Gene Editing

Genome Engineering and the CRISPR Revolution

It has become apparent to me, following my research into the subject, that gene editing is not a new scientific discovery. In fact, gene editing has been in existence for a few decades already and we should all be familiar with GM (genetically modified) food – or GMO (genetically modified organism). It was however the discovery of CRISPR in 2012 that provided the giant leap in understanding and potential for gene editing or gene surgery as I have heard it called.

Geneticist Jennifer Doudna was one of the co-founders of CRISPR-Cas9.

‘The tool allows scientists to make precise edits to DNA strands, which could lead to treatments for genetic diseases … but could also be used to create so-called “designer babies.”

Scientists battle for gene-editing patent
– Argument over who invented CRISPR-Cas9 method of editing genes heads to US Patent & Trademark Office –

The revolutionary gene-editing technique known as CRISPR, discussed recently in The New Economy, is thought to be potentially worth billions of dollars. Now a dispute has broken out between two sets of researchers over who was first to make the break-through with the technology that has been described as genetic scissors.

The University of California has contacted the US Patent & Trademark Office about a number of patents that were last year awarded to the Massachusetts-based MIT/Harvard Broad Institute, which it claims belong to them. It is likely that regulators will study laboratory notebooks in an effort to determine who uncovered the technology first, with potentially huge financial implications the result.

According to MIT Technology Review, CRISPR-Cas9 was first described in public by University of California biologist Jennifer Doudna and French biologist Emmanuelle Charpentier. However, MIT/Harvard Broad Institute’s Feng Zhang won a patent for the technology last year because of notebooks he submitted that he claimed proved he invented it.

Speaking to MIT Technology Review, Greg Ahoronian, director of the Centre for Global Patent Quality, said that the stakes were high for such a revolutionary technology. “Expect this battle to be very expensive, very contentious, given the stakes involved. Given the stakes with CRISPR, I can see many hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent fighting this battle.”

The technology has become hugely anticipated by the healthcare industry, with many believing it could transform the way many diseases and conditions are treated. Diseases that include cancer, diabetes, and heart disease could be treated through genetic editing, with much more tailored and specific medicines being offered to patients.

CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), has seen leading healthcare companies like AstraZeneneca invest huge amounts into furthering research earlier this year, while Swiss-based pharmaceutical firm Novartis also announced funding for two US biotechnology firms that are developing the technology. (https://www.theneweconomy.com/technology/scientists-battle-for-gene-editing-patent)

I have watched many interviews with Jennifer Doudna and I must say that she tends to steer away from discussing the possible negatives associated with gene editing and rather mentions the urgent need for guidelines and control measures. I have included some interviews below for your interest. There is a large number of resources and literature available on this subject online. What I have included below are some that I believe should provide an introductory framework.

It is clear to me that since the discovery of CRISPR in 2012 giant leaps of progress have been made in the field of gene editing. So much so that one scientist suggested in an interview that one would need to read at least sixty case documents a week to be able to stay abreast of developments.

For most people, gene editing may appear to be very exciting especially in terms of disease prevention and cure. Unfortunately, I tend to see the huge risks and the ‘ungodliness’ involved with this science. My resistance to this science is driven by my Biblical understanding and perspective – especially considering end-time prophetic warnings.

I am clearly not alone with my concerns on this science. Imagine this technology in the hands of the immoral and unethical practitioners. This science will undoubtedly be an enormous money-spinner. Look at what takes place in the narcotics underworld and the backstreet abortion clinics. In my opinion gene editing is going to present more problems than positives in the near future.

The U.S. Intelligence has even gone so far as to include ‘gene editing’ onto the list of threats posed by ‘weapons of mass destruction and proliferation’:

……………………..

 Top U.S. Intelligence Official Calls Gene Editing a WMD Threat

Easy to use. Hard to control. The intelligence community now sees CRISPR as a threat to national safety.

by Antonio Regalado  February 9, 2016

Genome editing is a weapon of mass destruction.

That’s according to James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, who on Tuesday, in the annual worldwide threat assessment report of the U.S. intelligence community, added gene editing to a list of threats posed by “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.”

