“Even Satan presents himself as an angel of the Light.” — 2 Corinthians 11: 14

I was born in the last years of the segregated South, and I remember both the period before integration and the period afterward.  I was born to a father who was an electrical engineer, and a mother who was a waitress, and we had a comfortable, placid life until my father sustained severe brain damage in a car accident, requiring that he be retrained as a barber.  That was was around the time when my mother had to begin waiting on tables, to keep our finances afloat, and things became hardscrabble.  Looking back, I can see now that we lived in what many people would consider poverty.  My mother had seven children, too many even for those times, and the financial and psychological stress became more than she could handle.  She buried herself in Christian fundamentalism, seeking solace, but instead became more unstable and volatile.  In time, she began to suffer from extreme religious delusions, believing Jesus had returned to the earth and could be sought out if a sufficient effort was made.  Our home became increasingly violent, dysfunctional and broken, until it disintegrated midstream in our childhoods.  My father went to his parents’ home, where he died in a dark back bedroom, whimpering about his undying love for my mother.  For her part, my mother wandered away, stark raving mad, to search for her Messiah in unlikely places, and in the intervening four decades I have had no contact with her.

My parents’ ancestors had not had easier paths, even though their people were all from once prominent and wealthy Southern families.  Their families had obeyed the law in owning slaves, but had never abused their servants; instead they had considered them to be extended family members.  While I’m sure horror stories existed, I believe my own family’s lore recounting symbiotic and amiable relationships generally reflected the norm of those times.  In any event, both families had ended up landless and scattered as a result of Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.  No one has ever talked about reparations for what many of them suffered:   bankruptcies, suicides, malnutrition, rooming house lodgings in their dotages, and early deaths.  Generations later, some of my ancestors were still living in shantytowns, occasionally being rousted out of their squatter villages by the police or military.

Out of these origins, we watched with familiar misgivings as soldiers with bayonets integrated public schools during the Civil Rights Era.  I remember that the school hallways soon stank from the odor of our fear, as our new peers pummeled, kicked and stomped their way into our hearts.  The Media invariably portrayed timid Black children entering schools through crowds of jeering and aggressive Whites, but our experience was somewhat the opposite:   we accommodated our government’s directives warily but meekly, and still got our asses handed to us.  Prior to integration, there had been order, discipline, optimism and a sense of community.  Afterward, we occupied institutions that were intimidating jungles, so much so that the frequent physical and sexual assaults that we experienced were usually not even reported.  We had been told what side history was on, and we were loath to disagree by making complaints.

Long before there were terms like “Media bias,” or “virtue-signaling,” or “Libtards,” we learned their meaning.  During the urban riots of 1968, a liberal teacher decorated our classroom’s bulletin boards with photos of Black rioters shot dead on the sidewalks by the police in Detroit and Watts.

“This will cause them to attack us more in the hallways,” a few of us pleaded.

The teacher was nonplussed by our comment.  “We have to demonstrate that we’re on the side of the civil rights movement” he responded with bewilderment.  “You must think of the greater good of our society, and make an effort to be team players.”

In my mind, this response was irresponsible gibberish, unconnected to the realities of the school hallways we were required to navigate. Yet, throughout my life, in response to my reservations in similar situations, the respondents have always deferred to God, morality, or the greater good.  And none of the answers I have received have been logical or sufficient.

I tried to play the game.  I tried to believe I would be treated fairly in the newly emerging integrated and “Diverse” America.  I soon realized this society will ultimately exclude the melanin-deficient, despite their delusions about having a place in this country’s future.  I had new lessons to learn, and after college I joined a federal agency, one divided into agents and support personnel.  The agents held a large majority of the higher-grade positions, and to achieve upward mobility it was clear that one should attempt to become an agent.  I applied to get into the agent training program, and was repeatedly turned down for admission.  It did not matter that I had two advanced degrees, one of which specialized in our agency’s mission.  It did not matter that I had known poverty via the misfortunes of a brain damaged father and a mother who was a violent lunatic.  There were no slots on the application to present that information, and, while I was shut out of the academy, it was common knowledge that others walking in off the street received preferences based on race and ethnicity.  “This is a non-issue,” I was told, in response to my complaints.  “Most of the applicants hired to be agents are still white.”  I appealed to my work colleagues, and quickly discovered that Whites who succeeded in getting admitted to the academy were indifferent to those of us who got left behind; they simply concluded that we must be deficient in some manner and thus worthy of our designation as lesser mortals.

