Source: Anthony J. DeBlasi

Global planners aiming to remake the world in their image are in fact, it seems to me, trying to reinvent reality and repeat mistakes of the past on a grand scale – mistakes that thwart efforts for a better life for the world’s inhabitants. Their belief that high technology hitched to unimpeded power leads to a new and better world is in fact the re-endorsement of hoary old thought and action that treat humans as chattel – the Master/Slave Syndrome in its latest and greatest iteration. 

What I have to say regarding this mega-misappropriation of science and technology in planning a “better world” begins with reference to a disturbing and forgotten fact . . . 

In his writings and lectures, J. Bronowski made clear to fellow scientists and laymen that all rational systems, including mathematics and physics, have inescapable and permanent dead ends, beyond which it is impossible to proceed. This is significantly premised by the abandonment, before mid-the 20th century, by scientists themselves, of the belief that science can actually explain the world. Abandoning this traditional concept of the role of science threw a dream of Enlightenment thinkers into the dustbin of history. Breakthroughs like relativity, the uncertainty principle, subatomic deconstruction of classical mechanics, and much else of modern physics made it increasingly hard to maintain the old confidence in “total knowledge through science.” 

TRENDING: Regarding Mitt Romney.

Stated another way, this intrinsic limit of science to unravel all mysteries about the world – a fact still in limbo among the general public – tells us that strictly logical systems are ultimately circular. This means that their starting assumptions (givens, premises) can lead only so far along a path to their intended conclusion before a point is reached where further advance ceases to be linear, requiring a reexamination of the original assumptions. If these are not altered (for whatever reason) in order for the system to maintain its internal consistency, then the system’s integrity and intended purpose are compromised.  

Stated a third way, and from the viewpoint of a former computer programmer and systems analyst (me), what we are dealing with here is top-level GIGO and its defective payload. I translate Garbage In, Garbage Out, yielding recycled garbage in the output. It’s a problem that is correctible in simple systems, harder to correct in complex systems, virtually impossible to correct in any global system unless, of course, the defective output is lied about and palmed off as a “success.”  

I must add a significant fourth way of putting this: “Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?” [Matthew 7:16] The wording of this Gospel statement may be colorful and old-fashioned but that does not change the subject and in fact, provides insight to the subject at hand. 

To tease the issue out of hiding in plain sight, a question should be asked regarding a key item of input to globalism: Artificial Intelligence. The question: can an artificial product of intelligence (AI) placed outside of human brains be any more intelligent than the brains that produced it and deployed it? I believe that a majority of the world’s thinkers if asked the question, would have to say no. Being a product of human intelligence, Artificial Intelligence necessarily rebounds to the intelligence of its human creators. 

Extensive and intensive personal interface with programming, programmers, and managers force me to join the naysayers. I’m hardly the only one that notices a huge red flag. What reason is there to turn the world over to brain-trusts whose minds are wrapped around technological progress instead of being intensely focused on justice for people? 

Granting, “for the sake of argument,” the possibility of preternatural human intelligence, but aware of the propensity for error and malfeasance in any profession, what can be expected from an artificially constructed world controlled by humans or biorobots capable of amplifying to the nth degree of magnitude the mistakes and crimes of the past? I see a scenario worse by far than Huxley’s Brave New World or Orwell’s 1984.  

To take for granted that science can explain everything, that technology can do everything is foolhardy, to say the least. To then apply any “knowledge” and “expertise” gained from such manipulation of science and technology to the human domain is reckless, to say the least. This is not the same as using science and technology to improve life on earth but is the application of scientism – the imitation of science – to achieve a non-scientific goal. Combined with politics, scientism is at best fraudulent, at worst, disastrous – something we have witnessed over the past couple of years in the “official response” to Covid-19. “Mr. Science” Anthony Fauci and friends may cry foul against valid criticism of their actions, but they can’t forever hide their hypocrisy. The fact is, their plan to use the Covid-19 “pandemic” to “reset the world” – necessarily involving tactics that treat the world’s population in much the same way as lab animals – is outlined by Mr. Great Reset Klaus Schwab in his 2020 book, Covid-19: The Great Reset. 

Applying the methods, language, and “authority” of science to human affairs is, let me repeat, not science but an insidious imitation of science. And let me repeat, in the best way I can put it, that humans are not data input to any system. Treating people as though they are items of data, while useful statistically, is in truth terribly manipulative and inhumane. 

Tragically, science loses much of its well-earned standing and respect when the public is led to believe that a subject called “science” is for that reason outside of a lay person’s right to question it. People who do question “the science,” especially when they witness its adverse consequences, are treated by elitist policymakers as hindrances to progress toward the “better world” they plan. One high-I.Q. member of the clan has called nonconforming people “deplorable” because, in a favorite denunciation, they contaminate “democracy”! 

Well, gosh darn! – as an Army buddy of mine cried out whenever the expected clashed with the unexpected. So . . . should skeptics of any plan that affects the entire population of the world be silenced? Or should the planners, if they really are intelligent, revisit their Square One and take a harder look at what they have overlooked, including reality? 

I will not resist the temptation to include an apropos cartoon here. In an old Frank and Ernest cartoon, Ernest is reading from a newspaper and tells Frank, “It says scientists are in a race to develop artificial intelligence.” And Frank says, “I’m way ahead of them. I’ve been faking it for years!” 

Joking aside, when the love of people, love of truth, respect for the Creation and its Creator are shoved aside to make room for “making the world better,” the journey taken is to the edge of a cliff, not to a portal for a better life for all.