Gene editing refers to several novel ways to alter the DNA inside living cells. The most popular method, CRISPR, has been revolutionizing scientific research, leading to novel animals and crops, and is likely to power a new generation of gene treatments for serious diseases (see “Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR’s Monster Year”).

It is gene editing’s relative ease of use that worries the U.S. intelligence community, according to the assessment. “Given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of this dual-use technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse might lead to far-reaching economic and national security implications,” the report said.

The choice by the U.S. spy chief to call out gene editing as a potential weapon of mass destruction, or WMD, surprised some experts. It was the only biotechnology appearing in a tally of six more conventional threats, like North Korea’s suspected nuclear detonation on January 6, Syria’s undeclared chemical weapons, and new Russian cruise missiles that might violate an international treaty.

The report is an unclassified version of the “collective insights” of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and half a dozen other U.S. spy and fact-gathering operations.

Although the report doesn’t mention CRISPR by name, Clapper clearly had the newest and the most versatile of the gene-editing systems in mind. The CRISPR technique’s low cost and relative ease of use—the basic ingredients can be bought online for $60—seems to have spooked intelligence agencies.

“Research in genome editing conducted by countries with different regulatory or ethical standards than those of Western countries probably increases the risk of the creation of potentially harmful biological agents or products,” the report said.

The concern is that biotechnology is a “dual use” technology—meaning normal scientific developments could also be harnessed as weapons. The report noted that new discoveries “move easily in the globalized economy, as do personnel with the scientific expertise to design and use them.”

Clapper didn’t lay out any particular bioweapons scenarios, but scientists have previously speculated about whether CRISPR could be used to make “killer mosquitoes,” plagues that wipe out staple crops, or even a virus that snips at people’s DNA.

“Biotechnology, more than any other domain, has great potential for human good, but also has the possibility to be misused,” says Daniel Gerstein, a senior policy analyst at RAND and a former under secretary at the Department of Homeland Defense. “We are worried about people developing some sort of pathogen with robust capabilities, but we are also concerned about the chance of misutilization. We could have an accident occur with gene editing that is catastrophic, since the genome is the very essence of life.”

Piers Millet, an expert on bioweapons at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., says Clapper’s singling out of gene editing on the WMD list was “a surprise,” since making a bioweapon—say, an extra-virulent form of anthrax—still requires mastery of a “wide raft of technologies.”

Development of bioweapons is banned by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, a Cold War–era treaty that outlawed biological warfare programs. The U.S., China, Russia, and 172 other countries have signed it. Millet says that experts who met in Warsaw last September to discuss the treaty felt a threat from terrorist groups was still remote, given the complexity of producing a bioweapon. Millet says the group concluded that “for the foreseeable future, such applications are only within the grasp of states.”

The intelligence assessment drew specific attention to the possibility of using CRISPR to edit the DNA of human embryos to produce genetic changes in the next generation of people—for example, to remove disease risks. It noted that fast advances in genome editing in 2015 compelled “groups of high-profile U.S. and European biologists to question unregulated editing of the human germ line (cells that are relevant for reproduction), which might create inheritable genetic changes.”

So far, the debate over changing the next generation’s genes has been mostly an ethical question, and the report didn’t say how such a development would be considered a WMD, although it’s possible to imagine a virus designed to kill or injure people by altering their genomes.

source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/02/09/71575/top-us-intelligence-official-calls-gene-editing-a-wmd-threat

You won’t be able to blame it on your genetics anymore: with CRISPR, it’s so easy to hacn into your DNA. CRISPR technology is our future, and experiments with DNA hacking are booming. CRISPR biotechnology is not science fiction anymore, it is our very near future. Would you hack and reprogram your own DNA with CRISPR? Breaking the code of life, hacking DNA at home. Welcome to the world of a new nature. We can now literally cut and paste DNA with the new CRISPR technology. There is a revolutionary development going on that will have major consequences for humans, plants and animals. The new biotechnology is here. ‘Bio is the New Digital’. We are able to accurately reprogram the genetic code of our body cells, embryos, bacteria, viruses and plants. With the CRISPR technology we can adjust the characteristics of each organism to our needs. This allows us to permanently ban diseases, improve our body conditions and adapt plants to our food needs. The special feature of CRISPR technology is that it is relatively simple. In the past year, the number of experiments and applications has exploded. Around the world, people have been tinkering with CRISPR: experimenting at home with the ‘Do it Yourself CRISPR kits’. Scientists call for new ethical frameworks. The demand for the (un)desirable so-called designer babies is imminent. Although this is not yet the case, we can put an end to hereditary diseases in the short term. We may also want to make bacteria that can eat oil or plastic, pigs in which human organs can grow or bring extinct animals back to life. It looks like science fiction but it is now closer to our reality than ever. (VPRO Documentary)