It did not help to point out other corruptions in the selection process:   the family members of agency officials were admitted into the academy in statistically impossible numbers, and the children of slain agents were simply waved in if they met the minimum admission requirements.  Someone’s father catching a bullet did not seem to create more merit than my father having scraped his head down a highway; sometimes a death is a vastly more merciful fate than the fate of those who go on living.  Be that as it may, for fifteen years of doing the agency’s skut work, I received the same consideration as any external applicant doing similar office work elsewhere, and the rationale for this was, ironically, stated to be “the necessity for all applicants to be treated equally.”  The problem with the rationale presented was that I could not expect the same reciprocity from other employers if I sought to be hired by them — they would be loyal to their own employees in ways that mine had not been to me.  Between the racial preferences and the partial nullification of my labor investment, I’d received a double whammy.

No one gave a hoot about any of this.  I filed grievances, and quickly discovered that the grievance process was intended to channel and smother dissent, not to deliver justice or meaningful redress.  There was also an Ombudsman, whose position was ostensibly intended to help mediate grievances like my own.  This possibility for recourse looked promising, until it was discovered that her husband’s job consisted of maintaining the agency’s Affirmative Action statistics and monitoring the success of the agency’s Diversity Programs.  I sued, and a judge ordered the head of our Legal Counsel Division to attend a mediation meeting to seek a resolution for my suit.  The gentleman declined to put in an appearance, and instead sent an Assistant U.S. Attorney, who was openly hostile toward me.  She stated that I would be offered career counseling, absolutely nothing else, and proceeded to deride me in my presence with descriptive terms like “snob,” “elitist,” and “malcontent.”

“Appeal their decision,” a petite and usually passive coworker urged when I phoned her with my results.  “Don’t be afraid of them.  They’re not competent enough to be scary.”

My coworker was wrong.  They were plenty scary, and I was aware that the agency had unlimited time, personnel, and tax money to fight my lawsuit in the courts.  I was also aware that there were few other venues for the airing of my grievance — no lawyer would even touch it — and that most of the people similarly victimized are not even fully aware of their plight, inasmuch as diligent efforts are made to keep the discrimination covert.  What I had experienced was not today’s often-imagined “systemic discrimination” allegedly directed at non-Whites, but instead the real McCoy — a de facto discrimination against Whites that is now codified, institutionalized and commonplace.  It is discrimination sanctioned and promoted by our government, academia, the media, and the private sector, and there are no advocacy groups for its victims, no support groups for its survivors, and no films or books created to pull heartstrings over their suffering.  The victims, if they are perceived at all, are looked upon as being inconsequential damage, unworthy of acknowledgement because they had their injuries coming.  For its part, my agency, and countless others like it, generally grind up their victims as invisibly as possible, ruthlessly, silently, insidiously, without genuine compassion or interest, licensed to do damage by goals they believe to be noble.   I had even at one point done a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain statistics for the racial preferences, and the agency had released printouts of numbers that no one could decipher.  When asked for an interpretation, the bureaucrats simply ignored me.

I had spent ten years jogging down icy highways in February, to meet the academy’s physical requirements.  I had specifically obtained a second advanced degree because it was in our agency’s field of expertise.  None of it mattered one iota.  “You are being treated fairly,” I was told firmly.  “No one is mistreating you.”  That was no doubt their opinion, but I left the mediation meeting feeling thoroughly violated.

My unit supervisor was a pleasant Black man, and I was later told to meet with him for my lawsuit’s reward, the career counseling.  He waited until the last day of the deadline for providing the counseling, and then called me into his office and turned on his computer.  For an hour and a half, he read the agency’s job postings to me, the job vacancies listed on the agency’s website.  When he was done, he gave me a sincere pat on the arm and uttered familiar words:  “Go back to work now, and try to be a team player.”  One of his White underlings was far less diplomatic.  “We are trying to be tolerant of you,” he said.  “We know it is important to keep our friends close, and our enemies closer.”  This same gentleman, during a previous time of friction, had once reassured me that he had been taught how to kill adversaries within five seconds with merely a pencil.

