atlantic magazine takes the next logical step in personalised bio-weapons and micro-drones.

Picture an African President busy with civil war and child soldiers. Perhaps his DNA had been sampled as part of a UN / US mandate. A drug is tailored to that genome sent to an online bio-marketplace and synthesised into actual genetic material. The authors explain that it is here that “… the future of drones and virology could intersect.”

The article continues:

A few days later tablets are delivered to a group that dissolves them and injects the liquid into a handful of micro-drones. The team releases the drones and infects the people in the African leader’s circle of advisors or family. The infected come down with flu like symptoms, coughs and sneezes that release billions of harmless virus particles — but when they bring their symptoms in the vicinity of the African leader — the particles change. Once the virus particles are exposed to that very specific DNA sequence, a secondary function within their design unlocks.[10]

Perhaps the formula contained a “fast-acting neuro-destructive disease that produced memory loss and, eventually, death.” For the African leader or any other head of state which was proving an obstacle to US hegemony “the symptoms could be tailored an infinite number of ways. Designed to reflect a uniquely local affliction like Dengue Fever, or to appear like symptoms of a genetic condition.” [11]Combined with the inherent nature of the military-coporate-banking complex and with their puppet Obama who sees no problem with murdering American citizens via remote drone attacks discarding any notions of law and democratic due process, then you can be sure that such a scenario will take place in the very near future – if it hasn’t already.

The above scenario set against military nanotechnology and other forms of “non-lethal” warfare is justified due to the threat of terrorism and the belief that we can all bring an end to the world’s violence and crime. It is believed that technology will save the day on the battlefield and in civilian life. If left to these people it would rapidly start to resemble an endless battle in itself, which is the general idea. Convincing people not to act on their “evil” thoughts by allowing nano-dust particles to seep into their brains is bread and butter behaviour modification. For anyone else, it is a step towards a Huxleyian nightmare.

Although many commentators prefer to believe that the fail-safe mechanisms of quantum computing and the intelligence apparatus would be enough to protect mainstream society, they fall into the trap of believing that those of conscience are presently guiding humanity. Once again, you cannot use a juvenile dictionary to explain a psychopathic reality that is operating on an entirely different cognitive and perceptual mainframe.

The fractal nature of the nano-world of military applications means that advances in weaponry would take place exponentially with a modus operandi that would excite any social dominator beyond all measure. Using the premise of the molecular assembler, a device capable of breaking and creating the chemical bonds between atoms and molecules, it means duplication is not only feasible and efficient but a requirement once the technology is up and running. Think of the white Storm-trooper clones in the Star Wars films – very much military-technocratic ambrosia. As nanotech guru Eric Drexler explained: “a state that makes the assembler breakthrough could rapidly create a decisive military force – if not literally overnight, then at least with unprecedented speed.” He further observes: “A nation armed with molecular nanotechnology-based weapons would not require nuclear weapons to annihilate a civilization. In fact, it seems that a rather surgical system of seeking and destroying enemy human beings as cancerous polyps could be developed–leaving the nation’s infrastructure intact to be repopulated.” [12]

irobotStill from ‘I Robot’ (2004) Twentieth Century Fox

A research paper sponsored by the European Commission for a 2004 conference on the military uses of nanotechnology and the hazards to society at large, came to some sobering conclusions. While the benefits in medical and non-military domains was clear and should not be unduly hindered provided regulations and ethical boards were swiftly introduced, there were a number of indirect ways that society could be: “detrimentally affected” through the “diffusion of the technology.” The paper offered some examples, including the temptation for the National Security State and related agencies, corporations and criminals to purloin micro-sensors and robots for spying, as well as: “the use of small autonomous systems for criminal attacks – and in particular terrorism – including attacks on critical infrastructures.” They also included a third possibility, that of:

“… implanted systems and other forms of body manipulation for ‘improving human performance’. Deciding what kinds of body manipulation should be permitted, and under which circumstances is a problem of peacetime civilian life, and should be handled by civilian society. However, military R&D and deployment of such systems could establish a fait accompli before society is able to carry out a thorough debate on the desirability of particular technological developments.”

And there’s the problem.

The last thing psychologically compromised persons enjoying their place at the helm of Official Culture is to see the involvement of local communities and civic society. Genetically modified organisms and foodstuffs went this way as did television, banking, media, warfare and most other socio-political power structures which required either secrecy, perception management or corporate monopolisation to ensure a singular reality. Nanotech will be no different if it is allowed to continue without regulations and in the hands of those who wield power for their own ends. If we have humans behaving in psychopathic ways then it doesn’t require the greatest leap of imagination to realise that military robots will be a reflection of their state of mind and intentions. Pathocratic control systems require global dominance in all domains and nanotech represents a mighty leverage in the race to achieve it. Horizontal proliferation would be nearly unavoidable with small, self-replicating systems where in principle, a single copy would be sufficient for growth in another country or sub-state entity.

The report goes on to state:

Military robots with sizes from nanometres to metres would bring threats on an unknown scale. If they could kill, they could constitute new forms of weapons of mass destruction more potent than known biological warfare agents. With non-lethal effects, such as disruption of personality, mass attacks could lead indirectly to the breakdown of a society and the death of a large portion of its members. Partly as a result of their smallness, but mainly owing to their potential for self-replication and the production of additional weapons on site, nano-robots would create extreme uncertainty. [13]

Given the nature of nanotech, automated decision making would grow based on its tendency for a kind of peak, fractal replication to emerge, once technological thresholds have been reached and surpassed. When this level of technology fuses with the mentality of unlimited growth much like the standard economic mind set currently dominating, then a virtual arms-race at the molecular level could ensue with entirely unforeseen consequences. Military production overlaid with ideological insanity.


“Buckminsterfullerene C60, also known as the buckyball, is a representative member of the carbon structures known as fullerenes. Members of the fullerene family are a major subject of research falling under the nanotechnology umbrella.” (uploaded by Mstroeck at English Wikipedia Later versions by Bryn C at en.wikipedia)

Alongside the massive drive to foist genetically modified foods on global populations agribusiness is fascinated by the part nanotech can play in making food production and consolidation more efficient. However, using molecular assembly principles “nano scale carriers” will soon be used for delivering fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and plant growth regulators. A case is being made to reduce environmental impact with nanotech. It is believed that this will improve stability and lessen environmental degradation in terms of chemical runoff and other related problems. An example of these carriers would be the use of clay nanotubes for pesticides which will apparently reduce the amount of pesticide use by 70–80 per cent. Nanoparticles can act to help mollify and transform resistant chemical compounds in to non-toxic ones while waste water treatment and disinfectants have the potential to be markedly improved. Fluorescent labelling by “quantum dots” (QDs) using bio-recognition molecules for anti-bacteria and disease control will be supplemented with an array of rapid detection and enzymatic biosensors. There is even a device called the “E-Nose” inspired by the human nose which, through the use of nanoparticle gas sensors can detect precisely the quality and quantity of gas present. [14]

Socio-economic demands will ensure that wireless nanosensors in crops designed to monitor and collate data on agronomic intelligence processes such as planting and harvesting cycles will become more and more important. Water levels, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other treatments will also be under the nanosensor umbrella in the hope that maximization of crop yields and a reduction in resource input will be the end result. [15]

Biotechnology at the nanoscale is already having some success in the battle against plant resistance and environmental stresses such as drought, salinity and diseases. Nanobarcodes will be used for authentication and tracking in agricultural food and husbandry products. As knowledge grows in the area of plant gene traits and nanotechnology-based gene sequencing it is taken for granted that such process will offer new ways to reduce costs and maximize profits. [16]  With undoubted benefits that nanotechnology can provide, this is still inside the constraints of Official Culture. Farming has already been transformed into a leviathan of corporate efficiency where community, civic and independence has been sacrificed. Nano-farming may increase the overall efficiency and provide intermittent benefits, but will it have the capacity to transform agriculture away from agribusiness corporatism?

If new endeavours are dominated by the matrix of the 4Cs and the 3EM then it will limit the hope for social renewal and become just another tool to increase exploitation still bound by the same lowest common denominator. Consumerism, far from being modified or somehow reduced under this new technology will only intensify mechanisation, commodification and the encoding organic life, this time at the molecular level. Nanotechnology may have a place in improving humanity’s lot but not by being grafted onto a socio-political and economic framework that caused the problems in the first place.

Quite apart from providing new innovative tools for medical advances and the promise of an agricultural revolution, evidence so far in relation to health and environmental concerns doesn’t exactly promote confidence. Some of the latest research results show that:

  • Rats breathing in nanoparticles were found to exhibit inflammation, skin aging and stress responses.
  • DNA and chromosome damage which in turn “linked to all the big killers of man, namely cancer, heart disease, neurological disease and aging”.
  • Carbon nanotubes – the possible replacement for silicon – have shown to have the potential to cause mesothelioma ( a form of cancer).
  • Nanoparticles and nanofibres have shown to cause lung disease in a similar way to asbestos. [17]

Mark Wiesner Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Duke University in Durham N.C., has argued for a rethink as to the way nanoparticles are selected and defined in relation to potential impacts on human health and the environment. His international team of researchers from the federally-funded Centre for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEINT), based at Duke University in the United States, have raised a number of issues which need to be addressed if nanotechnology is to prove viable and ethically responsible. He believes there is presently confusion as to what truly constitutes a nanoparticle where “… materials often do not meet full definition of having special properties that make them different from conventional materials.” According to Wiesner, a key question that needs to be answered: “… is whether or not a particular nanoparticle has toxic or hazardous properties that are truly different from identical particles in their bulk form,” and this due to the fact that: “Many nanoparticles smaller than 30 nanometers undergo drastic changes in their crystalline structure that enhance how the atoms on their surface interact with the environment.”

The professor explains further:

“…because of the increased surface-area-to-volume ratio, nanoparticles can be highly reactive with other chemicals in the environment and can also disrupt certain activities within cells. … “While there have been reports of nanoparticle toxicity increasing as the size decreases, it is still uncertain whether this increase in reactivity is harmful to the environment or human safety,” Wiesner said. “To settle this issue, toxicological studies should contrast particles that exhibit novel size-dependant properties, particularly concerning their surface reactivity, and those particles that do not exhibit these properties.” [18]

Perhaps it is not the health and environmental issues which are really the problem. We humans are extraordinarily creative and ingenious. All the above is driven on the assumption of cybernetics and its systems theory as viable working models; the idea of “nested” organic systems and dissipative structures which are interrelated and interconnected by virtue of their functional similarity. *This means that bio-engineers and technocrats look at nanosystems as providing the potential for exponential growth via automatic and autonomous emergent properties. As described previously, this opens up a whole new pandora’s box when matter becomes programmable.


Carbon Nanotubes Source:

According to nano scientists this follows that society and the human condition is about to “reshaped” in very positive ways: cleaning the environment, easing the pressure for natural resources, tackling hunger, curing AIDS and other invasive diseases; giving new life to paraplegics whilst enhancing the human body. However, will these laudable aims be set against a background of unresolved questions which threaten to undermine the human species? What has happened to new advances in technology in the past?

Nanotech advocates display frightening naïveté in this regard and an often ironic binary evaluation of what are highly complex issues, notwithstanding an ignorance of ponerology and psychologically compromised cultures. It is a contradiction to say that strengthening our democratic processes will somehow ensure responsible ethics which will insulate against the darker applications of nanotechnology when overwhelming expenditure is already focused in the hands of those who seek weapons advancement and shareholder profits. A barrier to accountability will remain as tenacious as it has proved to be in narcotics, conventional weapons and trafficking. It benefits the Establishment just as nanotechnology promises to do.

Futurist David Brin’s prescription to cultivate a “transparent society” where privacy is effectively non-existent is dangerous as it opens the backdoor for just about every totalitarian precept going. The self-replicating nature of molecular nanotech has given rise to end time scenarios where machines take over the world replacing humanity and organic life. Eric Drexler coined the term “grey-goo” otherwise known as ‘ecophagy’ to illustrate such a cybernetic apocalypse.[19]Think along the lines of “the Collective” from the Borg in the Star Trek TV series or the “Hive mind” so beloved of humanists and transhumanists. Expansion derives from assimilation and adaptive properties – “group think” in a futurist setting.

Corporations will be regulated insofar as it does not impinge on the market value of nanotechnology. This means regulations in medical and consumer arenas where it matters less will be followed. Where it is most needed however, is in domains such as weaponisation and agriculture and which will likely follow the traditional route of lobbyists and cartel economics – the path of least resistance. Meanwhile, legislation will have a very tough time keeping up with the rise of nanotechnology especially when environmental and privacy laws are only applicable to those adhering to the public domain and wholly irrelevant to government /corporate experimentation outside such accountability.

Although the military is driving nanotech advances (as with all things) the testing ground has begun with many “passive” or “first generation” commercial applications finding their way to the market place. As explored in the previous post the list is endless. If sunscreen products in the US contain nanoparticles and thus freely pass through the blood-brain barrier then the background of complex toxicology issues must remain at the forefront. In the same way, as GMOs, Wi-Fi and cell phones all have serious health questions hanging over them and health and environmental concerns of nanomaterials at this early stage have been completely ignored. Issues of privacy and confidentiality are also profoundly important.

The precautionary principle means that it is essential not to jump in feet first with this technology when there is an absence of suitable definitions regarding nanoparticle properties which could help scientists determine what represents a threat to the environment or human health. Despite certain advocacy groups calling for government regulation, the only principle which governs decisions is the one leading to the quickest possible profit. Nanotech forges ahead, in love with itself and its seemingly unlimited potential.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that it will go the same way as GMOs since the focus behind the drive to conquer nature, deny death and embrace immortality is exactly the same. Until regulation, insurance and extensive public discussion is forthcoming it is likely the more negative scenarios surrounding nanotech will play a greater role. After all, once the perceived genie is out of the bottle the consequences of its “magic” are more difficult to manage. This means that with all the wondrous potential for cleanng up the environment patents will arrive forcing us to pay for such ecological magic just as it was with the so-called “Green Revolution” of genetically modified crops. This means an expansion of selective wealth where transformation happens according to your pocket and status thereby replicating the same old divisions and class divides.

