In a recent article entitled “The American Political System and White Racial Discourse,” I suggested that White advocacy dialogue and debate

[m]ake room for American voices—Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and (I’m thinking out loud) Emerson and Thoreau and Mark Twain and Edgar Rice Burroughs (the Tarzan author) and Teddy Roosevelt and H.L. Mencken and . . . oh, I don’t know, just somebody besides Julius Evola, you know? American thinkers, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Walt Whitman, Teddy Roosevelt, Ernest Hemingway, somebody.

In the week since—it’s now December 22nd—I’ve asked myself, “Who are White ‘somebodies’ you think ought to be heard?”   Of course, the possibilities are virtually endless, but I’ve got to start somewhere and nine people come to mind at the moment: philosopher, essayist, and lecturer Ralph Waldo Emerson; novelist and short story writer Ernest Hemingway; Civil War combatant William T. Anderson; film director Sam Peckinpah; poet Emily Dickinson; artist and art educator Robert Henri; U.S. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin; cartoonist Steve Ditko; and country singer Hank Williams.  In that order, I’ll deal with them here to the extent I can given the space limitations I’m working with.   You can Google and check Amazon and libraries to look into them further if you’d like.

As you read through this material, I invite you to be vigilant to what comes up for you: thoughts, feelings, images, memories, observations, insights, questions, issues, goals, things-that-need-to-be-done.  Get clear about all that, put words to it, and discern what significance, if any, it has for you.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) was an American essayist and lecturer.  He was a prominent figure in an American form of philosophical idealism called Transcendentalism.  His address to a Harvard audience in 1837, published with the title The American Scholar, has been called America’s “intellectual Declaration of Independence.”  One of Emerson’s major writings is the essay Self-Reliance, which he included in a book published in 1842.   Excerpts from that essay:

• To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men—that is genius. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light that flashes across his mind from within, more than the luster of bards and sages.
• There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance, that imitation is suicide, that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him. A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best, but what he has said and done otherwise shall give him no peace.
• Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events. Great men have always done so and confided themselves childlike to the genius of their age, betraying their perception that the absolutely trustworthy was seated in their heart, working through their hands, predominating in all their being.  We are now men and must accept in the highest mind the same transcendent destiny, not minors and invalids in a protected corner, not cowards fleeing before a revolution, but guides, redeemers, and benefactors, obeying the Almighty effort and advancing on Chaos and the Dark.
• Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.
• Honor is venerable to us because it is no ephemera. It is always ancient virtue.
• Live no longer to the expectation of these deceived and deceiving people with whom we converse. Say to them, I have lived with you after appearances hitherto.  Henceforward I am the truth’s.  I must be myself.  I cannot break myself any longer for you.   If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier.  I will not hide my tastes or aversions.  If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical intentions.  If you are true but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own.  I do this not selfishly but humbly and truly.  It is alike your interest, and mine, and all men’s, however long we have dwelt in lies, to live in truth.  Does this sound harsh today?  You will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and if we follow the truth, it will bring us out safe at last.
• Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life’s cultivation, but of the adopted talent of another you have only an extemporaneous half possession. That which one can do best, none but his Maker can teach him.  Where is the master who could have taught Shakespeare?  Where is the master who could have instructed Franklin, or Washington, or Bacon, or Newton?
• That which a man is does always by necessity acquire; and what a man acquires is living property, which does not wait upon the beck of rulers, or mobs, or revolutions, or fire, or storm, or bankruptcies, but perpetually renews itself wherever the man breathes. It is only as man puts off all foreign support and stands alone that I see him to be strong and to prevail.  Nothing can bring you peace but yourself.

Ernest Hemingway

In both public and private writings, Ernest Hemingway increasingly reasserted his distaste for politicians, re-emphasized his abiding lack of faith in governmental solutions to social problems, and reaffirmed his personal and artistic independence from political parties and ideologies.

No one would call Hemingway a sophisticated political thinker, but novelist John Dos Passos was wrong to conclude that he had “no consistent political ideas.”  From adolescence to old age, his ideas were remarkably consistent.  They stemmed from main currents of American political thought—principally from the libertarian tradition of Jefferson and Emerson, salted by the philosophical pessimism of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Adams.

Hemingway agreed with Adams that power was poison.  Like Jefferson, he welcomed integration into a small group or family or village and expounded the virtues of as little government as possible.

With the Transcendentalists, Hemingway thought that government could provide no panaceas for social ills.  What was needed was a whole man, uncompartmentalized, unspecialized, a modern Thinking Man—a god to drive the half-gods out of the political arena as the great bullfighter would drive the fake messiahs from the bull ring.