My Black boss, not long after my career counseling, brought into our career ladder two semi-illiterate Black janitors, and hired them to do the same work I was performing.  The career ladder brought them inevitably up the rungs until they were one grade level below my own.  I remained one grade level above them only because I was their supervisor, and I spent my last years at the agency laboriously correcting the work that they could only go through the motions of performing.

Things got even more gruesome.  I never saw another promotion in the agency, during the remainder of my tenure.  Meanwhile, the Black agents in our agency had previously had a discrimination lawsuit against it.  Most of these people were mediocrities who had achieved their positions only through the racial preferences dispensed to them, but, not satisfied with that largesse, they had then become disgruntled when their advancement through the management ranks was slow.  They had sued, received financial settlements, and, as part of the settlements, the agency had agreed to reeducate all of its managers through diversity training seminars.

In the seminars we were taught that Affirmative Action preferences were necessary in order for America to keep pace with its rapidly changing demographics.  White Americans would soon be a minority, and the emerging America would contain a new but historically disadvantaged non-White majority.  White America had debts to pay, for its mistreatment of non-Whites, and it should pay its debts in a good-natured manner.   In the meanwhile, our democratic principles of government, we were told, along with consumerism and good will and the English language were destined to keep the country glued together.

In these seminars, we were told not to pose questions or to contradict the speakers.  “If you have questions or comments,” the facilitators said, “you may approach the stage with them only when the seminar is concluded.”  It was in this milieu that I first began to have epiphanies that when they keep telling you to be a team player, it means you’re about to get raped.  It was in this milieu that I had the epiphany that when they keep telling you to get on the right side of history, it means eventually they’re going to get around to killing you.  First they destroy books, careers, icons, statues, graves, and memorials.  Emboldened by their success, they will inevitably move on to their actual targets.  You, in the flesh.  The intial request is an appeal for access to institutions.  The subsequent request is a demand for dominant power in the institutions.  The final request is for us to be complicit in making ourselves irrelevant and extinct, in a country that our ancestors explicitly built for themselves and their descendants.  Indeed, the New America gives every indication of gleefully capitalizing on the founding stock’s own democratic principles, documents and institutions, to achieve that end.

In the seminars, listening to their sophistry, I found myself brimming with many questions I had been directed not to articulate.   If all cultures, groups, and nations are to be respected and accommodated, why was my own being so visibly assaulted and dissolved through social engineering and mass immigration?  Why was our demographic and political displacement described as something desirable, when no non-Western nation or people would interpret it in such a manner?  If previous discrimination against minorities was so damnable, how was justice achieved by routinely penalizing Whites through Affirmative Action discrimination?  Did this not merely redirect the discrimination against a new group of innocents?  Why should we be expected to cheerfully fund and facilitate our own society’s reinvention through social and governmental policies?  Why are we forbidden even to describe our displacement and replacement with those same terms — when they accurately describe what is being done to us?   Most of all:   How did it become completely impermissible for anyone to ask these questions?

Once again, I noticed an absence of meaningful redress.  Once again, I found there are no avenues for meaningful dissent; there can be no meaningful dissent when there are no venues in which it can be heard.  To pose objections in spite of this reality is to be designated as a braying jackass in a wilderness, even worse, it is to be designated as morally suspect, as being illogical, indeed, as being evil.  Once again, we are to be the dehumanized collateral damage of the “arc of moral justice,” and our moral worth depends on the extent to which we submit to that condition silently and willingly.  Our own group’s need for self-perpetuation, for self-determination, for equality under the law — these things have all been rendered irrelevant, meaningless, in a society in which all things are now politicized and polarized.