DNA Opening Pandora’s Box Documentary

Jim Watson was asked to give a tour of the future. He believes that DNA science should be used to change the human race. His views are both extraordinary and extremely controversial. Watson argues for a new kind of eugenics — where parents are allowed to choose the DNA of their children — to make them healthier, more intelligent, even better looking. His vision may be disagreeable, yet it’s a natural consequence of the decades of scientific exploration launched by his and Francis Crick’s discovery of the double helix. It’s worth considering what effect the advancements in genetic science may have on our future.

Gene Drives

CRISPR Technology and Gene Drives

As you watch the following presentation imagine the potential impact on humanity of vaccines in the hands of deceitful and wicked  individuals who’s goal is to reduce the worlds population.

Gene editing can now change an entire species — forever

CRISPR gene drives allow scientists to change sequences of DNA and guarantee that the resulting edited genetic trait is inherited by future generations, opening up the possibility of altering entire species forever. More than anything, this technology has led to questions: How will this new power affect humanity? What are we going to use it to change? Are we gods now? Join journalist Jennifer Kahn as she ponders these questions and shares a potentially powerful application of gene drives: the development of disease-resistant mosquitoes that could knock out malaria and Zika.

Gene Drive Documentary

Gene drive technology, enabled by new genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR/Cas9, are perhaps one of the most powerful and risky environmantal applications of genetic engineering ever developed, as they are designed to permanently genetically engineer or even eradicate entire wild species. To safeguard against potential desaster, we need a critical, ethical, social and political debate and a thorough technology and risk assessment. This 15 minute documentary examines key aspects of gene drive technology, including its future applications, its possible ecological consequences, the societal ramifications, the lack of knowledge and uncertainties of the technology and of current research, as well as obstacles to risk assessment and the regulatory steps required to prevent harm.

GUESS WHO’S FUNDING AND PROMOTING GENE DRIVES…

Jonathan Latham of Independent Science News joins us to discuss his 2017 article, “Gates Foundation Hired PR Firm to Manipulate UN Over Gene Drives.” We talk about gene drives, the dangers inherent in this technology, how the UN is involved, and why the Gates Foundation and DARPA are so interested in introducing genetic modifications into various species.

How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA | Jennifer Doudna

Geneticist Jennifer Doudna co-invented a groundbreaking new technology for editing genes, called CRISPR-Cas9. The tool allows scientists to make precise edits to DNA strands, which could lead to treatments for genetic diseases … but could also be used to create so-called “designer babies.” Doudna reviews how CRISPR-Cas9 works — and asks the scientific community to pause and discuss the ethics of this new tool.

HARDtalk Jennifer Doudna

Sarah Montague speaks to biochemist Jennifer Doudna. Crispr-Cas9 is a gene editing tool that has been described as the greatest biological breakthrough in decades. The hopes that rest on it are immense: that it can be used to cure cancer and other intractable diseases, stop mosquitoes carrying malaria, create drought-resistant crops and food that does not rot – even that it can recreate extinct animals. What does Jennifer make of the breathtaking pace of innovation since her discovery and does she fear where it may lead?

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever – CRISPR

Designer babies, the end of diseases, genetically modified humans that never age. Outrageous things that used to be science fiction are suddenly becoming reality. The only thing we know for sure is that things will change irreversibly.

Transhumanism or Eugenics?

Eugenics Moves to the Twenty-First Century

From the elimination of undesirables from the human race; mass culling in the name of saving the earth; to altering the genetic code of humanity with advanced technology; eugenics has moved into a new era.