Ideally, the individual man, like the individual family, should be left alone to confront his destiny.  At the root of Hemingway’s support for individual liberty lay a longing for a golden, mythical past in which each man—for him as for Jefferson, the self-sufficient man—lived free, unencumbered, and in harmony with nature.  This ideal closely approximates the one Hemingway’s heroes in his fiction seek but do not find, as the complicated modern restraints impinge and can only be escaped at the moment of death, when the heart that beat to the sway of the Gulf Stream or against the pine-needled floor of the Spanish forest stops.

Bloody Bill and Bloody Sam

A pro-Confederate guerrilla fighter during the Civil War, William T. Anderson unleashed untamed brutality toward Union soldiers and pro-Union partisans that prompted the nickname Bloody Bill.   Film director and screenwriter Sam Peckinpah (1925–1984), whose explicit depiction of feral violence during the 1960s and ’70s evoked controversy, was called Bloody Sam.

“You Federals have just killed six of my soldiers, scalped them, and left them on the prairie,” Bloody Bill declared. Earlier, federal troops had murdered his father and sister and destroyed the family property.  “From this time forward, I ask no quarter and give none.  Every federal soldier on whom I put my finger shall die like a dog.”

On September 27th, 1864, Anderson presided over the slaughter of federal troops in Centralia Missouri.  Most all of the federal soldiers had been stripped naked and lay twisted and crooked in their death agonies, pinned down like bugs by bayonets, eyeless, earless and had dark oozing holes where their mouths had been.  Many lay with heads flattened into mush or smashed open like melons.  There were those with no heads, which had been cut off, stuck on rifle barrels, or placed atop fence posts and tree stumps like jack-o’-lanterns.  If a corpse had a head, it was likely someone else’s.  Here and there were bodies lacking hands and feet or arms and legs.  Worst of all was the naked body of a soldier whose genitals had been sawed off and stuffed into his mouth.  His contorted face testified that this had been done while he was alive.

Bloody Sam’s film Straw Dogs, distributed in 1971, tells the story of an American academic David Sumner on a research grant in Cornwall, England.   Sumner endures the ridicule, harassment, and cruelty of five men from the village who persist in the face of his posture of kindness and reasonableness and his attempts to placate and ingratiate them.  Things escalate to the point that two of the men rape Sumner’s wife and attack the house he is living in.  The half hour climax of the film depicts Sumner slaughtering them all, one by one, the last by ramming his head into a giant animal trap and springing its jaws on his neck.  Said Peckinpah, “David Sumner is a guy who finds out a few nasty secrets about the world and about his situation and about himself.”

Emily Dickinson

If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.

Robert Henri

Robert Henri (1865–1929)—pronounced Hen-rye, birth name Robert Cozad—was an American painter.  Shortly before his death, the Arts Council of New York chose him as one of the top three living American artists.  Henri was also a popular and influential teacher of art.  Henri’s ideas on art, life, and education were compiled from lecture notes by a student, Margery Ryerson, in a book entitled The Art Spirit, though Henri is listed as the author. Below are excerpts from the book.   Henri is not just talking about someone who creates paintings or sculptures; he is talking about a way to live in the world regardless of one’s vocation.