To reiterate the immovable direction of technology: it is the military and nano-weaponry which will determine the future of nanotech as a whole not whether a surgeon can provide life-saving operations or the disabled individual can begin to walk again. Altruism is not the primary currency of social exchange in a world shaped by psychopaths. Nanosystems will be nurtured on the same directive until such time we can wrest control.


* Dissipative Structure – A system that exits far from thermodynamic equilibrium thus dissipating the heat generated to sustain it. It has the capacity of changing to higher levels of orderliness leading to self-organization. These systems contain sub-systems that continuously fluctuate.


[1] ‘More soldiers in nanotechnology labs?’ By Michael Berger, August 22, 2007.
[2] Ibid.
[4] NanoMedicine – A Review by K.K. Senthil Kumar, International Journal of Innovative Drug Discovery, Vol. 2 / Issue 1 / 2012 / 40-47 (from International Journal of Biopharmaceutics)
[5] ‘Carbon nanotubes fit by the thousands onto a chip’ By Jason Palmer, BBC News, 29 October 2012.
[6] DNA nanotechnology and transhumanism seem to fit snugly together in terms of their technological vision for humanity. Whether or not most persons working in the field are predisposed to this belief is irrelevant but the belief that vaccinations across the board are absolutely necessary and beyond reproach is a powerful part of the medical establishment. As such, the transhumanist paradigm naturally joins forces with materialism, atheism and corporatism to unfold their agenda accordingly. Journalist Sayer Ji has this to say on the subject:

“Not only have humans strayed from their mammalian roots by creating and promoting infant formula over breast milk, and then promoting synthetic immunity via vaccines over the natural immunity conferred through breastfeeding and sunlight exposure, for instance, but implicit within the dominant medical model is to replace natural immunity with a synthetic one. This is the philosophy of transhumanism, a movement which intends to improve upon and transcend our humanity, and has close affiliation with some aspects of eugenics.
The CDC’s immunization schedule reflects a callous lack of regard for the 3 billion years of evolution that brought us to our present, intact form, without elaborate technologies like vaccination — and likely only because we never had them at our disposal to inflict potentially catastrophic harm to ourselves. The CDC is largely responsible for generating the mass public perception that there is greater harm in not “prophylactically” injecting well over 100 distinct disease-promoting and immune-disruptive substances into the bodies of healthy children. They have been successful in instilling the concept into the masses that Nature failed in her design, and that medical and genetic technologies and interventions can be used to create a superior human being.
In this culture of vaccination, the non-vaccinated child is “inferior,” “dirty,” perhaps even “sub-human” to those who look upon vaccination as the answer to what perfects the human immune system.
Transhumanism participates in a dialectic which requires a simultaneous and systematic dehumanization of those who do not share the same way of thinking and behaving. The eugenic undertones of mass vaccination and the cult of synthetic immunity are now only thinly veiled, as we move closer to the point where a psuedo-scientific medical dictatorship lays claim to our very bodies, and the bodies of our children.
The point of no return (if not already traversed) is only around the corner: the mass introduction of DNA and Recombinant Vector Vaccine technology. Vaccines moved through the following stages (a tortured history of failures and massive “collateral damage”): Live Vaccines > Attenuated Vaccines > Subunit Vaccines > Toxid Vaccines > Conjugate Vaccines, only now reaching towards converting our living tissue into “vaccine-making factories” through the use of DNA and Recombinant Vector Vaccines, which are designed to directly alter cells within the vaccinated person’s body so that they create the antigens normally provided by vaccines themselves.
While not yet in use, clinical trials are now underway to obtain FDA approval. If we do not educate ourselves now and act accordingly, their mass implementation is inevitable, and our very genomes will become the next target of the vaccination/transhumanist agenda.” – ‘The Vaccination Agenda: Implicit Transhumanism’ By Sayer Ji, Contributing editor, Activist Post, January 24, 2012.
[7] Most Innovative Defense Technology’ 2008 Award Nominee – Nano SCOUT AeroVironment Inc.| | ‘The dragonfly built to spy – Tiny flying robots have the military abuzz, says Mark Harris’
[8] A COMBINED EXPERIMENTAL-NUMERICAL STUDY OF THE ROLE OF WING FLEXIBILITY IN INSECT FLIGHT Lingxiao Zheng, Xiaolin Wang, Afzal Khan, R. R. Vallance and Rajat Mittal1 Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, George Washington University, Washington DC 20052 Tyson L. Hedrick 2009.
[9] ‘Hacking the President’s DNA’ November 12, The Atlantic Magazine, By Andrew Hessel, Marc Goodman and Steven Kotler.
[10] ‘Micro-Drones Combined With DNA Hacking Could Create A Very Scary Future’ By Robert Johnson, Oct. 28, 2012. Business Insider |
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘A Glimpse Into China’s Post-Nuclear Super-Weapons: An Interview with Lev Navrozov on Nanoweapons by Ryan Mauro for Sept. 26, 2003. | Quotes sourced from Engines of Creation By Eric Drexler (1986).
[13] ‘Military Uses of Nanotechnology – European Commission’
[14] ‘How helpful is nanotechnology in agriculture?’ By Allah Ditta 2012 Adv. Nat. Sci: Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 3 033002 doi:10.1088/2043-6262/3/3/033002 Vietnam Academy of Science & Technology, 29 May 2012. IOP Science |
[15] Ibid.
[16] ‘The potential and challenges of nanopore sequencing’ Nature Biotechnology 26, 1146 – 1153 (2008) Published online: 9 October 2008 | doi:10.1038/nbt.1495
[17] ‘Tiny Inhaled Particles Take Easy Route from Nose to Brain’ August 3, 2006, University of Rochester Medical Centre. | Wu, J; Liu, W; Xue, C; Zhou, S; Lan, F; Bi, L; Xu, H; Yang, X et al. (2009). ‘Toxicity and penetration of TiO2 nanoparticles in hairless mice and porcine skin after subchronic dermal exposure’. Toxicology letters 191 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.05.020. PMID 19501137. | Jonaitis, TS; Card, JW; Magnuson, B (2010). ‘Concerns regarding nano-sized titanium dioxide dermal penetration and toxicity study’. Toxicology letters 192 (2): 268–9. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.10.007. PMID 19836437. | Schneider, Andrew, ‘Amid Nanotech’s Dazzling Promise, Health Risks Grow’, March 24, 2010. | ‘ Nanofibres ‘may pose health risk’,’ BBC News, August 24, 2012. | ‘Is Chronic Inflammation the Key to Unlocking the Mysteries of Cancer?’ By Gary Stix, Scientific American, July 2007.
[18] ‘When Nano May Not Be Nano’ Duke University, Depart. Civil & Environmental Engineering September 14 2009.
[19] ‘Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations’ By Robert A. Freitas Jr. April 2000. |

Technocracy IX: Nano-Science (1)

Ted: I don’t like it here. I don’t know what’s going on. We’re both stumbling around together in this unformed world whose rules and objectives are largely unknown, seemingly undecipherable or even possibly non-existent, always on the verge of being killed by forces we don’t understand!

Allegra: That sounds like my game, all right.

Ted: It sounds like a game that’s not gonna be easy to market.

Allegra: But it’s a game everybody is already playing.


The above quote is taken from the 1999 film Existenz by Canadian director David Cronenberg who has been fascinated by the interaction between man and machine for much of his career. In the film, we are introduced to a near-future scenario in which virtual reality games interface directly with the body via “game pods” which have replaced electronic consoles. The pods are attached to “bio-ports”, which have been inserted in the players’ spines, through an umbilical cord of bio-cybernetic flesh. Gaming companies Antenna Research and Cortical Systematics, compete against each other. A resistance group made up of “realists” are fighting to prevent the “deforming” of reality by such technology.Though seemingly an enjoyable fantasy, it is fast becoming close to reality.

Cronenberg’s film touches on many issues associated with the hugely popular world of virtual reality and the move towards integrating the human body with computer circuitry, in this case, as an entertainment tool. This hyper-realistic world seems to provide a seductive alternative from a society which is failing people through a lack of values and the emotional and spiritual nourishment it sorely needs. The integration of synthetic environment modelling, biotechnology, genetic engineering, cognitive technology, neuroscience and SMART visions are all being applied to the future of military and law enforcement under the guiding hand of Pathocratic rule.

And what of nanotechnology and its place in this saw-see between the dark and light of humanity’s destiny?

One of the most exciting, potentially beneficial forms of technology which underlies much of the current practical advances in cutting-edge science is nanotechnology or the manipulation of physical, chemical and biological properties of matter at an atomic and molecular scale. Many scientists believe nanoscience on its own, potentially heralds a change on the scale of the Industrial Revolution.

The United Kingdom’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers (IME) produced a report in early 2015 titled: Nanotechnology: The Societal Impact of The Invisible which gave a useful summary of the benefits, risks and public concerns, though with a subtle bias in favour of nanotech overall. According to the IME report there is a distinction to made between the science and technology of this field.

“The field of nanoscience grew out of the technological advancements brought about by the tunnelling microscope, enabling scientists to begin to understand and characterise the nature of materials at the atomic level. Conversely, nanotechnology in its purest sense is the design and application of functional systems at the molecular level to create usable structures and devices”.

Nanomaterials are present both in Nature and in synthetic production, the latter essentially attempting to improve on what already exists in the natural world. These organic and in-organic structures include viruses, wax crystals on leaves, Spider silk, the bottom of gecko feet, Butterfly wings, cement, scales, paper, corals, colloids (milk and blood) skin, feathers, horns and hair, clays, opals, pigments and smoke.

Nanotechnology is apparently much more than the “very small” with precise nano-scale and recognised by what is called an  SI prefix for one billionth (n) or 10-9 (0.000000001). Some examples follow:


Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: 27th Report, Novel Materials in the
Environment: The case of nanotechnology, 2008.

What makes nanoscience so compelling, even magical, is the capacity to buck the rules of Newtonian physics, where materials behave in accordance to quantum laws. This is due to the fact that the properties of materials change at the nanoscale, with a percentage of the atoms involved taking a highly significant role in the process of malleable change. The IME report describes it in the following way:

As the size reduces so the physical properties e.g. the melting/boiling point, conductivity fluorescence, magnetic permeability, absorption rates, strength and chemical reactivity begin to change; properties that the very same substances may not exhibit at the micro or macro scales. Newtonian physics no longer applies and the material behaves according to the laws of quantum physics. Nanomaterials are closer in size to atoms and molecules than they are to bulk materials, and due to this ‘smallness’, electromagnetic forces become more dominant than gravitational ones. Typically, a material or particle is referred to as ‘nano’ when it is 1–100nm in size. However the quantum effects generally occur around the 1–30nm range. At these scales it is necessary to use highly specialised microscopes, known as scanning tunnelling microscopes (STMs) which were developed in the early 1980s.

Which brings us to the process of building miniature structures at the micrometre scale, otherwise known as “microfabrication” which now extends into the nanosphere. This process obviously uses ultra-sophisticated, precision engineering techniques and high level design to carry out such manipulations. An example of how advanced such microfabrication has become hails from a 2014  German/Israeli team of engineers and their creation of a nanoscale ‘robot.’ According to the IME report, It: “…has has the potential to be small enough to manoeuvre inside the human body and possibly inside human cells.” They state further:

The robot has a tiny screw-shaped propeller that can move in a gel-like fluid, mimicking the environment inside a living organism. The filament that makes up the propeller is made of silica and nickel and is only 70nm in diameter; the entirepropeller is 400nm long, making it 100 times smaller than a human blood cell. It is so small,that its motion can be affected by the motion of nearby molecules (known as Brownian motion). The scientists were able to control the motion of the propellers using a relatively weak rotating magnetic field.

So this gives you some idea of the size we are talking about here. Nanotechnology is highly adaptable and takes four main  forms all of which are currently in commerical use.

The IME report lists these as:

    •  C60/Fullerenes – Fullerenes[20], named after Buckminster Fuller, the architect who pioneered the geodesic dome, are groupings of 60 carbon molecules often written as C60 and nicknamed buckyballs. Fullerenes are known for their strength and lightness; for example, when compressed to 70% of their original size, they become twice as hard as diamonds.
    • Carbon Nanotubes – Carbon nanotubes were first developed in 1991 and have an array of fascinating electronic, magnetic and mechanical properties; conducting heat and electricity far better than copper. They are at least 100 times stronger than steel, but only one sixth as dense.
    • Nanoparticles – Nanoparticles can be metallic, mineral, polymer-based or a combination of materials. The most common are titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and nanosilver. They have multiple uses: as catalysts, drug delivery mechanisms, dyes, sunscreens and filters.
    • Nanowires – Nanowires are extremely narrow threads (less than 50nm wide) and have the potential to be used in electronic devices. While they are still being developed, the hope is that they could enable further miniaturisation of electronic chips.

The latest hot topic in nanotech is molecular self assembly or self-assembled nanostructures. Using concepts of supramolecular chemistry, and molecular recognition these are brought together to induce single-molecule components to automatically arrange themselves into some useful conformation. In other words, this is the process by which molecules construct themselves into natural structures without external manipulation. Since molecules naturally bond at this level certain molecules are introduced to trigger particular outcomes. It is this automation that is the bedrock of nanotechnology. Research and Development is currently receiving millions of dollars to create self-assembly machines so that: “… in the near future, mass production self-assembly systems will be developed which would allow the mass assembly of electrical interconnections on semiconductor chips in large quantities with high speed and high precision.”