Yet, to reiterate, America’s founding documents and founding institutions were created to first benefit the descendants of the European founding stock.  They clearly proclaimed that they existed for the benefit of the founders’ progeny.  It is thus folly to contend that they were intended to be tools for the dissolution of the nation-state created by those ancestors, and for four centuries America, with the exception of eight states in the South, was largely an ethnostate with an identifiable and relatively homogeneous culture and people.   All of that is now being destroyed in the name of an ill-defined largesse or the purely mercenary desire to import cheap labor, consumers, or votes.  The resulting metamorphosis will achieve the destruction of all that is familiar to us in the span of a single human lifetime, a lifetime of a mere seventy years, spanning from the gutting of our immigration laws in 1965 to the year 2035, the earliest date at which Whites are predicted to become a minority in the U.S.  And the year 2035 is tomorrow — an eyeblink away.  The currently emerging American society will be characterized by the end goal of many of the forces arrayed against us; we will evolve into a society characterized by one-party rule — by the Democratic Party, a political entity that is increasingly anti-status quo, anti-White, and radically socialist in its leanings.

Reacting to this with a shrug is the purest kind of madness.  Acquiescing to it is collaboration with a fate that will strip us of the right of self-determination, because other groups vote in blocs and we will, quite simply, be outnumbered and outvoted.  It is collaboration with the dispossession of our culture and our history, because both will be inevitably pushed into America’s margins.  It portends the confiscation of our wealth, because our wealth will need to be taxed away from us to subsidize the poverty of the incoming hordes.  Most importantly, all of this will dispossess us of our future as a people, because we will have become the Boers of North America and our future will be determined by others.  If the histories of the Tutsis of Rwanda, the Uyghurs of China, and the Christian Armenians of Turkey are indicators of the dark proclivities of human nature — as indeed they are — it may ultimately cost many of us the greatest price of all.

Are these notions beyond the pale for contemplation?  I think not.  We live in a time in which many nations guarantee their citizens’ rights in their constitutions, yet those rights are routinely disregarded.  We live in an era that is characterized, like all of the human history that preceded it, by purges and genocides, an era in which billions of humans are entirely content to live under the tyrannies of Communism, radical Islam, or authoritarianism.  These are the dark and dangerous waters into which our politicians cheerfully plan to cast us adrift on a raft built from blind faith, a hodgepodge raft constructed from scraps of the ideologies promoting globalism, universalism, racial egalitarianism, reverse racism, and other “isms.”  It will be a vessel unfit for any approaching storm, a craft that will easily upend in a vast and tumultuous human sea, and one where there is every reason to believe that our adventure will finalize with our disappearance.

In response to this predicament, for the largest part, our own countrymen are fat and comfortable and happy.  They are far too relaxed and stupid to entertain any notions involving fear, and the cynic in me no longer believes that what remains of America can be saved without upheaval, radicalism, and violence.  While I would never advocate violence, nor will I condemn it, not while my country is being gleefully and unnecessarily butchered all around me.  And in the face of today’s unrelenting turmoil, there have been, of late, clarion truisms that keep ringing in my mind.  One is the statement of Mr. Trump, on January 6, 2021, that “If you don’t fight like hell for your country, you’re not going to have one.”  Another sadly resonating truism is the one allegedly made by the Capitol Breach rioter Riley June Williams, a seven-word sentence that sums up our predicament: “There are no longer any political solutions.”  An even more disturbing insight that keeps entering my consciousness is one attributed to the writer Guillaume Faye:  “When you are forced to choose between violence and extinction, regrettably, the only correct moral choice is violence.”

How sad, even to have been placed in the position to need to contemplate such thoughts.  This is the corner into which our idiot leaders have now painted us, and most of us will no doubt live to see the fruits of their folly.  I am aging fast, and I may be spared such a fate; even so, I know where my ghost will abide when its time comes.  I will be at the running track at my agency’s academy, the academy where I never got admitted.  I will be running in the brutal cold of February, running as I used to run, groaning to push forward with a clenched jaw into the wind.  I will be catapulting around the track, believing against all of the available evidence that this country still has a future for my children, believing in a future in which an uncorrupted justice will yet prevail.

Believing anyway.