• The question of development of the art spirit in all walks of life interests me. I mean by this the development of individual judgment and taste, the love of work for the sake of doing things well, the tendency toward simplicity and order.
• When the art is alive in any person, whatever his kind of work may be, he becomes an inventive, searching, daring, self-expressive creature. He becomes interesting to other people. He disturbs, upsets, enlightens. He opens ways for a better understanding.  Where those who are not artists are trying to close the book, he opens it.  He shows that there are still more pages to be read and to be written.
• Artists do not forget the present in looking backward or forward. They are occupied wholly with the fulfillment of their own existence. Because they are engaged in the full play of their own existence, in their own growth, their fruit is bountiful.
• Artists should study their own individuality to the end of knowing their tastes. They should cultivate the pleasures so discovered and find the most direct means of expressing those pleasures to others and thereby enjoy them over and over again.
• An artist can’t be honest unless he is wise. To be honest is to be just, and to be just is to realize the relative value of things. The faculties must play hard in order to seize the relative value of things.
• The best art the world has ever had was left by men who thought less of making great art than of living completely with all their faculties in the enjoyment of full play.
• Find out what is really important to you. Then sing your song. You will have something to sing about and your whole heart will be in the singing.
• What is life to you? What reasons and principles have you found? What are your deductions?  What projections have you made?  What excitement, what pleasure, do you get out of it?  I should like to see every encouragement for those who are fighting to open new ways.  I should like to see every living worker helped to do what he believes in the best he can.
• You have to make your statement of what is essential to you, an innate reality not a surface reality. Choose things seen and use them to make your statement.
• Reduce everything you see to the utmost simplicity. Let nothing but the things that are of the utmost importance to you have any place.
• Each individual needs to wake up and discover himself as a human being with needs of his own. He needs to look about, to learn from all sources, to look within, and to invent for himself a vehicle for self-expression.
• An artist must educate himself. He cannot be educated. He must test things out as they apply to himself. His life is one long investigation of things and his own reactions to them.
• All art that is worthwhile is a record of intense life. Each artist’s work is a record of his special effort, his search, his findings, in language that best expresses that. The significance of his work can only be understood by careful study: no crack-judgments; looking for the expected won’t do; and we can’t even trust the critics with the best reputations.
• The real artists are too busy with just being and growing and acting like themselves to worry about the end. The end will be as it is. Their object is intense living, fulfillment.

Jeannette Rankin

Jeannette Rankin (1880–1973) was the first woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent an at-large district in Montana.   After she was elected, she said, “I may be the first woman member of Congress, but I won’t be the last.”  She was the only member of Congress who voted against declaring war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor.  When asked by incredulous interviewers how she could have done such a thing, she declared that war was a barbaric relic of the past and absurd and immoral, and that there are better ways to resolve international disputes than violence, and that she was not going to send mothers’ sons to be blown to bits in some distant land.  She was mocked and ridiculed and shunned and in the next election voted out of office.

Steve Ditko

Steve Ditko, who died in 2018, is deemed by cartoon insiders to have been one of the supreme stylists in the history of the form.  In the 1960s, Ditko drew Spider-Man, and as time went along, made both character and plot contributions to the Spider-Man series.  In his half-century career, Ditko worked on a number of other characters and series, including The Hulk, Iron Man, and Dr. Strange.

The success of the Spider-Man movies brought new prominence to Ditko’s work among the general public.  Then over eighty, Ditko was barely getting by on social security and a veteran’s pension.  He could have improved his financial stress by selling his original artwork and accepting private commissions to re-create his old work, but he would have none of that.  To Steve Ditko, there was a right way to do things and a wrong way.  It’s one or the other, right or wrong, period.  Things aren’t relative: what is right and true is right and true here, there, in the past, and now, and for you and me and everybody else, no qualifications, no exceptions.  He was determined to do things the right way regardless of the negative consequences that may result.   He refused to do anything that compromised his principles, his honor.

One’s work should reflect the outer edge of one’s current beliefs, insights, and commitments, thought Ditko.  Recreations of his old work would have been going backward.  When the Spider-Man films came out, he pressed for credit as the character’s artist, but he didn’t push for financial gain and made it clear that he had long since abandoned the character and was now engaged with other projects.

Ditko turned down lucrative work starting up the Star Line of children’s books over the issue of whether being heroic is a decision rather than an inherent part of the make-up of a few special individuals that can be revealed but not chosen.  He believed that being a hero isn’t a matter of special grace, something you are born with à la Superman.  Being a hero is something that every one of us can choose to become by the way we conduct our lives.  Even though it will likely take rigorous preparation and diligent hard work and personal fortitude to become a hero, it is nevertheless possible for all of us, in our own way and in our own circumstance, to be heroic.  We can do more than fall at the feet of heroes, insisted Ditko.   We can become heroes ourselves.

Ditko was asked to work on a new series called Dark Dominion.   Depicting the supernatural was a violation of his beliefs and he quickly ended his association with the project.  He also turned down an assignment drawing the Transformer coloring book anthology because the central character for the series was a vampire.  To Ditko, this life is it.  What you see is all there is.  What you do with this life is all there is going to be.  What you accomplish in your private and public existence and its consequences is the only legacy you will ever leave.

A comic book organization scheduled a ceremony to give Ditko an award for a distinguished career in comics, but he refused to attend.  He was honored in absentia, and without his knowledge or approval, someone accepted the award on his behalf.  Thinking Ditko would be pleased, the person who accepted the award sent it to him.  Ditko phoned him and said, “Awards bleed the artist and make us compete against each other.  How dare you accept this on my behalf!”   Ditko sent the award back.