‘Nano Flower,’ a 3-D nanostructure grown by controlled nucleation of silicon carbide. (photomicrograph taken by Ghim Wei Ho, a Ph.D). Source: –

In plain language, it means nanostructures will self-assemble and replicate under an autonomous yet regulated process, achieving more and more sophistication from each generational synthetic platform.

For now, business is booming with 670 nanotech companies in Europe and funded nanotechnology initiatives developing in countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Globally there are more than 2,000 firms dealing in the production of nano materials and/or research and development. Employment in nanotechnology increases year by year with an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people in Europe  and over 2 million in the USA. The worldwide prediction of those employed in nanotech by the year 2020 is said to be 10 million. Public funding around the world involves large sums with:

“… total global funding reaching approx $10bn in 2011 (equivalent to c7.7bn). According to Observatory Nano[29], China surpassed the USA in 2011 for the first time, taking the top position as the biggest investor in nanotechnology research with public funding of c1.8bn. Russia and the USA have almost same level of funding (c1.6 and c1.44bn respectively) with Germany, France and the UK the biggest EU investors. The total public funding in the EU (including that from the Seventh Framework Programme) rose to c2bn in 2011, corresponding to approx 25% of the global total.”

A BCC Market Research report values the global market for nanotechnology products at $26 billion in 2014 with and estimate of about $64.2 billion by 2019. This is a “ compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19.8% from 2014 to 2019.”


Global Nanotech Market 2013-2019 ($ Millions) Source:

Despite the IME report findings revealing what the public already knew (intense distrust) and even though nanotechnology has been in the public domain for over 40 years with future profits and investments increasing annually, the  industry and its science is: “…failing to engage with society in an open and clear way and governments continue to lack impetus in committing to international regulation.” Yet, the proliferation of nano-products has been enormous during the past decade. This is just a small sample:

• Engine oil • Car wax • Catalysts to improve fuel consumption • Anti-bacterial fabrics • Tyres • Air and oil filters • Anti-scratch finishes • Air purifiers Clothing and Textiles • Anti-bacterial and anti-odour clothing • UV-resistant and protective clothing • Wrinkle and stain-resistant apparel • Flame-retardant fabrics Electronics • Displays electronics • Data memory • Anti-bacterial and antistatic coatings on keyboards, mouses, cell phones • Batteries • Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLED) and LEDs • DVD coatings • Computer processors and chips • MP3 players • Xboxes and PlayStations Cosmetics • Skin cleansers • Lipstick, mascara, make-up foundations • Make-up removal • Sunscreens • Skin creams and moisturisers Food and Additives • Nutritional supplements • Anti-bacterial utensils • Plastic wrap • Energy drinks • Cleaning products • Fabric softeners • Food storage containers • Cutting boards • Nano-tea, chocolate shakes, canola active oil Household • Anti-bacterial coatings in appliances • Irons, vacuums • Self-cleaning glass • Filters • Anti-bacterial furniture and mattresses • Air purifiers • Anti-bacterial, UV-resistant paints • Solar cells • Disinfectant sprays Sports Equipment • Tennis rackets and balls • Hockey sticks • Ski wax • Wet suits • Anti-fogging coatings • Golf balls and clubs • Baseball bats • Skis and snowboards • Bicycle parts Personal Care/Health • Contact lenses • Hearing aids • Cellulite treatment • Shampoos, hair gels • Insect repellents • Man-made skin • Home pregnancy tests • Body wash • Toothpaste • Deodorants • Anti-bacterial creams • Bandages • Drug delivery patches • Anti-bacterial baby pacifiers, mugs and bottles • Anti-bacterial stuffed toys • Stain-resistant plush toys

How many people are aware that they are already using and ingesting products which contain nano-materials? Very few. In the cosmetics sector would you mind if you were slathering your face with nano-materials? According to the report most people are ambivalent but not in outright opposition, even though the same polling stats showed that knowledge of nanoscience and technology was very low.

The Cancer Research industry has also apparently leapt at the chance to explore nanotech, continuing to ignore substantial alternative fields of research in diet, nutrition and other modalities which have presented consistent results in tackling cancer. The Cancer research industry has a lot of money riding behind it and only one way, reductionist science is allowed in  despite NO successes in curing the disease. What has developed is a dependent relationship to Big Pharma with a whole new range of expensive drugs for amelioration and palliative care. For example, Cancer Research UK is: “… funding multidisciplinary projects that are already bringing together collaborative teams of cancer researchers and scientists from the engineering and physical sciences. The new scheme is set to fund about ten projects each year with up to £500,000 each.”

(An extensive infographic entitled ‘How Nanotechnology Could Reengineer Us’ gives an overview of what nanotechnology could offer the human body, by “re-engineering” us).

So “progress” explores new avenues yet remains strangely one way… None more so than in the field of military and weapons companies. Indeed, by the year 2030 the UK Ministry of Defence sees nanotech playing a vital role across every aspect of society from nano-solar cells to: “… nano-robots designed for a range of purposes – including medical robots used internally in humans and micro-platforms for reconnaissance.”

If you recall the exploration into SMART Agrimatics, it will come as no surprise that nanotech is having a significant impact across the entire agricultural production cycle. Agrichemicals are a prime source of innovation as are the use of nano-sensors in combination with SMART technology. From nano-enhanced packaging to food-related products nanomaterials are slowly being adopted despite nebulous legislation and public suspicion. Though nanotech implementation in foodstuffs and animal husbandry still remains largely at the R &D stage, according to IME: “ The future application of agri-nanoproducts does however seem certain; the USA is already looking to license some products for use in the coming years, heralding a complete change in the way we grow, maintain and process food.”

There is no doubt there is great beauty, and awe-inspiring innovation in the field of nanotechnology with huge benefits for humanity in so many fields. However, this series is about the dark side of such technology and how these innovations always gravitate to the shadows since that is polarity dominating at this time.The Institute of Mechanical Engineers believe that although there is significant optimism regarding the future of nanotechnology there is still widespread suspicion that that this technology will not ultimately go where it is needed most i.e. for society and consumers. For this reason scientists in this field are not trusted. The fact that there is still no real engagement with the public about their concerns doesn’t help and the IME suggest descreasing that dislocation. Interestingly, they perceive the main reason for this as a misunderstanding on the part of the public:

“It has been suggested that the reason why some people express these views is that the established scientific community genuinely don’t consider what they do to be of any consequence to the wider population. Rather, the spotlight falls on technological advancement rather than highlighting consumer and societal needs. This is not done out of any malice or superiority on the part of the technologists; in truth, the technical community sees it purely as the everyday, the norm, and requiring little external endorsement or explanation.

That may well be but it is a subtle form of arrogance and a lack of awareness about society as a whole. More dangerously, if they have little need to inform the public and do not feel they have a duty to do so, then they fall into the hands of those forces that covet such a separation, namely corporate interests and the State. It is almost cliche now that scientists become so involved with the creativity of their work that they are often seen as geniuses on the one hand, and out-of-touch with the wider world. They are perceived as existing in a kind of intellectual bubble where accusations of outsourced ivory towers and naivete about the larger forces at work can easily stick. It is in this sense that there is most certainly technological advancement for its own sake predicated upon this community “normality,” and therefore a way in for institutionalized hubris. This is especially true in lieu of the massive potential changes we are talking about here.

Engineers in the global defence industry have no problem rationalising their satisfaction and subsequent salary that they receive from this line of “creative work”. They are doing what they love. One individual designs the a console and  another the software for Apache helicopters in Iraq which have notched tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Is there a responsibility there? Or do they fall back on: “If I didn’t do it, someone else would.” The same applies to the dark side of nanotechnology. Official Culture makes it much easier for us not to care and to compartmentalise our conscience, even our emotional life, away from deeper connections to our fellow man and woman.

The historical perspective of technology as an automatic saviour as well as a traditional source of State control lends itself to both a philosophical and practical critique since that is exactly the reality we are facing. The progression is not one of technological emancipation for societies where it counts, it is one of State warfare and corporatism. That is where the greatest innovations in Research and Development generally end up, with the by-products effecting the social and material ecology as a mirror of what is denied. Scientists in this context, can only be effective if the overall system in which they live is designed to foster a natural cooperation of expert and layman which leans overwhelmingly toward a socio-economic framework that is inclusive and just. Clearly, this is very far from the case. Quite apart from endemic corruption in science in general, nano-scientists, and the “technical community” are no exception when they are wholly governed by the military-corporate complex and inside Official Culture, whether they are able to see that or not. Thus it matters little whether they have good intentions, rather what the real world dictates from the outside in.

Meanwhile, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has referred:

“… to the possibility of information dominance through nano-electronics; virtual reality systems for training; automation and robotics to offset reductions in manpower, reduce risks to troops and improve vehicle performance; higher performance platforms with diminished failure rates and lower costs; improvements in chemical/biological/nuclear sensing and casualty care; improvements in systems for non-proliferation monitoring; and nano-/micromechanical devices for control of nuclear weapons.” [1]

Across the Three Establishment Model (3EM) the idea of enhancing human performance through the convergence of nanotechnology biology, information, cognitive science and warfare is highly seductive because it adds a technological ontology to their plans for society not least for their desire for a synthetic immortality. The promise of nano-implant devices, slowing down or reversing ageing, direct brain–machine interfaces and ‘artificial people’ has been discussed at various conferences and seminars across America since the early 2000’s. This may have something to do with the fact that “… the USA is spending far more [on nanotech] than any other country, and maybe more than the rest of the world combined.” [2]Since future science is part of the armoury of the power elite’s ideology for a World State, governments in Europe, Asia and the United States have invested almost $5 billion dollars between them, contributing to the projected annual market of around one trillion US dollars. [3]



[1] ‘Military Uses of Nanotechnology – European Commission’
[2] Ibid. (“Figures on military NT R&D funding in other countries are difficult to obtain. The conjecture is supported by the following: the USA spends about two-thirds of the global military R&D expenditure at large (BICC, 2002); in the field of MST, according to a cautious estimate the US military R&D spending was more than ten times that of Western Europe (Altmann, 2001: 46); conference and internet presentations show an verwhelming preponderance of US work in military NT.”)
[3] ‘Apply nanotech to up industrial, agri output,’ The Daily Star (Bangladesh), 17 April 2012. | Health Risks Of Nanotechnology: How Nanoparticles Can Cause Lung Damage, And How The Damage Can Be Blocked Science Daily, June 11, 2009.

World State Policies X: MONSANTO and Seeding the Future

“The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender”

– Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star, January 9 2001.



With its astonishingly aggressive lobbying and ruthless application of gene technology, the Monsanto Corporation lies at the top of the GMO pile. if ever there was a psychopath in corporate form, Monsanto fits the bill. As the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides, Monsanto’s most popular brand, “Roundup” has proved to be a health hazard for humans and animals and just about any sentient being unfortunate enough to come into contact with its mass spraying. The Environmental Protection Agency has officially stated that Monsanto is a “potentially responsible party” for 56 contaminated sites in the United States.

Not content with routinely damaging the health of its employees or residents living nearby, the company was involved in yet another controversy when introduced recombinant Bovine somatotropin (rBST), a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production. Unfortunately for Monsanto there were substantial side effects for humans, including the reduction of natural defences against cancer. [1]Cows became seriously ill with various diseases most notably mastitis, an infection of the udder which contaminates milk with pus. It was found that the unnatural increase in milk production at the expense of the cow’s health was ultimately passed on to the consumer along with the high level of antibiotics inflicted on the cows in order to combat the original side-effects. Before selling the operation, it did not stop the company from conducting a large-scale lobbying campaign to prevent labelling of rBST milk which was largely successful.

Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications summed up the regulatory ethos in 1998: “Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.” And when the Food and Drug Administration has been holding hands with Monsanto throughout its career of maximizing profits over people, this statement amounts to nothing more than callous irresponsibility. [2]

With its legendary history of environmental pollution and such heart-warming products as defoliate Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, the manufacturing of DDT and widespread innovation in plastics and subsequent spread of PCBs, Monsanto feels right at home when virgin forests need clearing and indigenous peoples require to be forcibly removed if the bribes prove ineffectual. The soya bean crops can and will be planted, come what may. The dominant types of GM foods as transgenic plant products include corn, canola, rice, and cotton seed oil, all of which Monsanto produces, distributes and directs according to a military-evangelical blend of national and international lobbying. Argentina was an early target of the GMO junta and represents a classic case-study of geo-political strategy working in unison with government and agribusiness’ interests. The soya bean has radically changed socio-economic and environment of the country. The displacement of other forms of often natural crop cultivation, pasture-based cattle ranching and the destruction of virgin forests and grasslands continues apace, with China and Europe benefitting from its substantial exports.