Old-thinker news | August 27, 2007

By Daniel Taylor

This report is not meant to be a comprehensive history of eugenics. The initial article that I was going to write was less than half of what you will read here, but as I investigated this area I discovered how ignorant I was as to how expansive this topic is. Initially researching John D. Rockefeller, a Pandora’s box of information opened up, inevitably leading to the topic of this article. I hope that this information will help you come to a greater understanding of this subject, and to warn others of its grave dangers.

From the elimination of undesirables from the human race; mass culling in the name of saving the earth; to altering the genetic code of humanity with advanced technology: Eugenics has moved into a new era.

What is eugenics?

The word eugenics comes from the Greek words eus (good or well) and genēs (born) meaning “well born”. The American Heritage dictionary of the English language describes eugenics as, “The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.” Sir Francis Galton was the man who coined the term, and developed the first eugenic policies. Galton expressed distress at the lack of emphasis on the betterment of the human race during his time, comparing men and women of his day to “pariah dogs”. In 1864, Galton wrote in an article titled “Hereditary Character and Talent,” published in two parts in MacMillan’s Magazine,

“If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create! We might introduce prophets and high priests of civilization into the world, as surely as we can propagate idiots by mating cretins. Men and women of the present day are, to those we might hope to bring into existence, what the pariah dogs of the streets of an Eastern town are to our own highly-bred varieties.”

The history of eugenics in America is filled with controversy and harrowing stories of forced sterilization throughout many U.S. states. In 2002 Mark R. Warner, the governor of Virginia issued an apology for the thousands of individuals that the state had sterilized from 1924 to 1979. USA Today reported on the governors statement,

“With the governor’s statement Thursday, Virginia becomes the only of the 30 states that conducted eugenics sterilizations to apologize. There are believed to be more than 60,000 eugenics victims nationwide.

‘Today, I offer the commonwealth’s sincere apology for Virginia’s participation in eugenics,’ Warner said.

‘As I have previously noted, the eugenics movement was a shameful effort in which state government never should have been involved,” he said. ‘We must remember the commonwealth’s past mistakes in order to prevent them from recurring.’”

The aristocratic, wealthy elite of America played a central role in the development of eugenics in America and abroad. Two such elite families are the Rockefellers and the Carnegies.

In 1902, Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institute which among other things, funded the Eugenics Record Office in America. The ERO (1910-1944) operated from Cold Spring Harbor in New York. Eugenics policies, which led to the sterilization of thousands of Americans, were developed in this office.

The Rockefellers, perhaps more so, were also heavily involved with eugenics. Rockefeller influence in American eugenics can be traced to the beginnings of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. John D. Rockefeller, along with Averell Harriman gave $11 million to create the facility in the early 1900’s. Rockefeller influence also spread overseas to Germany, where the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry, and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology and Human Heredity resided. Much of the money used to run these facilities came from Rockefeller. These weren’t just average scientific institutes; the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes would become the center for Nazi eugenics programs.

As documented by Gary Allen in “The Rockefeller File” the Rockefellers continue to give money to eugenics and population control related organizations,

“In 1970, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $500,000 to the Population Council. The Rockefeller Foundation gave ecology grants of $10,000 to the New School for Social Research, and $10,000 to the Population Reference Bureau.”

In 1973, the Rockefeller Foundation again gave $500,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis Committee, while the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $250,000 to the Population Council, and $250,000 to the Population Institute.

The Population Council was founded by John D. Rockefeller the 3rd in 1952. The first president of the Council, Frederick Osborn, was appointed by Rockefeller. Osborn was the leader of the American Eugenics Society, and member of the Galton Society, founded in 1918.

Osborn stated in the 1956 edition of “The Eugenics Review” that,

“…the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let’s stop telling anyone that they have a genetically inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let’s base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted. It seems to me that if it is to progress as it should, eugenics must follow new policies and state its case anew, and that from this rebirth we may, even in our own lifetime, see it moving at last towards the high goals which Galton set for it.”