Ditko, very old, and unwell, to the end, sat every day at his drawing board drawing pictures the best he could, in the most honest way he could, and self-published them.  He could have been working for major publishing outlets that had the resources to promote and distribute his creations effectively, but they wouldn’t do it in a way he believed in.  With no mainstream publishing outlet, very few people would get to see his work, but he did it anyway.

Hank Williams

Hear that lonesome whippoorwill
He sounds too blue to fly
The midnight train is whining low
I’m so lonesome I could cry

I’ve never seen a night so long
When time goes crawling by
The moon just went behind the clouds
To hide its face and cry

Did you ever see a robin weep
When leaves begin to die?
Like me, he’s lost the will to live
I’m so lonesome I could cry

The silence of a falling star
Lights up a purple sky
And as I wonder where you are
I’m so lonesome I could cry

In a recent The Occidental Observer essay titled “Life Without Jews: The Amazing Adventures of Israeli Trans-Pedophile and Tampon-Fetishist Jonathan Yaniv,”  author Tobias Langdon recounts the grotesque and perverted—and typically Israeli Jewish—behavior of this being who had the “attention of millions of people around the world” for just one of his/her vile acts.

Inspired by the topic, here we will examine the outrageous behavior of another Israeli Jew who has attracted the attention of many millions around the world. Yuval Noah Harari is described as an “advisor” to the globalist transhumanist cult of power known as the World Economic Forum, whose Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab has openly stated it is developing “a fusion of our physical, biological and digital identities” for all humankind. Amazingly, Harari’s public statements, many of them made from the main stage at the annual World Economic Forum conference where he has become a favorite keynote speaker, are far more outrageous and outraging than even Schwab’s. Almost half the age of Schwab, Harari at 46 is less likely to be an “advisor” than a spokesman for the sociopathic transhumanist futurology the World Economic Forum is not only envisioning, but increasingly imposing over today’s world through its many partners.

Harari’s popularity and influence is immense. From his About website:

Prof. Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher, and the bestselling author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, and the series Sapiens: A Graphic History and Unstoppable Us. His books have sold 40 Million copies in 65 languages, and he is considered one of the world’s most influential public intellectuals today.

The World Economic Forum’s bio on Harari further boasts that he has published with the Guardian, Financial Times, the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Economist and Nature magazine. New York Times is of course by the Jewish Sulzberger family, the Economist is still 21% owned by the Rothschilds with Evelyn de Rothschild Chairman for over fifteen years until the late 80s, Nature magazine was co-founded by the early transhumanist Thomas Huxley (grandfather of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World), the Guardian “has continued its long-standing tradition of liberal [i.e., radical] politics” (primarily globalist), and the Atlantic is currently majority-owned by the Emerson Collective which promotes non-White immigration, works to “combat the achievement gap among students of color,” and engages in “philanthrocapitalism.” Harari has found suitable outlets for his transhumanist ranting, and/or they have found him.

Harari’s first popular book Sapiens is derived from lectures he gave to his undergraduate world history classes. He began his academic career in the program of the Israeli Defense Forces known as Atuda, which allows high school graduates to defer their mandatory conscription in the IDF to attend university, provided they study topics applicable to the military. Harari published such works as “Strategy and Supply in Fourteenth-Century Western European Invasion Campaigns” in the Journal of Military History, and “The Concept of ‘Decisive Battles’ in World History”, among many others. He was exempted from IDF service due to “an undisclosed health problem” but nothing “catastrophic.”

He lives with his husband on a moshav, an agricultural co-operative, outside Jerusalem. Being gay, he says, helped him to question received opinions. “Nothing should be taken for granted,” he has said, “even if everybody believes it.”

Harari’s husband is also his agent and manager, Itzik Yahav. “He likes to say, ‘You don’t understand—Yuval works for me!’” Yahav declined an invitation to have Harari participate in the World Economic Forum, at Davos, in 2017, because the proposed panels were “not good enough.” A year later, when Harari was offered the main stage, in a slot between Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, Yahav accepted.

At his 2018 addresses at the World Economic Forum, Harari’s outrageous statements found their greatest reach. He participated in four speaking events that year, including two panels titled “Questioning Our Human Future” and “Putting Jobs Out of Work.” It was Harari’s keynote lecture “Will the Future Be Human?” that should concern the rest of humanity most. This is Harari’s opening statement:

We are probably one of the last generations of homo sapiens. Within a century or two, Earth will be dominated by entities that are more different from us than we are different from neanderthals or from chimpanzees. Because in the coming generations, we will learn how to engineer bodies and brains and minds.