Economically, the divide between the rich and poor always becomes more pronounced when mass farming is introduced. Argentina has seen hundreds of thousands of workers forced off the land and a rise in poverty and malnutrition since the imposition and subsequent dependency on the soya bean. According to official statistics: “20.6 percent of Argentina’s 38 million people are poor. But in the North Eastern region, where soy is king, 37 percent are below the poverty line, and 13.6 percent live in absolute poverty, unable to feed themselves properly.” [3]

individual_monsanto_federal_position-largeThe revolving door of individuals working for Monsanto and Federal government (click on the image to enlarge) Source:

Back in the mid-1970s Kissinger, as a Rockefeller provocateur, had considerable experience in fermenting dissent in other countries. Chile had been a textbook case of black operations let loose against a democratically elected leader and replaced with General Pinochet’s brand of fascism. According to declassified US State Department documents released years after the event, the same formula was envisaged for Argentina in a 1976 meeting between Argentine Foreign Minister, Admiral Cesar Guzzetti; Rockefeller’s political go-between vice-president Nelson Rockefeller and Kissinger as Secretary of State. Author F. William Engdahl notes: “Rockefeller even suggested specific key individuals in Argentina to be targeted for elimination. At least 15,000 intellectuals, labor leaders and opposition figures disappeared in the so-called ‘dirty war.’ ” [4]

Argentina began its trade in slavery and an increase in minority wealth and social divisions. With the help of foreign investment and support from Monsanto and the big six grain conglomerates such as Cargill, wealthy landowners worked to erode traditional workers’ rights and grab as much extra land as they could. Upwards of 200, 000 rural famers and their families have been displaced from generationally owned land, inevitably finding themselves destitute or living hand to mouth on the outskirts of cities or in slum areas. Prior to Wall St. and their banking families descending on Argentina, it enjoyed one of the highest living standards in Latin America. In fact, Soy is now the main export of the nation, amounting to one-third of the country’s total exports. [5]

Both in Latin America and the USA, Monsanto is now able to hold farmers to ransom by forcing them to sign binding contracts where they must agree not to re-use saved seeds. They must also pay new royalties to Monsanto every year. The fact that farmers have been working the land for thousands of years with their own seeds provided by Nature, free of charge is a minor quibble for the corporation and its shareholders. Despite most of the world’s farmers being too poor to afford the company’s GMO license and various other seed fees, most fall under Monsanto’s targeted multi-million marketing and live to bitterly regret it. Such a system is another manifestation of the neo-feudalism so favoured amongst the Establishment. Seeds have become an intellectual property and by extension, the genetic source of Nature as patent.

With the advent of soya bean monoculture and mass farming techniques comes the intensive use of agrichemical herbicides and pesticide, and preferably for Monsanto, their favourite and highly toxic “Round up.” Ironically, parallel to much lower yields with Roundup crops compared to traditionally grown soya, health issues for rural communities, farmers and animals soared as a result of constant exposure to the spraying crops increased. They found their own natural food cultivation destroyed by the chemicals not having the built-in gene resistance found in the large Monsanto designed soya bean crops.

In 2002, it was found by the UK’s Cropscience company that chicken fed glucosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group. And from the same year up to 2005, four Italian universities published articles revealing adverse effects from GM soya which targeted pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice. [6]

In 2005 and 2006, the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted an experiment on female rats fed with glyphosate-tolerant GM soya and reported that the female rats produced an excessive number of stunted pups, over 50 percent of them dying within three weeks and the other half, sterile. Accusations of faulty data could not be levelled at the experiment as it was repeated many times with the same result. [7]

Many more studies have not only shown the toxic effects on plants and animals but the economic and environmental unsustainability of herbicide and pesticide use. As the top-soil becomes essentially burned away, more and more agrichemicals are needed to maintain a false fertility derived from a dying soil and zombie crops saturated with chemicals. This inevitably leeches into the animal and human food chain adding to the concern of health issues and the already questionable nature of GMOs themselves. Meanwhile, great profits continue to accrue for the CEOs and their shareholders safely tucked away behind their boardroom desks, buffered from the carnage of the ecological and socio-economic disaster that claims the most vulnerable, a dynamic which has continued to characterise large-scale GMO cultivation.

As F. William Engdahl observes, the consequences for the environment and human health remain worrying:

“By 2006, together with the United States, where GMO Monsanto soybeans dominated, Argentina and Brazil accounted for more than 81 percent of world soybean production, thereby ensuring that practically every animal in the world fed soymeal was eating genetically engineered soybeans. Similarly, this would imply that every McDonald’s hamburger mixed with soymeal would be genetically engineered, and most processed foods, whether they realized or not.” [8]

With the help of WTO sanctions, strong-arm tactics of companies like Monsanto and the background support of a Washington Government firmly on board, the ambitious objective of controlling the world’s food supply by seeding every country with GM crops is well underway. In 2002, aid agencies were instructed by the US State Department to take their orders from the government agency USAID and to:

“… immediately report to them any opposition in a recipient country, to GMO food imports. They were told to collect documentation to determine if the anti-GMO attitude of the local government was ‘trade or politically motivated’ If they determined it was trade motivated, the US Government had recourse to the WTO or to the threat of WTO sanctions against the aid recipient country, usually an effective warning against poor countries.” Even emergency famine relief aid came in the form of: “… genetically modified US surplus commodities, a practice condemned by international aid organizations, as it destroyed a country’s local agricultural economy in the process of opening new markets for Monsanto and friends.”

In the same vein, the cosy relationship between agri-business, GMO firms and the US State Department and its agencies is obvious when food aid organisations ship only grain that has been provided by USAID – and that meant only genetically modified US grain. [9]

In the late 1980s and 1990s Monsanto’s gene technology produced a breakthrough which would enforce the rights of the company’s gene patents and fees. It was a chilling development in biotechnology fittingly named “Terminator” where the seeds would be genetically modified to “terminate” themselves after just one harvest season. A toxin was released before the seed ripened which caused the plant embryo to die. This meant that the thousand year old tradition of saving of seeds for the next harvest would become illegal under agribusiness.

The Terminator seeds or patented ‘suicide’ seeds, officially termed GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) hark back to a project more than twenty years old as part of the early experiments in genetic engineering. By 1998 the US Patent Office had granted joint ownership to US Dept. of Agriculture and the Delta & Pine Land Company for ‘Control of Plant Gene Expression’ Patent No. 5,723,765. [10]

In the official D&PL SEC filing it states:

“The patent broadly covers all species of plant and seed, both transgenic (GMO-ed) and conventional, for a system designed to allow control of progeny seed viability without harming the crop’. […] ‘One application of the technology could be to control unauthorized planting of seed of proprietary varieties … by making such a practice non-economic since non-authorized saved seed will not germinate, and, therefore, would be useless for planting.” With almost salacious anticipation: “the prospect of opening significant worldwide seed markets to the sale of transgenic technology in varietal crops in which crop seed currently is saved and used in subsequent seasons as seed.” [11]

The company is clearly saying that dis-empowering farmers is economically viable by preventing any escape from the GM juggernaut once it has duped its passengers into hitching a ride. It is a disturbing declaration of intent and planning which has been pressing ahead since the first GM trials back in 1982.

fluorescentTobaccoA second generation of Terminator technology was developed at the end of the 1990s called T-GURT seeds, or Trait Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. Otherwise known as the ‘Traitor’ process the plant’s fertility and its genetic characteristics can be controlled by the introduction or restriction of a chemical inducer, rather like a light switch which could be turned on or off depending on what you wanted the plant to do. It was cheaper and less complicated to produce than Terminator seeds. Tied to the agrichemicals, it was potentially a big bonanza with total control over what the farmer could and couldn’t do, charging him every step of the way. Of course, the gene resistance to certain pests would be provided by Monsanto or Syngenta who held the patent rights. You wanted your GM crops to flourish then you had to pay. If farmers tried to buy “illegal seeds” from other sources then the chemical compound needed to turn on the resistance gene would be missing. As with any commercialisation and consolidation process, more farmers in the developing world needed to be “persuaded” to climb aboard and the big companies were not afraid of using the tactics of bribery, coercion, and illegal smuggling.

The health issues still loom large in Monsanto’s continuing fortunes. For instance, in 2003, the company’s Bt maize hybrid left five Pilipino villagers dead and many seriously ill. They tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein. [12]  The Law of Unintended consequences frequently arrives in the absence of humility. As many experts have warned, the rise of superbugs and their ability to adapt in response to highly synthetic crops and their chemicals was inevitable. A research paper published in the latest issue of the journal GM Crops & Food [13]detailed the problems from the Western corn rootworms which have been busily munching their way through genetically modified maize. A 2010 sample of the rootworm population had “… an eleven-fold survival rate on the genetically modified corn compared to a control population.” Strong resistance to GM corn is becoming the norm. As farmers become dependent on GM crops the outlook is bleak for both agriculture and consumers. Adaptation, resistance and increasing recovery rates amongst the burgeoning population of super-bugs means ultimately the poor and vulnerable and the burgeoning global middle-class will foot the bill, not just for corn which has become a vitally important derivative product, but for a range of foodstuffs and consumables in general.

The drop in GM crop yields will continue just as many farmers continue to plant, while receiving very little in return and where rising costs outweigh the perceived benefits. As food prices steadily rise in response to yet another manipulated economic downturn, Elite families like the Rockefellers are not remotely concerned. After all, they sell organic food and non-GMO food in their various cafeterias and conference venues, [14]so why should they be concerned about their agri-engineering of the world’s populations if it gives them a good return on their money and reduces the population growth that much more?

This hypocrisy gives the global population two forced choices: eat poisoned GM foods or die of starvation.

The Obama Administration carried on the tradition of staying snug and warm in the corporate pocket as the above diagram illustrates. To that end, bought-and-paid-for Congress happily allowed their puppet president to sign into law the Agriculture Appropriations Bill 2013. This effectively gave immunity from prosecution for agri-business, which means MONSANTO has a free reign to do as it pleases.

Rows of a Carrot Field

As we have seen so far in this series,  the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Population Council, the World Bank and the UN Development Program and their close working relationship with the WHO banded together to introduce covert sterilisation programs using vaccinations. Lest we think that the merging of birth control and eugenics is just paranoid ramblings of researchers with too much time on their hands, keep in mind the sources behind the genetic engineering and biotechnology are not necessarily those who work within these fields. It then becomes easier to determine which direction humanity is being led.

Transgenic plants have already taken on frog and fish genes but in the context of birth control the Rockefeller passion for a depopulated world, the geneticists have been busy bees. Take Epicyte in San Diego for example, which held a press conference in 2001 to make an announcement about its work stating:

“Epicyte reported that they had successfully created the ultimate GMO crop-contraceptive corn. They had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants.” [15]

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is another media darling that has rode the wave of philanthropy and praise while concealing its real agenda. While anthropogenic global warming (AGW) (rather than Climate change) is fast being seen for what it truly is: a politically driven power-grab, this apparently escaped the notice of the billionaire in his TED talk of 2010 where he followed the Al Gore (Goldman Sacs) propaganda of CO2 emissions as the global culprit for ensuing global catastrophe. Eager to show his depopulation credentials by highlighting dire projections of a global population at 9 billion by 2050, he made this curious comment early on in the talk: “… if we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps about 10 to 15 percent.” It is here we see that Bill has enthusiastically bought into the Elite nonsense and has put his money where his misinformed mouth is by pledging $10 billion for vaccines in order: “… to fight disease among the “world’s needy children.” [16] That is an extraordinarily large sum by anyone’s standards and truly admirable if it is founded on real science and long-term beneficial effects.

Unfortunately, neither of those possibilities is likely to be true.


Bill Gates

Bill Gates is famous for his relentless drive and constant activity. He is the CEO of the Microsoft Corporation representing one of the most all-encompassing monopolies on earth. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have used an almost inconceivable amount of dosh dispensed to needy causes around the world. It also helps that multibillionaire Warren Buffet added to the already blistering endowment total of $34.6 billion with a gift of a further $30 billion dollars’ worth of shares in one of his businesses which no doubt made Bill & Belinda supremely happy.

Apart from Gates’ chosen ignorance and/or indifference regarding the toxic health effects and long-time propaganda relating to GM foods and their use and distribution, vaccines are still Gate’s number one passion. His foundation decided to commission Japanese scientists to make another whacky vision a reality by engineering vaccines into mosquitoes that will deliver the inoculations through their bite. Bill & Melinda had stalwart support and involvement from the World Health Organisation, The PEW Charitable Trusts, and government agencies in the United States, England and Malaysia. They secured the development and promotion of the GM mosquitoes under the pretext of eradicating Dengue fever which was virtually non-existent until it suddenly popped up in Florida just after the genetically-modified vaccine carrying mosquitos was released. [17]In truth, GM mosquitos were released into the environment in the Cayman Islands in 2009 but the CIA sponsored experiments in bio warfare had been using mosquitoes in Florida for several decades so it was no surprise to find Dengue fever conveniently appearing to support Bill and Melinda’s quest for mass vaccination and the depopulation they so earnestly seek.[18]

Where Rockefeller’s and Gates’ visions really fuse is through the little known project that has been quietly carrying out its operations in the remote location of Svalbard, Spitsbergen, on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean.

It was claimed by Norway without much fuss in 1925 because no one really wanted it. Nonetheless, on this barren outcrop of rock inside the mountain lies the “doomsday seed bank” or more officially known as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault where a motley crew of Monsanto, the Syngenta and Rockefeller foundations and Bill Gates have been investing millions; squirreling away different varieties of seeds from all over the world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government. [19] They have the capacity to store more than 3 million seeds tucked safely away from whatever catastrophe they envisage befalling the Earth’s environment. As F. William Engdahl not unreasonably, asks: “What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?” [20]

Up until 1998, Margaret Catley-Carlson was working for John D. Rockefeller’s Population Council (the eugenics inspired front for “family planning and sterilisation) and now chairs the Rome-based Global Crops Diversity Trust (GCDT) founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), a branch of the CGIAR. Other GCDT members read like an Elite encyclopaedia of Establishment insiders from the weapons industry to Hollywood, biotech companies to bankers, all of whom share the same entropic perception of reality that hasn’t changed for two hundred years. With such rampant colonisation of the developing world; ecologically disastrous consequences from invasive technology like Terminator and Traitor; the death of traditional farming practices and the fake harvest gains they engender, the construction of the Doomsday Seed Vault surely raises urgent questions as to its true nature. It represents a significant biotechnology resource in combination with other seed banks around the world, all of which are owned and run by the same six agribusiness partnerships and their affiliated think-tanks and top-tier organisations. The Svalbard seed vault has the capacity to house over 4.5 million seeds, but to what end?

frohvelv_svalbard_Svalbard Global Seed Vault (left) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation HQ (right)

When you have the likes of Bill Gates, Dupont, Monsanto, Syngenta and the Rockefellers getting together for a joint venture you can be sure that it is most certainly not for altruistic reasons but to make a big, fat profit. However, they are not just in it for the money. On the one hand, the “Green Revolution” and the monoculture expansion continue to make inroads into Africa while on the other, they preserve seed diversity in a “doomsday vault.”