Killing to save the earth

Since the early days of eugenics, a new “brand” of this science has emerged in modern times. The environmental branch of eugenics believes that, due to overpopulation, measures must be taken to either impede population growth through various eugenic policies, or take drastic measures to eliminate living human beings from the earth. Unlike those who advocate eugenics to strictly rid humanity of “undesirables,” some advocate the culling of humanity in general in order to save planet earth. Many globalist initiatives surround environmental issues, one of which has been population control and reduction.

John Glad, a professor of Russian studies who has taught at several universities and worked for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, wrote a book titled “Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century.” In the introduction, Glad writes,

“Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement.”

Notable quotes:

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau

“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation

“…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”  – Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”  – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” – Sir Julian Huxley, first director general of UNESCO (1946-1948)

News articles regarding sterilization:

UNICEF Nigerian Polio Vaccine Contaminated with Sterilizing Agents Scientist Finds
KADUNA, Nigeria, March 11, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A UNICEF campaign to vaccinate Nigeria’s youth against polio may have been a front for sterilizing the nation.

U.N. Complicit in Forced Sterilizations
There is compelling evidence that the United Nations collaborated in the forced sterilization of poor, rural women in Peru from 1995 to 1997.

Video presentation by David Ayoub, M.D.: Mercury, Autism and the Global Vaccine Agenda

In 2004 the publication World Watch published an article titled, “Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable,” by Ken Smail, a professor in the Anthropology department of Kenyon College in Ohio. In this article, Smail proposes that the earth’s carrying capacity will reach, or has reached already, its limit. In what Smail calls a modern day “Malthusian dilemma”, he cites measures to merely slow population growth as being inefficient, stating that,

“Looking past the near-term concerns that have plagued population policy at the political level, it is increasingly apparent that the long-term sustainability of civilization will require not just a leveling-off of human numbers as projected over the coming half-century, but a colossal reduction in both population and consumption.” [emphasis added]

Smail says that a large scale global population reduction is inevitable, but that there are two possible ways for this to happen,

“That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries
appears to be inevitable. The primary issue seems to be whether this process will be under conscious human control and (hopefully) relatively benign, or whether it will turn out to be unpredictably chaotic and (perhaps) catastrophic.”

The new eugenics

“Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics.” – Frederick Osborn

Since the founding of eugenics, the movement has changed, but it has retained its core goals over the years. Thomas H. Campbell of the University of California believes that the eugenics model of Galton is outdated and impractical, as do many other scientists. Instead of relying on breeding “better humans,” without the intervention of technology, many scientists believe that technological means should be employed to further our “evolution.” With the rise of advanced scientific technologies, the ability to alter the genetic code of living organisms, and the augmentation of human bodies has become a reality. Some individuals who are involved with the modern eugenics movement see the rise of these capabilities as an opportunity to create or alter human beings to acquire the most “desirable traits” and rid humanity of traits deemed “undesirable”.

Is there a link between eugenics and the Human Genome Project? If so, what does this mean for future generations?

During the 34 years (1910-1944) the Eugenics Records Office was active, it collected information on specific human traits in what was called The Trait Book. Also collected was information on “Pedigree” families and their specific traits. Today, the Human Genome project is in effect carrying on what the Eugenics Records Office could only dream of.

James Watson, who began the initial research for the Human Genome Project, directed the operation from 1988-1992. Watson then served as director at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and would eventually become president of the Laboratory in 1994. Watson’s beliefs about the betterment of mankind mirror those of past eugenics leaders.

Watson is quoted as saying at a 1998 UCLA conference that,

“I mean, sure, we have great respect for the human species …. But evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we’ve got a perfect genome and there’s some sanctity to it, I’d just like to know where that idea comes from. It’s utter silliness. And the other thing, because no one really has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn’t we do it?”

Celera Genomics

Craig Venter caused many to question his ethics when he moved to found Celera Genomics in 1998, carrying the study of the human genome into the private sector, using the “shotgun strategy” to sequence the human genome at a faster clip than the public project.