The breakneck speed of technological advancement and the fever for automation have resulted in these self-contained decision-makers worming their way into all aspects of life; algorithms aren’t just the property of social media news feeds anymore, they’re also used to predict consumer habits, make investments, and even determine courtroom decisions. China, for example, is in the process of rolling out a system of ‘social credit-scoring’ in which data collection and analysis techniques will be used to give each citizen a score. … Though this system is still highly experimental, it is a testament to the widespread datafication of the modern world and the increased primacy of algorithms and machine-learning in shaping our day-to-day experiences.—Stuart Montgomery, “What’s in an Algorithm? The Problem of the Black Box”

The first thing that the reader must understand is that despite the global and often diffuse nature of the expanding World Online network, the ideology/religion of Dataism and its Internet-of-(All)-Things demand central planning akin to Marxist doctrine. Granted the other features of this network are capitalist in nature, but it is unsurprising that the Chinese model is viewed as most desirable for global control, as it combines the best (from the perspective of the “elites”) aspects of each system under the cloak of humanism and various other “-isms” such as environmentalism. That the system is not concerned with the externalities it purports to consider should be clear, but trapped in dialectical reasoning as we have been conditioned to be, breaking out of these constraints is often a tall order. Consider the American conservative, a creature who seldom understands that he is, at heart, still a liberal within his post-Jacobin confines. Alas, our Pavlovian overlords provide the stimuli and condition the response.

As Ted Kaczynski wrote, “The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.” The point here is not to pile on conservatives but rather to highlight the inability to resist what is destroying you when you’ve already accepted all of its premises! An illustrative opinion is that of Klon Kitchen, writing for the conservative Heritage Foundation and the former Director of its Center for Technology Policy: “Google petitioners [attempting to remove a conservative from an advisory committee on ethics and artificial intelligence] seem to equate conservatism with bigotry and hate. They could not be more wrong.” This is fundamentally a liberal position. Kitchen continues, proving Kaczynski right:

Fundamentally, conservatives believe artificial intelligence can and should be used to build a country where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. First, artificial intelligence is, and will continue to be, a critical tool for advancing U.S. security and freedom. … We agree with many of Google’s perspectives on how automation and other artificial intelligence-enabled capabilities will generate new jobs and opportunities. … Conservatives believe that artificial intelligence can open new pathways to individual and national prosperity, and we want to remove any unnecessary government barriers to these advancements. Needless regulations slow down innovation. We would gladly join Google in opposing barriers to attracting global tech talent and further expanding a technology industry that is the envy of the world.

Though Kitchen is here approaching the unshackling of artificial intelligence from a libertarian perspective, the end result would not be all that different should it arrive through government support, as a 2017 proposal from Wendy Hall (University of Southampton) and Jérôme Pesenti (Facebook AI) with the support of the Business Secretary and Culture Secretary outlines in the case of Great Britain:

We are at the threshold of an era when much of our productivity and prosperity will be derived from the systems and machines we create. We are accustomed now to technology developing fast, but that pace will increase and AI will drive much of that acceleration. The impacts on society and the economy will be profound. … Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) can bring major social and economic benefits to the UK. With AI, computers can analyse and learn from information at higher accuracy and speed than humans can. AI offers massive gains in efficiency and performance to most or all industry sectors, from drug discovery to logistics. AI is software that can be integrated into existing processes, improving them, scaling them, and reducing their costs, by making or suggesting more accurate decisions through better use of information.

This will, however, require the “need to increase ease of access to data in a wider range of sectors,” and they recommend, apropos of nothing, “Greater diversity in the AI workforce.” Their recommendations were largely accepted, and the report led to a “Sector Deal” aimed at solidifying partnerships between the government and the tech industry to “boost innovation in AI.” As we might expect, all the 5G infrastructure and the like is present. Additionally, the UK Government does, in fact, have an Office for Artificial Intelligence, and, as Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden said in March 2021, “Unleashing the power of AI is a top priority in our plan to be the most pro-tech government ever.” A government that, by the way, is helmed by a Conservative. For what it’s worth, like Joe Biden’s campaign to “Build Back Better”—gleaned straight from the World Economic Forum—the Conservatives’ website loudly proclaims that they aim to “Build Back Better” as well.