Is it not chilling that the guardians of this seed diversity are corporations and foundations pushing for a biotechnological free-for-all with a history of rapacious corporate predation and the funding of social control and eugenics?


The nature of psychopaths in power demands the introduction of long-term ideas that facilitate the reduction and dilution of the global population. Social dominators and authoritarian personalities are attracted to romantic notions of a World State and a neo-feudalism in order to maintain Elite bloodlines. Is it possible that eugenic beliefs of Anglo-Saxon superiority and various military-corporate-occult machinations are a cover for the mass culling and manipulation of “normal people” in favour of psychopathic dominance? This obsession with genetically altering nature has a variety of disturbing off-shoots in this context.

If we cast our eye back to the discussion of Israeli ethnic specific weaponry, the advances in genetic bio-warfare and interest in eugenics and place this in context of population reduction, is it really so far-fetched to expect that genetically modified crops may serve a more sinister purpose at the very top of this agricultural pyramid? A book called BattleField of the Future has a chapter written by Lt. Col. Robert P. Kadlec, USAF entitled: “Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare.” Kadlec refers to cost effective and economically viable nature of biological weapons and warfare (BW) stating: “Not only is BW more affordable, but militarily significant quantities of BW agents (kilograms) in legitimate biological laboratories make BW production easy to accomplish and conceal. Any nation with a moderately sophisticated pharmaceutical industry can do so.” He then remarks on GMO-based biological weapons of mass destruction, the use of which: “… under the cover of an endemic or natural disease occurrence provides an attacker the potential for plausible denial. In this context, biological weapons offer greater possibilities for use than do nuclear weapons.” [21] Indeed, MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the “… bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population,” adding: ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’ [22]

If we recall the Rockefeller history and Kissinger’s “Food as a weapon” politics and the US military fetish for bio-warfare then we must also entertain the probability that genetic engineering serves a variety of purposes all of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the betterment of humankind. If the spectre of bio-warfare and the weaponisation of food are part of the “invisible hand” of Pathocratic rule then we can expect a future planted with the same dark seeds.

There may be a further reason why the Elite are falling over themselves to eradicate a large quota of the population, build their bunkers and conserve various seed species. Do they have the inside knowledge that “something wicked this way comes”? The rise in cases of Ebola and various strains of Bubonic plague and the possibility of adaptive and muting strains may well indicate a strange confluence of natural occurrences and synthetic manipulation connected with the above bio-warfare. Further, if you are aware that the Earth endures terrain changes and cyclic catastrophes throughout its history with a similar cyclic manifestation of disease carried by cosmic harbingers such as comets and meteors, knowledge of such a confluence may be known by many at certain privileged levels. They may be at least partially aware of myth and science that tells us that we are way over due for another periodic of environmental and cosmological upheaval. Specific preparations would ensue, especially if you seek to retain control and protect your place at the top of the pyramid after the dust and ashes have settled.

Whatever the truth, it seems we won’t have too long to wait before we all find out.

In the next series of posts we will look into how the Establishment has co-opted environmentalism with special attention to the idea of eco-fascism and its traditional alignment to elite ideology.


For news, resources and activism please visit:



[1] Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Michaud DS, Deroo B, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Pollak M (May 1998). “Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer”. Lancet 351 (9113): 1393–6. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10384-1. PMID 9593409. / Pollak M (June 2000). “Insulin-like growth factor physiology and cancer risk”. Eur. J. Cancer 36 (10): 1224–8. DOI:10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00102-7. PMID 10882860. / Sandhu MS, Dunger DB, Giovannucci EL (July 2002). “Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding proteins, their biologic interactions, and colorectal cancer”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94 (13): 972–80. DOI:10.1093/jnci/94.13.972. PMID 12096082.
[2] ‘Playing God in the Garden’. The New York Times by Michael Pollan October 25, 1998 The New York Times Magazine. p. Section 6; Page 44.
[3] ‘Soy – High Profits Now, Hell to Pay Later’ By Marcela Valente , Jul 29 , 2008 (IPS)
[4] op. cit. Engdahl (p.178)
[5] Javier Souza Casadinho, “Expansión de la soja en el Cono sur” (“Expansion of Soy in the Southern Cone”), Centro de estudios sobre tecnologías apropiadas de la Argentina Red de Acción en plaguicidas de América Latina (Center for the Study of Appropriate Technologies of Argentina, Pesticide Action Network Latin America) (Source Watch)
[6] GM Crops the Health Effects, The Soil Association 2007 |
[7] ‘Weaponized Food and Medicine is Bad for Your Health’ by Paul Fassa, Natural News, August 25, 2009 |
[8] op. cit. Engdahl (p.190)
[9] op. cit. Engdahl (pp.267-268)
[10] United States Patent 5,723,765 Oliver, et al. March 3, 1998: Oliver; Melvin John (Lubbock, TX), Quisenberry; Jerry Edwin (Idalou, TX), Trolinder; Norma Lee Glover (Quanah, TX), Keim; Don Lee (Leland, MS) Assignee: Delta and Pine Land Co. (Scott, MS) The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of (Washington, DC) Appl. No.: 08/477,559.
[11] op. cit. Fassa.
[12] Ibid
[13] ‘Western corn rootworm and Bt maize: Challenges of pest resistance in the field’ Volume 3, Issue 3 July/August/September 2012. Authors: Aaron J. Gassmann, Jennifer L. Petzold-Maxwell, Ryan S. Keweshan and Mike W. Dunbar.
[14] ‘Gates and Rockefeller Cafeterias Reject Monsanto GE Foods 01 March 2012. |
[15] op. cit. Engdahal (p.270)
[16] ‘Gates’ Vaccine Boost’ UPI, Jan. 29, 2010.
[17] PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases –
[18] ‘Viruses and the GM Insect “Flying Vaccine” Solution’ by Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post December 13, 2010
[19] ‘‘Doomsday Seed Vault’ in the Arctic – Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t’ By F. William Engdahl Global Research, December 4, 2007.
[20] Ibid.
[21 Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issues Editors: Barry R. Schneider, Lawrence E. Grinter Revised Edition 1998. PDF Chapter 10 Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare, Lt Col Robert P. Kadlec, MD, USAF (p.251).
[22] op. cit. Engdahl (Global Research)


World State Policies VI: Eugenics Reborn

“In America, this battle to wipe out whole ethnic groups was fought not by armies with guns nor by hate sects at the margins. Rather, this pernicious white-gloved war was prosecuted by esteemed professors, elite universities, wealthy industrialists and government officials colluding in a racist, pseudoscientific movement called eugenics. The purpose: create a superior Nordic race.”

– Edwin Black, “War against the Weak”


“Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution”: Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921.

In June 2012 the world’s first (officially) genetically modified humans were created. The disclosure came after a series of experiments that resulted in 30 healthy babies being born, two of which were tested and found to contain genes from three “parents.” The Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey carried out an experimental program over a three year period. Fifteen of the children were born to women who had problems conceiving. It was reported that: “Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive. Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults –two women and one man.” [1]

Eugenics, from the Greek eugenēs meaning “well-born” and from eu- + -genēs meaning “born,” is the applied science and/or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population. [2]This includes the discouragement of reproduction by those considered to have genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by those who are believed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Later known as Social Darwinism, the origins of this pseudo-science began through interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of Frederick August Weismann, a 19th century German evolutionary biologist. It was viewed as a science in the late 19th and early 20th century and extremely popular with the scientific and cultural Elite, including the aristocracy. Two of Charles Darwin’s friends who enthusiastically embraced eugenics, were Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Darwin’s cousin, the polymath Francis Galton who was the first to coin the phrase “eugenics” in 1883. He went on to found the Eugenics Movement, which was fervently embraced in the United States and later Germany.

Despite the revulsion that eugenics conjures in our minds today it had widespread acceptance across America and was legally practiced in many states. It was only when the seal of approval was given by the Nazi Third Reich and the subsequent revelations of the holocaust that academia began to distance themselves from the field – at least, officially. The social applications of Nazi eugenics were no different to the American model which had been set in place by decades of population control advocacy. Nonetheless, science would prove it to be strong on belief but very weak on fact which also allowed it to seemingly fade into obscurity.

hux-galtThomas Henry Huxley (left) and Francis Galton (right)

The early 20th century was rife with social problems all of which played on the fears of the Establishment and their latent designs to isolate and enhance their inherited status. Galton’s eugenics became a disturbing expression of racist ideology that comprehensively infected the intelligentsia. The intent, according to author Edwin Black, was to: “… populate the Earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind — and less or none of everyone else.” Spearheaded by a cross-section of industrialists and academics a mass purging of what were deemed: “so-called defective family trees” were targeted and subjected to: “… lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior — the so-called unfit. The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.” [3] [4]

The notions of race and observable physical features as criteria for degenerate or superior traits and therefore definitive indicators of mental and emotional capacity, are inherently flawed. Knowledge gleaned from human genome sequence variation research shows that differences between human groups are more to do with the fluctuation, adaptation and merging of genetic variation and genetic drift than with anything remotely as simplistic as the science of race and “racial hygiene.” Heritable changes in gene activity which are not caused by the DNA sequence is the relatively new field of epigenetics, a science which has shown just how complex the journey of inherited truly is, where changes can occur in an isolated individual or over a several generations with our environment playing a key role. As Professor Betsy Hartmann of Hampshire College, Massachusetts observes: “One of the great ironies of the present moment in the U.S. is the resurgence of race-based biological and genetic determinism at a time when scientific research is exploding myths about the biological basis of race. For example, research has shown that genetic variation within a group is much greater than variation among ‘races’ and that geographic proximity is a much better marker for genetic similarity than skin color.” [5]


That is not to say that certain predispositions, strengths or weaknesses cannot occur in different families or races just as certain talents and skills seem to arise. The complexity of influence as to why Ethiopia and Somalia produce world-class long distance runners and Russia the greatest chess players cannot be reduced down to simplistic notions such as purifying the genetic bloodline. Nevertheless, eugenics naturally appeals to authoritarian personalities that operate through a binary interpretation of reality, often encompassing a romantic idealism of society and nature. A strong tradition exists between the two, whether it is the German Volk taken on and subverted by the Nazis or some within the Deep Ecology movement that see biodiversity, population reduction and immigration as inseparable to the survival of the human species. The wish to keep Nature and race pure combined with the merging of external threats seems to become more attractive when economic stability is threatened. The fear of difference is heightened, where scapegoats can offer a vessel to which the shallow and stupid can pour in their innumerable insecurities.

Immigration has sub-connection to the ideas of eugenics and imperialism in that its creation is directly linked to the mind-set that sees certain races and peoples as inferior. Indeed, in the case of certain Jewish sects like Chabad Lubavitch or the white nationalism of the WASP Establishment, supremacy is a natural disposition. Though regulated immigration may be a logical and necessary step, since much of the present mess has been produced by Western neo-imperialsm, there is also a camouflaged bigotry hitching a ride on a resurgence of nationalism. Some of these protests against immigrants are drawn from xenophobic fear, often drawn from an uneasy fusion of nationalism which harbours confused assumptions about the despoliation of the gene pool as well as a chosen ignorance of what leads to mass immigration. Cultural and ecological purity can reinforce each other increasing underlying prejudice based on spurious science.

Similarly, even though the causes of homosexuality have generally been accepted to stem from environmental and hormonal changes in the foetus and infant life, this hasn’t stopped some gay scientists from trying to locate a “gay gene” in an attempt to afford a stronger legal foundation for gay rights based on the illogicality of a sexual orientation that is biologically predetermined. Eugenics author Nancy Ordover believes that not only is such gay gene-searching scientifically flawed it creates a backlash that reinforces the legitimacy of eugenics within more conservative anti-immigration practices and theories of collective intelligence. She quotes George Mosse describing racism as a “scavenger ideology” “… that posits the differences between race and peoples as immutable.” Ordover sees eugenics in the same light: “… exploiting and reinforcing anxieties over race, gender, sexuality and class and bringing them into service of nationalism, white supremacy and heterosexism – not for the first time, but under a new phraseology.” [6]

Though not all calls for curbs on immigration can be linked to such thinking by any means. For instance, there are compelling studies to suggest that multiculturalism and diversity is not always what its cracked up to be due, in part, to the unnatural socio-economic policies enforced upon foreign populations. (See: The Diversity Illusion from a UK perspective). Conversely, there are many groups who use it as a means to inject their ill-informed beliefs regarding race and culture. What results is a Gordian knot of confused thinking which is gaining ground. If immigration is questioned the reflex from the more conservative or republican voters is to cheer accordingly, while those on the left will leap to the defence of those pushing for an open gates policy on immigration as a matter of principle which is neither practical or sensible. A medium must be found between the two poles which is the last thing the eugenicist mind would like, since the vast majority of humanity is surplus to requirements and any culling of the excess population is desirable whether for ecological and/ or genetic reasons. It is the Elite psychopaths vs. ordinary people that define the real issues at stake and being a genetic minority, a more fertile ground for the propagation of their genetic dominance is an underlying objective.