In a press release dated March 1, 2001, Celera Genomics announced that it signed a “multi-year agreement” with AMDeC LLC to “allow member institutions to access Celera’s database information [Human Genome data] through its Celera Discovery System.” Some of those member institutions included Rockefeller University, and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Interestingly, Rockefeller University was founded by John D. Rockefeller in 1901 with a dedication to biomedical research. Today, David Rockefeller, grandson to John D. Rockefeller Jr., is the Chairman of the Rockefeller University Council.

Venter further maddened fellow scientists when he moved to patent human genes. Serious ethical discussions took place after the first attempts to patent human genes, but ultimately the decision stood to allow patenting. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued guidelines on patenting. The American Medical Association describes the guidelines,

“The rules are intended to help end a bitter debate on gene patenting. These regulations have put to rest any question about whether genes can be patented at all — making it clear that companies may indeed patent both whole genes as well as pieces of genes…”

The guidelines allow patenting when the those applying for a patent on a gene show a “utility” for the gene. The AMA goes on to state that arguments were heard opposing the decision based on the fact that these genes were not created by anyone, and thus could not be patented. The AMA describes how the Patent office rejected these ideas,

“The PTO firmly rejected this notion based upon the fact that a gene may be removed from a person, then a clone of that gene may be made in a machine, which is then not a part of nature, but a product of the lab.”

A search in the online patent database for “human genes” yields an astonishing 159021 results as of August 2007.

Designer babies

The apex of a futuristic eugenics program comes with the advent of designer babies, embryos that are genetically enhanced through various methods. The knowledge gathered through the study of the human genome will, according to some, lead to the ability to create such designer babies.

In 2000, the BBC aired a documentary called “Who’s Afraid of Designer Babies?” Featured in this clip is Lee M. Silver, professor at Princeton University and former investigator for Cold Spring Harbor (1980-1984).

There is still doubt among scholars and scientists that the Human Genome Project will lead to a new eugenics program, such as designer babies. They cite limitations on current technology and the need for further research as reasons for this position. However, unknown to many, genetically altered babies have already been born. The implications of this development are immense, but it has received little attention. Because these babies were “created” in the private sector and the lab did not receive government funding, there were no governmental restrictions on what could be done. As Wired magazine reported in 2001,

“Researchers have genetically-altered humans for the first time, but experts question the moral implications of tinkering with the unborn.

What will the future hold in a world in which eugenics, utilizing advanced technology, has become a reality?

Lee Silver describes in his book “Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World”, a future scenario in which humanity splits into two distinct classes, the “GenRich” and the “GenPoor.”

“The GenRich–who account for 10 percent of the American population–all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in the laboratory….The GenRich are a modern-day hereditary class of genetic aristocrats….All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class.”

Those who are not as fortunate to have access to genetic modification, called “Naturals” by Silver, will “…work as low-paid service providers or as laborers.”

Bertrand Russel says in “The Impact of Science on Society” (1953) on pages 49-50 that,

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

Hollywood has apparently been keeping up to date on genetic technologies, adding their own theatrical twist. The movie “Gattaca”, released in 1997, portrays a despotic future world in which designer babies are born every day, and the perfection of genes has become the center of society.

Watch the Gattaca trailer:

Thomas H. Campbell of the University of California believes that humanity is destined to gain access to methods of “autoevolution.” Writing in his paper, “The Moral Imperative of Our Future Evolution“, Campbell describes future technologies and their eugenic implications. Campbell praises eugenics policies, and cites the Human Genome Project as a positive development in the identification of “defective” genes.

“We have catalogued defective genes behind a variety of dreadful neurological and metabolic disorders as parts of programs to eliminate them eugenically. Our systematic mapping of the human genome will identify many others. Everyone applauds the goal of purging these defects in our heredity – notwithstanding quibbles over the ethics of the techniques of amniocentesis, abortion and even contraception. I emphatically embrace this eugenic program even though its evolutionary impact is insignificant. Most defective genes are rare, and their total elimination does little for evolution except squeeze the range of variation of humans.”

“We probably will begin our interventions into brain and embryonic development with drugs and hormones and subsequently engineer the desirable intrusions into the genome. Then, after a further generation of accumulating biological information about individual gene function, developmental pathways, and the neural substrate of brain function, evolutionists probably will write novel genes for these traits from scratch using a DNA synthesizer.”