Harari speaks with certainty and even excitement about processes for which humanity should have a choice. In his view however, this transhumanist future is inevitable.

• “This will be decided by the people who own the data. Those that control the data control not just the future of humanity, but the future of life itself.”
• “We have reached the point where we can hack… human beings and other organisms.”
• “…the rise of machine learning and AI are giving us the necessary computing power. And at the same time, advances in … brain science are giving us the necessary biological understanding.”
• “You can really summarize 150 years of biological research since Charles Darwin in three words: Organisms are algorithms.”
• “When the infotech revolution merges with the biotech revolution, what you get is the ability to hack human beings.”
• “You will not be able to hide from Amazon, Ali Baba and the Social Police.”
• “Once we have algorithms that understand me better than I understand myself, they could predict my desires, manipulate my emotions, and even take decisions on my behalf. And if we are not careful, the outcome could be the rise of digital dictatorships.”
• “If democracy cannot adapt to these new conditions, then humans will come to live under the rule of digital dictatorships. Already at present, we are seeing the formation of more and more sophisticated surveillance regimes throughout the world.”
• “By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself. … This will be the greatest revolution in biology since the beginning of life four billion years ago.”
• “Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design. Not the intelligent design of some god above the clouds, but our intelligent design. … These are the new driving forces of evolution.”
• “If we don’t’ regulate (data), a tiny elite may come to control not just the future of human societies, but the shape of life forms in the future.”
• “As a historian I can tell you two things about the past: … it wasn’t fun … and it’s not coming back. So nostalgic fantasies are really not a solution.”
• “We had better call upon our scientists, our philosophers, our lawyers and even our poets—or especially our poets—to turn their attention to this big question: how do you regulate the ownership of data? The future not just of humanity but the future of life itself, may depend on the answer to this question.”

Thus Harari ends his address to the WEF in 2018 with a big question. But there can be little question that the answer of who will regulate the data is those “elites” he appears to warn us about. They are the partners in the WEF, which include the world’s most powerful corporations, the governments of most  current nations of the globe, globalist “think tanks” and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the world’s military and intelligence agencies, and above all, the most wealthy and powerful Jewish banking family dynasties that top the pyramid of power. These are the “elites” who will own and control the data, and from that, everything else. Harari must know this, since he is their spokesman. Knowing his people will dominate the elite, a digital dictatorship is a future he is looking forward to.

Looking through these key statements, we see that Harari dismisses God more thoroughly than Nietzsche, and replaces Him with the technocratic “elites” which include Harari himself. This is a distinctly Judaic concept. He impresses the inevitability of his technocratic future, and asserts that we cannot return to an unpleasant past to avoid the challenge. He ascribes an omnipotence in the future to those who own the data, and conveys a helplessness among the rest of humanity before this ultimate power over all of life. The god-like “elites” are watching, and there will be no escape.

Harari allows for no glitches in the programs, no side effects from the technologic hacking of humanity, no machine failures, no problems except “digital dictatorships.” Critiques of his books however are more scathing. Canadian Professor of Anthropology Christopher Robert Hallpike stated in a review of Sapiens that:

…one has often had to point out how surprisingly little he seems to have read on quite a number of essential topics. It would be fair to say that whenever his facts are broadly correct they are not new, and whenever he tries to strike out on his own he often gets things wrong, sometimes seriously. … [W]e should not judge Sapiens as a serious contribution to knowledge but as ‘infotainment’, a publishing event to titillate its readers by a wild intellectual ride across the landscape of history, dotted with sensational displays of speculation, and ending with blood-curdling predictions about human destiny.

This past summer,  Current Affairs magazine published “The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari,” which stated: “The best-selling author is a gifted storyteller and popular speaker. But he sacrifices science for sensationalism, and his work is riddled with errors.”

Last month the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung called Harari a “brand” created by his partner to sell everything from comic books and children’s stories to videos (a distinctly Jewish approach), and that his fans treat Harari like a “pop star” despite his grim message that humans are obsolete and machines will replace us.

Harari was back as a featured speaker at the World Economic Forum in 2020. He was introduced by the IDF-trained Israeli Jew Orit Gadiesh, who calls herself the “chairman” of Bain Capital (once headed by Mitt Romney), and as I reported in this TOO essay, is on the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. Harari spoke along with the long-time Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte, on the topic “How to Survive the 21st Century.” He may have surpassed his 2018 address in outrageous quotes.