U.S. eugenics poster advocating for the removal of genetic “defectives” such as the insane, “feeble-minded” and criminals, and supporting the selective breeding of “high-grade” individuals, c. 1926


Wir stehen nicht allein: “We do not stand alone”. Nazi propaganda poster from 1936, supporting Nazi Germany’s 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (their compulsory sterilization law). The couple is in front of a map of Germany, surrounded by the flags of nations, including the United States, which had enacted (to the left) or were considering (bottom and to the right) similar legislation. (wikipedia)

Eugenics and anti-immigration started off as strong partners and still are in the minds of the Establishment, though perhaps for different reasons for the average man in the street who has good reason to view present immigration quotas as wildly unrealistic. The Immigration Restriction League was an American organisation that was the first to officially align itself to eugenics in 1894. A product of an initiative by Founded in Harvard University graduates, their principles included the prohibition of “inferior” races from entering America and interfering with what they saw as a racial purity of an American Anglo-Saxon racial stock. This meant that sexual relationships with those whom they considered less evolved (using strictly Dawinist purview) and those whom were therefore “uncivilised” was deemed a great threat to the white American race. By the turn of the 19th Century America was set to embrace eugenics with a passion.

Many socialists and members of the American Progressive Movement jumped aboard the eugenics train relieved to find a seemingly scientific basis for their romantic (though fascistic) ideo logy. For some, there was a slight hitch with this initial enthusiasm when they realised the Nazi Third Reich was riding along with them in the same carriage. It was 1930’s America and its sterilization program that would inspire Hitler to take this experimentation further, with the help of US industrialists. Later as we have seen, US intelligence would mop up the mess and incorporate the Nazi intelligentsia into what would become the National Security State. American eugenicist Madison Grant coined the term “Nordic race” as a generic racial stock descriptor for the pinnacle of eugenic advancement and later appropriated as yet another Teutonic ideal by the Reich. During the 1920s–30s, this blonde, blue-eyed, Nordic ideal gained ground and the German Society for Racial Hygiene was founded in 1905. Public health became integrated with eugenic principles leading to the implementation of selective breeding and compulsory sterilization.

Edwin Black, author of War and Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (2003) provides clear evidence that American corporate philanthropy elevated this pseudo-science to a degree that allowed the institutionalisation of race politics to become national policy. The Harriman railroad fortune, our friends at the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution – in combination with systematic academic fraud – were all enthusiastically involved. This led to the imposition of eugenics legislation in 27 states, mandated as lawful and constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The notion of “race and blood” became popularised by Stanford University President David Starr Jordan in his 1902 treatise Blood of a Nation in which he claimed that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood. Inspired by Starr Jordan and many others rising up to push forward the eugenics agenda two years later a laboratory was created at Cold Spring Harbour on Long Island. The Carnegie Institution was busy creating a vast stockpile of index cards on ordinary Americans while floating ideas as to how they could instigate methods by which they could remove “… families bloodlines and whole peoples.” Legislatures, social services and associations became hot-beds of pressure from eugenics advocates. Meanwhile, over in New York many charities and organisations such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration was busy rooting out Italian, Jewish and other immigrants across many states in various cities with a view to deportation, confinement or forced sterilisation. All of this was paid for by the Harriman Railroad fortune company.


A map from a Swedish royal commission report displays the U.S. states that had implemented sterilization legislation by 1929. (wikipedia)

Black discovered that the families identified: “so-called defective family trees and subject[ed] them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs,” along with the sporadic practice of “doctor-organized euthanasia”. [7] This was inflicted on predominantly “… poor people, brown-haired white people, African-Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern Europeans, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.” Black alerts us to the little known fact that “60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized – legally and extra-legally” with the tacit support of America’s most progressive figures.[8]

By the end of the 1920s eugenics was entrenched in the Establishment and seen as the answer to the perceived immigration and social deterioration of Anglo-Saxon “pure stock”. Even the US Supreme Court took on the eugenics cause. 1927 was the year when Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind … Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” [9]Black’s research confirmed that: “This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes’ words in their own defense.” Such statements were to play a crucial part in the thought processes of Adolf Hitler for whom the world of eugenics had been thoroughly digested prior to the completion of Mein Kampf in 1924.

He wrote:

“There is today one state in which at least a weak beginning toward a better conception is noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the American Union, in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially. By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the folkish state concept. The folkish state divides its inhabitants into three classes: citizens, subjects, and foreigners.” [10]

This brings us back to a form of National Socialism which, as mentioned previously seems to dominate the fabric of politics in the United States and Europe – minus the regalia. Rather than Germany being the cause of such ponerology it was in fact, within the United States that eugenics was allowed to run free to later emerge as Nazi fuelled mind control experiments under Dr. Ewan McGregor and the CIA. Germany was not only supported by US corporations but by a distinctly American class of eugenicists later supporting the Third Reich and their allopathic medical paradigm involving drugs, surgery and radiation.

The Warburg family’s German chemical company I.G. Farben had extremely close ties to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. So much so that one could almost see them as one financial entity operating wholly in the Nazi interest. It was for this reason that the business continued throughout the war despite Roosevelt’s legal attempts to try and stop the stop the Standard-I.G. Farben cartel from supplying, assisting and profiting from the enemy war machine. I.G. Farben would expand its operations during the war using slave labour from concentration camps to extract gasoline from coal. No prosecutions were ever brought to bear against any of the participants.

While John D. Rockefeller’s vast wealth was used to promote psychiatric genetics in the US, medical teaching was comprehensively reorganized in Germany via the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity, based in Munich. Chosen by the family to act as Chief Executive for these institutions Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin took on the role with assistants Dr. Franz J. Kallmann, Otmar Verschuer and the soon to be notorious Dr. Josef Mengele.


I.G. Farbenindustrie AG | Created December 25, 1925-1952 (liquidation started) 31 October 2012 (liquidation accomplished) (wikipedia)

Rudin had long been interested in racial hygiene and Social Darwinism from his brother-in-law Alfred Ploetz. By 1932 Rudin had secured his position as head of the International Eugenics Movement with the seal of approval from British Eugenicists. A year later, Rudin’s career had taken a stratospheric leap forward upon his appointment by Hitler and the Task Force of Heredity Experts formed by SS Chief Heinrich Himmler. It was in July of that year that the sterilization law came into being thanks to Rockefeller funding and the existing American model of race laws.

In 1936, the half-Jewish Dr. Franz Kallmann immigrated to the United States increasingly worried for his safety. Once there, he established the Medical Genetics Department of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Like so many often German-Jewish, Nazi psychiatrists, psychologists and scientists, the seeds of German and American Nazism became mixed and implanted in the pre-war political framework, which would only increase by the end of the 1940s.

Meanwhile, during 1943 Dr. Joseph Mengele’s responsibility had increased having been made medical officer of Auschwitz-Birkenau’s “Gypsy (Romani) camp,” where I.G. Farben had recently built its huge coal to gasoline factory with easy access to camp inmates. Otmar Verschuer, now director of Rockefeller’s Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, managed to secure funds from the German Research Council for Mengele to conduct experiments on prison camp inmates. Research on twins was and always is a key component of genetic research. Mengele’s victims had a high quota of twins amongst them who were subjected to some of the most systematic horror ever devised in the name of science. The doctor would scan the new prisoner arrivals with other SS physicians where it was determined who would be retained for work, possible experimentation or who would be killed. “He would wade through the incoming prisoners shouting Zwillinge heraus! (Twins out!),Zwillinge heraustreten! (Twins step forward!) with – according to an assistant he recruited – “such a face that I would think he’s mad”.[11]

Mengele’s experiments are renowned for their sadistic brutality. Survivors tell of his apparent kindness towards children offering them chocolate and befriending them with soothing words and fatherly smiles, yet: “He would also kill them without hesitation, sometimes administering injections to the children or shooting them himself, and would dissect them immediately afterwards. On one evening alone he killed 14 twins.” [12] “Once Mengele’s assistant rounded up 14 pairs of Roma twins during the night. Mengele placed them on his polished marble dissection table and put them to sleep. He then injected chloroform into their hearts, killing them instantly. Mengele then began dissecting and meticulously noting each piece of the twins’ bodies.” [13]


Former Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Racial Hygiene, at the Free University of Berlin, as it is today.

There were experimental blood transfusions, removal of organs and limbs, sometimes without anaesthetic; women were sterilized; injections into eyes were carried out to see if eye colour could be manipulated; men were castrated; shock treatment was carried out and vivisection on pregnant women. Thousands were murdered and “scientific data” sent to Verschuer and the Rockefeller group at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. In truth, science played no part in Mengele’s butchery only the opportunity of a sadistic psychopath to indulge his bloodlust, a microcosm of so many within the Reich itself. And what is more, Rockefeller funding helped to make it all possible.

Dr. Franz Kallmann became director of the Rockefeller’s American Eugenics Society (AES) in 1952 and from 1954 to 1965, and assisted in the creation the American Society of Human Genetics which would later lead to the “Human Genome Project.” Dr. Otmar Verschuer was also a member of the AES until his death in 1969 having successfully made the transition from Nazi eugenicist to genetic researcher after the war, as did so many of his colleagues.

The drive for eugenics research, while perhaps not harbouring the extremes of psychopathic savagery witnessed during the War is nonetheless alive and well under the auspices of many foundations and organisations like the Rockefeller’s American Eugenics Society (closely affiliated to the Population Council) which changed its name in 1972 to: “Society for the Study of Social Biology” and then again in 2012 to: “Society of Biodemography and Social Biology (SBSB) in a bid to distance itself from its Social Darwinist past.

In 1968 the leader of the AES Frederick Osborn wrote: “Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics.” Thus, the movement as a whole has been trying to disassociate themselves from the events of history ever since but their perception regarding “racial hygiene” remains exactly the same. [14]



[1] ‘World’s first GM babies born’ The Daily Mail, June 27, 2012.
[2] Eugenics: Unified Medical Language System (Psychological Index Terms) National Library of Medicine, 26 Sep. 2010.
[3] ‘Eugenics and the Nazis: The California Connection’ by Edwin Black, The San Francisco Chronicle, 2003.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Everyday Eugenics’ By Betsy Hartmann, ZSpace September 22, 2006.
[6] p.207; American Eugenics Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism By Nancy Ordover, Published by Univ Of Minnesota Press; 1 edition, 2003.
[7] ‘We Must Keep Eugenics Away From Genetics’ By Edwin Black,, October 15, 2003.
[8] op. cit. Black.
[9] 274 U.S. 200, at 207, U.S. Supreme Court Center.
[10] p.361; Mein Kampf By Adolph Hitler 1925 / Elite Minds, Incorporated; original official NSDAP english translation edition 1940 edition (14 April 2009).
[11] ‘What Made This Man? Mengele’ The New York Times. July 21, 1985.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Bülow, Louis. ‘Josef Mengele, Angel of Death’ |
[14]|‘Everyday Eugenics’ By Betsy Hartmann Zmag, 2006.


For a more esoteric overview of depopulation and eugenics see: Mark Passio – The Unholy Feminine – Neo-Feminism & The Satanic Epi-Eugenics Agenda


Feminisim or Infiltration? II: “… Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle,”

“Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society.”

Michael Levin, Professor of Philosophy, City of New York University

In the context of an Official Culture steeped in narcissism, feminism has not been excluded from its influence.

The originators of radical feminism were largely lesbian, seeking active polarisation of men and women rather than integration of values and common ground. Radical feminists believe that men are not relevant to a new society, women being the superior sex, amounting to a form of matriarchal fascism. Some believe that radical feminism and its subtle undercurrent in standard feminism is in fact an outlet and cover for misandry and not created as a natural response to the oppression women have suffered historically. Many of those who call themselves “Third Wave” feminists think of the concept of men’s rights as a personal slight against centuries of feminine oppression:

How could that possibly be credible since we have suffered so much and suffer still ?

How could the feminist movement possibly be making matters worse?

And this is to misunderstand the nature of our social systems which have engineered men and women to be products of its most toxic effects, spiritually and psychologically. Ponerological influences will distort and subvert the purest of movements until we recognise what is really going on. Unfortunately psycho-spiritual corruption of this kind leaves no movement or belief untouched.

The history of subverting positive movements for change is a tried and tested one from intelligence agencies, the 20th Century version of which started back in the 1950s with the rise of political dissidents, most notably within ethnic minority, peace, and civil liberty movements. There is also substantial evidence that such operations are now firmly entrenched within the New Age or human potential movement; within ecology and green politics as well as anti-globalisation activism. This has been especially effective in the U.S. Far from closing down in the 1970s these covert operations have continued apace, and have been taken to new levels of obfuscation and deception in line with the public’s growing awareness and Information Age. But each movement is different. Whereas in some cases it is tasked with creating lies and disinformation and to funnel awareness into intellectual and spiritual cul-de-sacs, in others, it is to stimulate conditions by which certain movements will implode from within taking the positive aspects of the seed idea with it. In the case of feminism and the gay pride movement it has been to promote radicalism and thus subvert the underlying message and thus increase the divide and therefore the emotional and instinctive capital available for the Establishment.


The hugely influential feminist writer and activist Gloria Steinham responsible for planting the misanthropic seed embodied in the maxim: “women need men like a fish needs a bicycle,” was, in all probability a paid CIA asset throughout the 1960s and 70s tasked with routing student communists and then promoting radical feminism.[1] The founder of Ms. Magazine an influential feminist rag, Steinham managed to have this funded by indirectly through the CIA and the Rockefeller foundation, the latter of which seems to crop up whenever a branch of social engineering needs some financial support. This makes the assumption that modern US feminism was also a grassroots, natural reaction to men’s oppression rather insubstantial.