“Of course, the methods for evolving our genetics extend beyond biotechnology. Ultra-sophisticated parallel processing computers and software programs will predictively model how particular gene configurations translate into phenotype, and how particular phenotypic traits can be engineered into developmental pathways. As a start, new computer technology is being developed today as an integral part of the human genome project.”

Campbell, like others, says that future genetic technologies will be extremely expensive, leaving the average person out of the loop. Campbell expresses his approval of this expense due to the fact that only the “most successful generative lines” will have access to these technologies.

“The costs will be enormous, far beyond what most people could afford. This has kept our democratic society from appreciating that these possibilities will be used and will be important. However, their feasibility cannot be judged from what the average person will be willing to pay to procreate. What matters are the resources that the most successful generative lines will be able to apply to their goals. A million dollars per conception seems a great underestimate to me for the beings who hold evolution’s frontier.”

The legacy of Galton, John D., and Carnegie lives on. Though terms have changed, the names of organizations altered, the methods of propagandizing the public reformed; the ideology behind eugenics is being carried into the twenty-first century, and a new eugenics is creeping into our society. Will humanity as we know it today become a fossil as some have proposed? Public awareness is the key. The information contained in this report needs to be spread far and wide, for the future of humanity as we know it depends on it.

source: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2007/08/27/eugenics-moves-to-the-twenty-first-century/

The Post-Human World Is Emerging, Will Free Humans Resist?

Old-Thinker News | May 3, 2020

By Daniel Taylor

Mainstream news says human resistance to losing jobs to automation “could dissipate” in response to pandemic.

Institutional anti-humanism has taken hold of the western world. Coronavirus could lock in a system of high tech tyranny.

A post-human world is emerging. AI systems are activating. The future needs real humans with a conscience and the ability to question authority.

Social distancing by it’s very nature is anti-human. Coronavirus has altered our society dramatically. Some of these changes were already under way, and anti-human forces were planning to implement them ahead of the AI robot tech revolution.

Social media was already distorting social norms well before the pandemic. Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya stated in 2018 that:

“It literally is at a point now we’ve created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works. That is literally where we are. I would encourage all of you how to internalize this is – if you feed the beast, the beast will destroy you.”

Hollywood predictive programming seeded the idea of virtual reality as an “oasis” in a crumbling world with the 2018 film Ready Player One:

Pentagon announces AI system in response to virus

A massive AI system has been rolled out by the Pentagon to organize logistics surrounding essential supplies from national to local areas. As reported, the project will be integrated into a wider military command and control AI weapons system:

“It may also become a part of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control, or JADC2, a massive effort to digitally interlink weapons, vehicles and personnel.”

Coronavirus response created a financial incentive for “non essential” human workers to stay home.

If the government can manage to get stimulus checks into the hands of millions of unemployed workers, a long standing goal of a universal basic income could be fulfilled.

Former President Barack Obama said in 2018 that a universal income through government handouts would be required in the age of artificial intelligence. Obama said:

“Artificial intelligence is here… the pace of change is going to require us to do more fundamental reimagining of our social and political arrangements…”

Multiple headlines from mainstream news are happily welcoming the robot AI takeover in response to the pandemic. Here are a few examples:

The New York Times: “Robots Welcome to Take Over, as Pandemic Accelerates Automation“

The BBC: “Coronavirus: Will Covid-19 speed up the use of robots to replace human workers?“

Wired Magazine: “The Covid-19 Pandemic Is a Crisis That Robots Were Built For“

Business Insider: “How China, the US, and Europe are using robots to replace and help humans fight coronavirus…”

If we are to believe Elon Musk, Ray Kurzweil and other top Transhumanists, we will need to merge with the machines in order to survive.

In reality the exact opposite is true. Humanity’s survival depends on remaining human and defying the post human agenda.

The future needs real humans with a conscience and the ability to question authority.

The western world needs to develop a pro-human culture and accompanying world view to counter the anti-human programming of the past 100 years.

