"These people have formed a technocratic infrastructure with a reach and a wrongheadedness that boggles the mind, and when the implications of their policies are realized, terrorizes the heart"
Matt Ehret is a Canadian who ranks as one of the top historians when it comes to 20th Century politics as effected, as opposed to as reported.
Eugenics - the idea that it is desirable and possible to "improve" humans by allowing only some people to produce children
Transhumanism - the theory that science and technology can help human beings "develop beyond what is physically and mentally possible at the present time" (or do they mean that they can be monitored, even controlled by central AI systems to perform as required by the elite?)
Some may think that transhumanism is just a logical extension to eugenics, whereas others may consider that it offers an alternative approach to the "improvement" of the human race. It seems to me that they are not mutually exclusive.
Either way, both techniques suffer from underlying assumptions
- that they work (whatever that means, "improvement" being undefined)
- that human beings are not created equal, since some (the elite) intend to apply these techniques to the others (the plebs, the proletariat, the deplorables etc, take your pick) thus immediately placing these ideas in direct opposition to centuries of religious teachings of many stripes, not to mention all ideas of government of the people by the people and for the people.
They risk ignoring the potential of the human race to spontaneously create solutions to problems that may appear currently to be insuperable, either by progressively improving our understanding of the universe and how it works, or by developing new and improved techniques of doing those things that appear to be limited by existing techniques and resources.
In fact, by implicitly demanding centralisation of control of the many into the hands of the few:
- they demand that only the elite can be permitted to direct advances in science and technology,
- they deny the possibility that human beings can creatively self-organise (via markets, juries, democratic committees etc)
- to retain control they must insist on the right of the elite to bring up and indoctrinate the next generation (or turn them into robotic controlled beings through implants, AI and related technologies).
In short, they would almost certainly bring human development to a screeching halt.
Any system that would replace the immediate loving care of family and parents by the dead hand of a remote elite (or worse, an "AI" system) must of necessity resort to enough coercion to overcome the natural aversion of the family to giving up its children.
If we take a step back, and admit that our current systems of government leave a very great deal to be desired, and if we believe that centralised government taken to these extremes is not the answer, then maybe, just maybe, we should be looking at reducing the remit of our government rather than for ever increasing it, and decentralising responsibility locally to the extent that it may be possible?
Matt tells a compelling story, a story which will be unfamiliar to many, especially those who born in the 21st century. Many will find it unbelievable and repulsive, but that does not alter the truth of it.
Some fear that the current pandemic / scamdemic is simply a means to commence implementation of these ideas by fraudulent means (since we may assume that insufficient numbers of the deplorables would volunteer for these measures of their own accord).
These are deep and dark waters, but if we would deal with it, then firstly we must "know our enemy" - this is an excellent introduction.
So if you would like a quick overview of where these ideas came from and how they may link up with current events, then I suggest that this would be 1hr 45 minutes well spent:
Like / Dislike this video here.
For those who would like to read up on this in more depth, start here.