What we are seeing in both the US and UK is a strange reversal of gender roles. This does not mean that men are becoming nannies and women racing drivers, rather the emotional fabric of the sexes is undergoing a loss of identity where biological roles that go very deep are being discarded for the wrong reasons. If a woman wants to stay at home and take on the role of housewife – a desperately important role and job in the family unit – she is made to feel as though she is acquiescing to male domination. Yet, this is increasingly not an option anyway. Most women have no choice but to enter the corporate world due to the nature of our increasingly fragile economies. Naomi Wolf stated: “For almost 40 years, that era’s Western feminist critique of rigid sex-role stereotyping has prevailed. In many ways, it has eroded or even eliminated the kind of arbitrary constraints that turned peaceable boys into aggressive men and stuck ambitious girls in low-paying jobs.” [2] While wanting more equality in the workplace, the right to have children while discarding the very real differences between men and women it seems to suggest that a serious revision is in order as to what kind of feminism operates in our Western societies and whether we need that “-ism” at all.

A recent UK study found that “… over 60 percent of young men aged between 18 and 29 are competent ironers, with only 10 percent able to maintain a car and almost half can’t even change a tyre. Three quarters regularly don an apron in the kitchen and almost 80 percent take on housework. Young men are so in touch with their emotions [that] a whopping 85 percent are comfortable crying in front of others.” [3] Most importantly however: “…They are also more obsessed with themselves than any other generation, with two thirds of them striving to attain a perfectly toned body.” This is far from satisfactory for “…women aged 18 to 29 [who] complained that men are not masculine enough with 60 percent saying they’d prefer a man to take control in their relationship.” [4] While over in Canada a pattern that is also being reflected in Europe shows: “…that women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth: 22 per cent of husbands have wives whose income now exceeds theirs, compared to 4 per cent in 1970. The rise in women’s earnings corresponds with an upsurge in their education.” The women were quickly dubbed “alpha wives.” [5]

Addressing the male/female socio-economic divide is obviously a positive aspiration. But has being a “liberated woman” actually reduced the choices rather than increased them? Does being free to have as much sex as you want as often as you want liberate? It would be churlish in the extreme to disregard the chains on women’s sexuality and basic freedoms for millennia. We only have to look at the global sex trade, female circumcision and the drug-addled Nigerian prostitutes on my street corner to see that women and the sexual objectification that still surrounds the female is as prevalent as ever. However, in the Western, feminist, middle-class context we are looking at here, something else has happened as a reaction to that sexploitation.

Strategy consultant Susan Walsh made the point succinctly from her blog Hooking up smart: “Apparently in the femosphere, having a lot of casual sex is a way of communicating that you are confident, and sexy, and have no needs – or at least, not any that might be fulfilled by a male. I believe there are less risky ways of getting that message across.” And ultimately more rewarding and fulfilling – which applies to both men and women.

Walsh shares with us the fact that American men, in selecting among 67 desirable traits, ranked sexual faithfulness and loyalty #1. If women are playing out the feminism dream of being independent, non-dependent, strong and free-spirited which is believed to be equated with the male cliché of “sowing his oats” and “hooking up” as a normal strategy then, as Walsh mentions, this is a very poor strategy, for women who seek a long-term relationship, or life partner. And if the bonding chemical exists in much higher quantities in women than men, and women’s brains are also hard-wired to nurture then this is surely setting up some body-mind dissonance at a subconscious level. Usually these denials come home to roost.

Walsh quotes from The Evolution of Desire (Buss, 1994) to back up her claims:

Studies demonstrate that women’s preferences for short-term mates include availability as a marriage partner. They strongly resemble their preferences for a husband: kind, romantic, understanding, exciting, stable, healthy, humorous, and generous with resources. In other words, women have high standards for both short-term and long-term relationships, or at least that’s how we’ve evolved thus far.

Conversely, men select for very different traits when seeking short-term sexual partners. Compared with their long-term preferences, men don’t want casual partners who are prudish, conservative or have a low sex drive. In contrast to standards for committed relationships, for short-term sex they want: sexual experience, including promiscuity, and a high sex drive.” [6]

This means that men have had both sides of their bread buttered in that they have been praised and lauded when notching up conquests from college to office exploits while women have traditionally been seen as “sluts” or femme fatales when doing the same. And now, thanks to pathological influences from on high, these ratios have become more extreme.

But if men’s natural preference is for women who are faithful and loyal – and women should expect the same from men – then it behooves feminists to understand that doing what men do under largely misguided values is not necessarily true freedom or biologically healthy, given what we know about gender differences. Nor will it increase the likelihood of a stable male-female relationship in the future. Promiscuity is unfortunately a male throwback that is stacked against the female doing the same. Men cannot give birth, after all.  Biological differences are inescapable even at a more subtle level. Walsh observes for the male:

“A woman’s sexual history serves as a proxy, or indicator of future behavior. It is not perfect, but men can and do make use of this information when selecting partners. This does not mean that a promiscuous woman cannot find a mate, but it does mean that the pool of men from which she may select has shrunk dramatically. A woman may say, ‘I would never want a guy who felt that way,’ and that’s perfectly legitimate. Still, it’s important that she understand the effectiveness of various sexual strategies in mating so that she may make informed decisions.” [7]

At the beginning of the 21st Century has feminism misinformed and confused rather than offer true liberation where it counts? Does becoming more like the corporate alpha male augment and value the feminine principle of nurturing, cooperation and bonding? When much of our culture is a product of narcissism and psychopathy, it is highly doubtful. Once again, feminism is just as vulnerable to ponerological influences as any other “-ism.” Therefore, there’s a reason why some women no longer see feminism as positive as they can already see that is has been co-opted and  absorbed into the Divide and Rule dichotomy so favoured by the Establishment class.


“The Kiss” by Gustav Klimt (1907-1908) (wikipedia)

As journalist Lisa Guiliani passionately explains from a recent article on the same, not all women are feminists and that does not mean they are unthinking or uncaring but often have a more universalist view, where both sexes are seen as victims of the Establishment system:

The Feminist Movement only represents women who THINK LIKE THE Movement. It does NOT represent ALL women. Let’s see how many feminists support my right to express ideas that run counter to their group think. Because they sure as hell don’t represent women who think like me. I am no bible-thumping christian, and I am no deluded false political paradigm swigging ‘Democrat or Republican’. The Feminist Movement does NOT support or represent women who CHALLENGE its group think or its agenda. I am just a woman.

I do not hate men, in spite of and despite any of the bad experiences I’ve had with men or because of the bad men I’ve been involved with, or because of my bad choices and poor decisions overall. And I am a mother, who has seen the negative effects of joining the workforce in my own life – and the irreparable toll it took upon my family over the years. I see what a lot of these feminist ideas have wrought upon the world, and how they’ve flipped this country inside out and upside down.

I don’t think the trade-off was worth it. What have we really gained? More self-respect? More worthless money? A ‘right’ to a bogus vote? More meaningful relationships with the opposite sex? A surefire way to get rid of unwanted pregnancy even as we continue having more irresponsible sex? Wow. So many ‘choices’. How impressive.

Men are so leery of women now, it’s a wonder anyone tries to date us at all. But that’s okay, right? We don’t NEED to date men anymore. We can date each other. Terrific. And while that appeals to a lot of women these days, it does NOT appeal to me. So I’m left to navigate the screwed-up dating world, full of messed up, broken people who present themselves as shiny, happy, successful, shallow, perfect and plastic. [8]

“I consider myself 100 percent a feminist, at odds with the feminist establishment in America. For me the great mission of feminism is to seek the full political and legal equality of women with men. However, I disagree with many of my fellow feminists as an equal opportunity feminist, who believes that feminism should only be interested in equal rights before the law. I utterly oppose special protection for women where I think that a lot of the feminist establishment has drifted in the last 20 years.”

Camille Paglia, American academic and social critic

mother and child

Mother and Child bronze at

The sweeping changes that were brought about by the so-called Sexual Revolution fuelled by the counter culture trappings of psychedelia, LSD and the Kinsey Report suggest that the end result was not at all what the original proponents of free love and equality ever expected. Free love or self-indulgence? Sexual freedom or cheap sex?  This is not to say that every aspect of this revolution was bad – not by a long way – but it seems the pendulum has swung back towards its worst aspects and become stuck. This social force has engrained them into present day consciousness as the only way to be; where mutual love and respect of the sexes “… has given us the trashy ‘pornogrification’ of our society.” [9]

If women were “… conned into abandoning self-respect” then men were duped into thinking that such easily “accessible goods” were worth having. In the end, meaningless sex – like the mediocrity of Official Culture on which it derives its sustenance, morphs into a meaningless life. And that is coincidentally, the spiritual malaise most noticeable in 21st century Western society as journalist Bel Mooney eloquently laments:

Health Centre handed out the Pill like sweeties. So you wouldn’t get pregnant – good. But at the same time you had no reason to be careful – bad. Most of us embraced the hippie-esque idea that sexual freedom was a beautiful thing to be celebrated. ‘Seize the day,’ we shouted, and threw old notions like fidelity out of the window. But beneath all those naive and high-sounding ideals, the sexism of supposedly radical and free-thinking men on the left could be summed up with: ‘A woman’s place is underneath.’

As the writer and feminist pioneer Rosie Boycott has said: ‘What was insidious about the underground was that it pretended to be alternative. But it wasn’t providing an alternative for women. It was providing an alternative for men in that there were no problems about screwing around.’

The artist Nicola Lane, another young woman of the age, adds: ‘It was paradise for men – all these willing girls. But the problem with the willing girls was that a lot of the time they were willing not because they particularly fancied the people concerned but because they felt they ought to. There was a lot of misery.’ [10]

For Michael Gurian, the cultural dogma of media stereotypes, though irrefutable is not the main issue. He believes that: “… the foremothers of the ‘70s overemphasized power and go-it-alone independence at the expense of women’s deep need for emotional attachments, including the honorable pursuit of motherhood.” Though much of tradition was deeply flawed so too was feminism in Gurian’s view. He and his wife, family therapist Gail Reid-Gurian suggest a more “logical” and “compromising” approach called “womanism” which advocates “absorbing the best of the past” so that girls’ and women have equal opportunity rights “… but where their yearning for a ‘safe web of intimate relationships’ is recognised and valued.

This of course, extends both ways.

Womanism grew out of the response from black women to racial and gender oppression and has since been taken on by many women in general as an alternative to feminism. Yet, the key difference is what Gurian thinks is the “sacred” nature of motherhood and the symbiosis of male and female potential.

He states:

“… human females and males need to form intimate, long-lasting and symbiotic relationships in order to feel safe and personally fulfilled and in order to raise the next generation safely” […] “Women who never have children are still mothers,”… “They mother communities, other people’s children, the earth itself.” […] Mothering, with a capital M, is the primary goal of girls. I mean by that, mothering the world. My argument would be that females are wired to mother. Some may never have children, but they’re still wired to mother.” [11]

That conclusion would no doubt get many feminists foaming at the mouth at the sheer audacity of such a statement.

Gurian believes that for “the 10 to 20 percent of girls in crisis – especially girls who are abused, disturbed or systematically disrespected…” feminism presents a conceptual framework that can offer a way through. However, he goes on to state that:  “…it’s not the right model for the majority of girls who are doing well at any given moment.”

He also makes the interesting link between girls, family and by extension, the loss of community that now defines much of contemporary society. Gurian’s view places importance on the female’s drive for attachment that is higher than the male. Consequently, he envisages the provision of a “three-family system” which includes not just biological parents and siblings but a far wider range of an extended family such as mentors, single parents, day-care providers and individuals from church, the local neighbourhood and school.  But these ties must be based on “true bonding” something that could become a strength for women in the correct environment. Without these safeguards and in a society that flows in the opposite direction to true bonding, then that quality becomes inverted, expressing itself as dependency and manipulative strategies to obtain the male.

101_1219© infrakshun

As economic realities encroach further into fragmented communities that were once the norm in the pre-cartel-capitalist West, it may just provide the impetus for not only some collective soul-searching but for the natural tendency for human beings to work together and form stronger communities and where the roles of men and women can naturally honour their biological pre-dispositions without compromising their potential. In a more relaxed and attentive environment without strains of radicalism perhaps a return to what is truly important for individual and community survival may reduce the tendency of narcissistic self-preservation and self-promotion.

To that end, Michael Gurian and Gail Reid-Gurian present a summary of the feminist and new womanist principles:

Feminist position   

  • Our goal as a human race should be gender androgyny.
  • Girls suffer more than boys. Males are more privileged than females.
  • The non-working woman is not financially independent and thus is potentially a victim of men.
  • Masculinity is defective and dangerous. Females must react against it.
  • Marriage is an inherently flawed institution and secondary to the needs of women. Achieving female independence is the hardest work of our civilization.
  • Key words: power and empowerment.

Womanist position

  • Women and men by nature are not the same and do not function in the same way. Human life is passionate and progressive as much because of differences as similarities.
  • Women and men are fellow victims of a fear- and violence-based social system and have different but equally painful wounds.
  • The ideal situation for a woman is one in which she is valued equally for work within and outside of the home.
  • Masculinity is mysterious and we need to understand, clarify, accept and shape it meaningfully rather than fearfully.
  • Marriage is sacred and essential to human progress, especially when a couple is raising children. Achieving stable, healthy attachments is the hardest work of our civilization.
  • Key words: self-knowledge and service. [12]

Among many who provide alternatives to the current male dominated paradigm and the female emulation which is following closely behind, social and cultural historian Riane Eisler’s scholarly classic The Chalice and the Blade and her Cultural Transformation Theory is vital in this context. She proposes a “Dominator model” that includes both Patriarchal and Matriarchal cultures that dominated humanity based on the idea that one gender was inferior to the other. The second model is what Ms. Eisler calls the “Partnership Model,” which is based on the principle of “linking rather than ranking.” [13]

spring woman

“Spring Woman” | © infrakshun

She goes on to explain a social disruption of huge proportions that altered the Western Civilisation’s cultural evolution and natural pathways towards partnership. This was caused by invaders who “ushered in a very different form of social organization,” a warrior race who “worshipped the lethal power of the blade – the power to take rather than give life.” [14]

Perhaps this was essentially a huge rise in the incidence of psychopathy and the dominance and separation it has shaped ever since? She explains the ramifications of this shift:

If we stop and think about it, there are only two basic ways of structuring the relations between the female and male halves of humanity. All societies are patterned on either a dominator model – in which human hierarchies are ultimately backed up by force or the threat of force – or a partnership model, with variations in between.