• “…three problems pose existential challenges to our species … nuclear war, ecological collapse and technological disruption.”
• “…technology may also disrupt human society and the very meaning of human life in numerous ways, ranging from the creation of the global useless class to the rise of data colonialism and of digital dictatorships.”
• “…automation will eliminate millions upon millions of jobs.”
• “…the automation revolution … will be a cascade of ever bigger disruptions.”
• “In the past, humans had to struggle against exploitation. In the 21st century, the really big struggle will be against irrelevance. And it’s much worse to be irrelevant than to be exploited. Those who fail in the struggle against irrelevance will constitute a new useless class. People who are useless, not from the viewpoint of their friends and family of course, but useless from the viewpoint of the economic and political system (sic).  And this useless class will be separated by an ever growing gap from the ever more powerful elite.”
• “…AI will likely create immense wealth in a few high tech hubs, while other countries will either go bankrupt, or become exploited data colonies.”
• “…the other major danger we face is the rise of digital dictatorships, which will monitor everybody, all the time.”
• “We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls. We are now hackable animals.”
• “If this power (to hack human beings) falls into the hands of a 21st century Stalin, the result will be the worst totalitarian regime in human history.”
• “If we allow the emergence of such total surveillance regimes, don’t think that the rich and powerful in places like Davos will be safe.”
• “…the ability to hack humans might still undermine the very meaning of human freedom.”
• “…humans will simply not be able to understand the computers’ decisions … [H]umans are likely to lose control over our own lives, and also lose the ability to understand public policy.”
• “What will be the meaning of human life when most decisions are taken by algorithms?”
• “If we fail to conceptualize the new hell quickly enough, we might find ourselves entrapped there with no way out.”
• “…AI and biotechnology will give us god-like abilities to re-engineer life, and even to create completely new life forms.”
• “Our intelligent design is going to be the new driving force of the evolution of life. In using our new divine powers of creation, we might make mistakes on a cosmic scale. ”
• “Of course this is not a prophecy. These are just possibilities. Technology is never deterministic.”
• “To do something effective, we need global cooperation. All the three existential challenges [nuclear war, ecological collapse and technological disruption] that we face are global challenges that demand global solutions.”
• “If we allow such an arms race to develop in fields like AI and bio-engineering, it doesn’t really matter who wins the arms race. The loser will be humanity.”
• “In the 21st century, good nationalists must also be globalists.”
• “If we return there now (the jungle of constant war), our species will probably annihilate itself.”
• “I very much hope that we can rely on the leaders assembled here, and not on the rats.”

Some of this—even quite a bit of it—may come to be true. We are already seeing increasing gaps between elites and everyone else, surveillance is continually being refined, and already there are powerful forces that seek a dictatorship, digital or otherwise and are eager to rid the public square of traditional freedoms such as free speech. But Harari’s is certainly a dystopian vision that should be resisted at all costs.

The main pattern of Harari’s discourse is fear requiring globalism as a solution. This is the old Hegelian dialectic we have seen many times before, most recently with the Covid pandemic virus as the fear (another invisible menace), and lockdowns and vaccines as the solutions. Harari here admits the possibility of mistakes, but never suggests that his technocratic near future is anything but inevitable. Machines will take over human jobs, and the “useless class” will grow. This is by no means inevitable however, as National Socialist Germany showed with its program of restricting mechanical labor and promoting manual labor in the building of the Autobahn, in order to improve and eventually all but eliminate unemployment. Harari’s techno-future could be heaven, or it could be hell, and even the “rich and powerful” and the “leaders” in Davos could be subject to the hellscape. The closer they are to the peak of the global hierarchy, the more closely they will be watched. That’s how Stalin did it.

Stalin (Dzhugashvili) also had his Jewish “advisors,” and, as the Darling of Davos, Harari will excel among the technocratic elites beside Klaus Schwab, who also was mentored by Jews such as Henry Kissinger and Hermann Kahn, and who also incited fears of global catastrophe. Schwab cites Jewish author Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber, who wrote The American Challenge, as a great influence, and Harari cites Jewish author Jared Diamond of Guns, Germs and Steel as his literary influence. As a spokesman for instilling and normalizing the 4th Industrial Revolution that will make humans “hackable animals,” Harari will never become useless like so many of the rest of us. His mad ravings are worshiped among the WEF power elites as revelations straight from the master Machine. But among the rest of us normal humans, Harari must appear a sickly vegan degenerate homosexual  Israeli Jew holding dangerous sociopathic delusions of dystopian grandeur.