Free humanity; Unite for a pro-human future.

source: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2020/05/03/the-post-human-world-is-emerging-will-free-humans-resist/

………………………………………

It’s Time To Fight Institutional Anti-Humanism

Old-Thinker News | February 12, 2020

By Daniel Taylor

Pro-human renaissance could bring new era of prosperity.

Leftists have made profitable careers out of battling ghosts of institutional racism, transphobia and bigotry. This campaign has resulted in further division, but most importantly it misses the target entirely.

Institutional Anti-Humanism

The real driving force of the past 100 years has been a massive project launched in the early 19th Century (rooted in an idea over 2,000 years old) that injected an anti-human philosophy into every western institution. Globalist social engineering programs infiltrated every level of our society. Academic, scientific, corporate, governmental, and religious institutions were all touched by its influence. Eugenics and population reduction was a primary goal.

The overarching ethos of this program was essentially anti human. It views humans as soul-less animals to be manipulated by a technocratic elite in pursuit of power.

This can fairly be labeled as institutional anti-humanism, and it still holds power over us in almost every way.

Dr. Lily E. Kay’s 1993 book “The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology” documents much of the early history behind the rise of eugenics and life sciences. Kay demonstrates that the drive for social control and eugenics was largely responsible for the emergence and growth of the science of molecular biology.

A key portion of Dr. Kay’s book concludes that large foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation shaped the development of culture and production of knowledge in the United States:

“…by the end of the Progressive Era, even before the large-scale commitment to the “advancement of knowledge” spurred by World War I, the human sciences received considerable support from the large foundations. Their numerous projects and the unprecedented scope of their financial and institutional resources shaped the development of culture and the production of knowledge in the United States. Through education, public opinion, stimulation of specific research agenda, and the promotion of selective categories of knowledge and research, the Foundation played a key role in the creation of a hegemonic bloc; the resources and prestige flowing into those fields relevant to problems of social control were instrumental in the formation of consensus between social and political elites, on the one hand, and academic interests on the other.”

The ripple effect of this program has sent waves to the present day, when the current global establishment is run by individuals who are completely bought in to this system of thought. Draining the swamp must include throwing out the entire thought system that has driven it.

Vaccines that sterilize women and cause spontaneous miscarriages came out of this system, as did massive projects that created deadly bioweapons world-wide.

Henry Kissinger’s notorious NSSM 200 came out of this institutional anti-humanism.

A secret project to use biological weapons against Southeast Asia in 1947 by the Australian government was spawned by this program.

Planned Parenthood also grew as a tentacle of the project.

The technological revolution currently enveloping the globe is rolling out as an anti human force. Big Tech, acting as an extension of globalist power, is seeking to draw humans into a matrix like existence while the real world crumbles.

We can course-correct and spark a new renaissance that views human beings as having immortal souls with innate value and potential.

We can build up individuals instead of creating victims.

We were simply not meant to live in constant comfort in an artificial environment. Our potential can never be fully expressed.

Technology needs to be developed for human exploration and colonization of space. We can take heart knowing that we are not yet at the end of the wilderness road.

source: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2020/02/12/its-time-to-fight-institutinal-anti-humanism/

Visions of The Future

– The Corbett Report – 

So what do the elitists have in store for humanity? You don’t need a crystal ball, you just need to read their own writings and watch their propaganda videos. Join James on this edition of The Corbett Report podcast as he takes a tour through the future to see the world that the globalists are seeking to create.

THE GREAT CONVERGENCE

– The Corbett Report – 

Haven’t heard of The Great Convergence yet? Oh, it’s just the plan to merge biology with digital technology and redefine what it means to be human, that’s all. Today on the podcast James covers the biodigital convergence that is already being rolled out and what it means for the future of homo sapiens.

Eugenics, Abortion, and Our Future – A Biblical Perspective

The Quest for Perfection

The eugenics movement lost momentum when it was associated with the horrors of the Nazi regime, but it did not die. Instead, it became “quiet and careful.” A resurgence of eugenics is brewing in America today, and modern Planned Parenthood still advocates many eugenic ideals. As Christians, it is our responsibility to view life from God’s perspective and to defend all of those who are created in His image. No matter how impaired a human life may seem, every person has value because they are made in God’s image.