If we look at the whole span of our cultural evolution from the perspective of cultural transformation theory, we see that the roots of our present global crises go back to the fundamental shift in our prehistory that brought enormous changes not only in social structure but also in technology. This was the shift in emphasis from technologies that sustain and enhance life to the technologies symbolized by the Blade: technologies designed to destroy and dominate. This has been the technological emphasis through most of recorded history. And it is this technological emphasis, rather than technology per se, that today threatens all life on our globe.” [15]

This is directly linked to the loss of biological, emotional and ultimately spiritual understanding in both sexes. Technology is still linked to this dominator / psychopathic model whether it is expressed through drone attacks, smart agri-business or transhumanist pop-culture. Moreover, the sexual and religious bias radiating across the last thousand years has perpetuated a desperate ignorance regarding the female and male dominance cycles that ebbed and flowed in ancient times. Largely male educators and scholars were raised from a background of stern Judeo-Christian bias which has overseen the history of education from elementary to University and beyond, where the source of all evil derives from the sin of Eve who was tempted by the Serpent leading humanity to fall from the Edenic State.

Is it any wonder that women were seen as inferior for so long, and that the emasculation of man is now reflecting that disorientation and loss of sexual and spiritual identity? In this context, feminism is as much a part of the dominator system as the overt patriarchy of the past.



[1] ‘Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem’By Nancy Borman, Village Voice 1979.
[2] op. cit. Wolf.
[3] ‘British men losing their masculinity’ 2010.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Are men being robbed of their masculinity?’ By Zosia Bielski, Globe and Mail Sep. 30, 2010.
[6] ‘The Essential Truth About Female Promiscuity’ by Susan Walsh November 8 2010. Walsh quotes from The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating by David M. Buss; 1994.
[7] Ibid.
[8] ‘Thoughts on the Feminist Movement – Why I Don’t Clap along’ by Lisa Guiliani,, April 1, 2012
[9] ‘My generation created the sexual revolution – and it has been wrecking the lives of women ever since’ By Bel Mooney, The Daily Mail, 2 December 2009.
[10] Ibid.
[11] op. cit. Gurian.
[12] Ibid.
[13] The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler. Published by Mandala Books, 1996.p.xix
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.

Feminism or Infiltration? I

By M.K. Styllinski

“…after an injury, narcissists may self-medicate with drugs or alcohol or make a mad dash to find alternative sources of attention and admiration. But mostly, they become enraged that others don’t go along with their entitled demands. They strike out like a despot whose subjects threaten a revolution. They may be up-front with their rage or be more passive aggressive about it. In divorce, narcissists may fight to get things they may not even want just so their ex-partner can’t have it. This includes custody of the children.”

– Randi Kreger, quoted in Psychology Today

On a feminist blog called Feminspire we are treated to an image of a leather/PVC-clad woman brandishing a whip in true S & M style with “Misandrist Sex Tips” as a title for its latest post. It’s meant to be satire and presumably puts the male firmly in his place to get an idea what it must feel like for women. If you read the list it is neither funny or clever but merely adding to the noise and misandry it claims to be lampooning. Sadly, within feminism as a whole, it has become something quite apart from the original “women’s rights” it was meant to espouse.

From the standpoint of Official Culture and the psychopath, traditional feminine and masculine roles are polarities to play with, so it comes as no surprise that real creative freedom for the sexes has been comprehensively ponerised. The way that psychopathy has done this is to create “movements” that finally end up resembling everything other than the original idea which was offered as a sensible template. In the modern, urban world men and women are being expertly played off against each other based on a fabricated myth of a “battle of the sexes.”

Like so many labels and “-ism’s,” the Women’s Liberation Movement or “feminism” has many groupings under its auspices, meaning a variety of things for a variety of people. Understanding sex and gender issues, women’s rights in education, the workplace and politics are just some of the topics explored with a myriad of organisations and charities based around women’s emancipation. Feminist activism focuses on voting, contract law, property, equal pay for women, raising awareness of sexual exploitation (domestic violence, sexual abuse / harassment and assault) reproductive rights, gender neutrality in English, access to contraceptives; the right to an abortion and campaigns against forms of discrimination. The battle for basic equality in terms of human and civil rights in the developing world is much needed as religious fanaticism in the guise of female genital mutilation in Africa, the Hindu caste system in India and the dogmas of fundamentalist Islam are only a few examples where women are still firmly under the yoke of patriarchy. Female infanticide, honor killings and cases of rape can all be funnelled into feminist discourse.

However…If we are able to grasp the implications of ponerology we’ll discover that Matriarchy and feminism isn’t the answer either.

In the West, what has become a way in for a progressive loss of validity for the feminist movement is the issue of gender equality – at any cost – which has been an open door for  misguided, narcissistic, misanthropic and even psychopathic elements, corrupting the movement as a whole. When we understand the principle of psychopathic inculcation that exists in our culture where both women and men have been placed under its programming, we will see that to focus on one sex at the expense of the other is to play into the game of divide and rule.


To say that periods of cyclic oppression and subjugation of women has not taken place by men for thousands of years and still continues, would be a denial of reality. What is labelled “Feminism” in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Africa and Asia and across the developing world is actually about basic human rights and has become a force for real change against male-dominated, socio-religious discrimination and abuse. In the West, there have been great strides to rid ourselves of our Victorian patriarchal echoes and move onto a more equal footing. Yet, there are still some myths floating about that suggest there is more to cries of gender discrimination against women than meets the eye. One example: it is said that many women still receive a salary far below that of their male colleagues simply because of their gender. Is that true? Perhaps, but not for the reasons feminists would have us believe. According to Payscale Human Capital: “men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities.” Furthermore, it appears to be much more a case of a natural gravitation toward a job sector that naturally pays less based on economic factors rather than a consistent discrimination.

However, like the gay rights movement, feminism and radical expressions within the movement from a Western, white, middle-class perspective have gone in a very different direction, the culmination of which has seen women less happy and with more incidences of narcissism and other mental illnesses than ever before. [1]  Some groups within feminism have been accused of misandry, a strange inversion of emancipation using the very same tools of the original male dominator. There are even reports that some groupings within feminism have resorted to racketeering where women’s “rights” have been distorted into a tried and tested formula of ad homein attacks on any and all those with an opposing view. As one commentator described it: “The MO of these feminist organizations is to threaten with lawsuits and threaten with embarrassment. They don’t care about women, they care about their own power.” [2] 

With any individuals concerned with power as the primary addiction, it doesn’t matter if its politics or women’s studies, this intellectual acid will dissolve the camouflage of post modern platitudes revealing the actions behind the mask. When feminism and political correctness for instance, meet in the  bastions of the law courts it can be a highly toxic mixture with male chauvinism and feminism clashing blindly. Depending on who the judge happens to be it is effectively a lottery of lies and manipulation. You rarely see the median since Hegelian divisions are designed that way and quickly absorbed as cultural norms.  (For an instructive narrative on how bad it can get, try reading Michael McConaughey’s The Mirror).

The promotion of women’s interests above men’s and the belief that men are inherently irredeemable concerning the treatment of said women merely creates more mountains of separation and confusion which everyone has to climb. It also plays directly into the hands of ultra-conservative, authoritarian personalities for whom a legion of repressive tenets closely linked to religious fundamentalist doctrines are deemed the only answer. Aside from radical feminist extremism, it has to be said that many false assumptions underpin the standard feminist drive from which this radicalism hails, most notably the notion of gender equality, a misnomer since it can never be achieved.  The way men and women process stress, intellectualise, manage negative emotions, and how we react to danger show that we are very different, physically and neurophysiologically. [4] Which means the notion of absolute equality is a nonsense since the above factors will determine to a large degree what will work and what is appropriate in society and what isn’t. Sometimes, you can’t buck biology but you can adapt and compromise provided we accept our gender strengths and weaknesses.

Though he may have underestimated how bad the situation is, the author, therapist and father of two daughters Michael Gurian offers something constructive to the debate. He acknowledges that individual differences do indeed exist, yet this needn’t be problematic – it should be understood and celebrated. For instance, girls’ brains are coded to secrete more serotonin than boys’ brains, which means there is a greater amount of the chemical to equalize unregulated impulses. Gurian says this may be one reason why toddler girls are often calmer than toddler boys. He also mentions the vital chemical we looked at previously: oxytocin, that jewel in the crown of female neurochemistry responsible for bonding and “maternal instinct.” If female brains secrete more oxytocin, for instance when little girls play with dolls or when women hear a baby cry in a crowded cinema, then it shows that the effects will be heightened within intimate activities such a sex, where oxytocin’s bonding response will really kick in. For men there is almost zero secretion which goes some way to explaining why one-night stands are often a more difficult prospect for women. Not that this implies it’s a healthy option for men either. Males are much slower to respond physiologically than women but it does not mean that the ability to care about such things is absent.

Then we have the brain’s hippocampus, a centre responsible for memory storage. Studies have found that it is larger and works more efficiently in girls than in boys, which means when it comes to remembering large amounts of information which is inputted in reasonably quick succession girls seem to have a built-in edge. Gurian uncovered the latest findings in brain imaging which revealed a tendency for boys’ brains – especially during puberty – to focus on one task at a time while girls’ brains are able to process larger amounts leading to a greater success for intuitive decision-making. He mentions that the downside of this ability is that young, adolescent girls may develop a “malleable self” with a reliance on others when it comes to concrete decision-making. The cause of high levels of males to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) can also be seen in a new light when we realise that female brains have 15 percent more blood flow volume and larger distribution than male brains. This bestows a greater ability to both think things through, though also increasing the likelihood of indecision. [4]

There are many more differences which Gurian eloquently describes for our edification. Yet, these very differences, instead of producing friction can surely create a “third force” of context and the creativity which can follow when the harmonious joining of the two polarities takes place. That takes knowledge of our individual “issues” and a wider comprehension of the pathologies presently shrouding our world. As third wave feminist author and social activist Naomi Wolf mentions in quoting Helen Fisher’s findings in the Anatomy of Love: “… nature designed men and women to collaborate for survival. ‘Collaboration’ implies free will and choice; even primate males do not succeed by dominating or controlling females. In her analysis, it serves everyone for men and women to share their sometimes different but often complementary strengths – a conclusion that seems reassuring, not oppressive.” [5]

Indeed it is. We can also say that some women in modern, Western societies are already dominating and controlling men – they just do it in entirely different ways. The rise of narcissism seen most strongly in the female population suggests this is having major consequences across all societies and places a crucial part in Official Culture as a whole. If Western women really want to make their undoubted exploitation and oppression of the past stay in the past, then perhaps jettisoning the wish to “have it all” at the expense of men’s rights is also necessary. To increase choice and equality is possible but this does not mean we seek to do and be the same things in a society that are already straining under the weight of narcissism and worse. This appears to be happening in much the same way that some sectors of the Jewish community use the phrase of “anti-semitism” to blockade constructive criticism of the treatment of Palestinians. The culture of victimhood does not encourage new visions.

There are also rights for men that are being eroded in ways that are not acknowledged, especially in the family courts. Notions like gender equality are effective in creating endless circular conflicts that attract dysfunctional minds with axes to grind. Men and women TOGETHER must forge their way to better choices, true freedom and human equality on a vast range of issues. But these divides will worsen if we do not acknowledge and tackle the true enemy which is a war against normal people directed from those in positions of power who largely conform to categories of psychopathy. THAT is the real issue here and one which affects all of us regardless of our particular “-ism” onto we have latched.

What is more, it is precisely because there is always present the creative tendency to embrace the best of men and women without creating divisions that it may have been subverted by CoIntelpro * along with so many other movements in the 1960s and 70s.  As it stands,  modern, Western feminism does not serve women rights in the way that we think and is ironically in danger of replacing one exploitation with another.

Enter: radical feminism.

*  “COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO’s of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations. In the early 1950s, the Communist Party was illegal in the United States. The Senate and House of Representatives each set up investigating committees to prosecute communists and publicly expose them. (The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy). When a series of Supreme Court rulings in 1956 and 1957 challenged these committees and questioned the constitutionality of Smith Act prosecutions and Subversive Activities Control Board hearings, the FBI’s response was COINTELPRO, a program designed to “neutralize” those who could no longer be prosecuted. Over the years, similar programs were created to neutralize civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups, many of which were said to be “communist front organizations.” As J. Edgar Hoover, longtime Director of the FBI put it.” [What the public may not be aware of is these operations did not simply cease, but were utilised for all social domains. Of particular note is the New Age or Human Potential Movement, the foundations of which may have been purely a creation of intelligence agencies].


[1] ‘The narcissism of consumer society has left women unhappier than ever’ by Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, July 26, 2009.
[2] ‘Author Accuses Women’s Groups of Racketeering’ Fox News, October 23, 2002.
[3] ‘Men Are From Mars: Neuroscientists Find That Men And Women Respond Differently To Stress’ Science Daily 2008.
[4] ‘Girl Wonders: Michael Gurian defines his post-feminist vision’ By Ceceilia Goodnow, Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 8, 2002. / The Wonder of Girls: Understanding the Hidden Nature of Our Daughters by Michael Gurian, Published by Simon & Schuster International; Reprint edition, 2003.|ISBN-10: 0743417038.
[5] ‘Feminism and the Male Brain’ By Naomi Wolf, May 29 2009. Project Syndicate,