It’s not like Britain is alone, however, as a Cognilytica report shows that “France, Israel, United Kingdom, and the United States all are equally strong when it comes to AI, with China, Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea equally close in their AI strategic strength.” There is a ton of outside capital flowing to these countries as well, such as from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund to the Japan-based Softbank, for example.

From the vaunted multistakeholder perspective held by organizations such as the World Economic Forum, this is a very good thing. It’s not so much a competition between countries, though it looks that way from the outside, as it is a race to provide more data sets and information to be plugged into the network and accelerate the project. Have you ever noticed that outside of a very few quickly marginalized figures, no one in a position of authority ever seems to question the wisdom of any of this, outside, perhaps of the late Tanzanian President John Magufuli who as a “COVID-19 skeptic” speculatively and all-too-conveniently died of “COVID-19-related complications”?

With COVID-19 as justification, as usual,[1] the WEF noted in July 2020—recalling the Dataist obsession with the free flow of information discussed in my previous article—that, “By necessity, model-based AI (which leverages the data available) saw a resurgence. As the pandemic progressed, and more data was available, data-rich and model-free approaches could be combined, leading to a few key hybrid solutions.” The pandemic, “provided an opportunity for data scientists and AI scientists to put their advanced techniques and tools to use by helping business leaders make decisions in a challenging environment that’s dominated by speed, uncertainty and lack of data.” This will “ensure you can seek solutions quickly while maximizing the technologies and processes already in place.” The same thought process, and the same emphasis on processes and systems already in place but situated to be scaled-up, includes the various medical interventions and global distribution of highly experimental mRNA “vaccines.” Crucially, as Yuval Noah Harari writes in his book Homo Deus, “Science is converging on an all-encompassing dogma, which says that organisms are algorithms and life is data processing.”[2] The dogma is, in fact, a religious revolution, and for Harari, “All truly important revolutions are practical. … Ideas change the world only when they change our behaviour.”[3]

As Kay Firth-Butterfield (Head of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; Member of the Executive Committee, World Economic Forum) and Anand Rao (Global Leader, Artificial Intelligence, PricewaterhouseCoopers) wrote in May 2020:

Data is critical to build models and validate their accuracy. … In the case of COVID-19, we need to feed models. … Models can be used to change the behaviour of people. We are all familiar with models that make recommendations as to which books we should read and what products we should buy. Similarly, COVID-19 models have changed attitudes and behaviours of health officials, policymakers, government institutions and citizens. … In response to government interventions, citizens have largely complied with restrictions and changed behaviours. They are traveling less, sheltering at home, social distancing and being more conscious of disinfection. They have also changed purchase behaviour. They are shopping online more rather than going to physical stores, and they are consuming more bandwidth as social interactions and entertainment have largely moved online.

They have indeed. That’s not all that’s gone online, either. The World Economic Forum consciously links things like “AI, nanotech, nuclear energy, and GMOs” with quantum computing and the ethical use thereof. As we have seen in the effort to completely re-shape the human experience in record time, what is ethical by the WEF and their compatriots’ definition is pretty far from what any normal, sane person would define as ethical. Nevertheless, whether it be biometric data or agriculture, it’s all got to be brought under control and linked. The World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture features such partners as Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill, the Wellcome Trust, Walmart, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Unilever. Given the “gifts” we’ve gotten from Monsanto’s GMO monstrosities and their destruction of sustainable agriculture and independent farms, DuPont’s carcinogenic “forever chemicals,” or the shoving of billions into overcrowded hovels and the degradation of the land and food quality courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the twentieth century, these are decidedly not the people we want forming a new vision for agriculture, or anything for that matter. But agriculture, like everything else, must be made “smarter.”

According to the World Economic Forum’s Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning—with partners including Lockheed Martin, Salesforce, the Government of Rwanda, the New Zealand Government,[4] Palantir, Huawei, Microsoft, Facebook, and JP Morgan Chase:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a key driver of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Its effect can be seen in homes, businesses and even public spaces. In its embodied form of robots, it will soon be driving cars, stocking warehouses and caring for the young and elderly. AI holds the promise of solving some of society’s most pressing issues, but also presents challenges such as inscrutable “black box” algorithms, unethical use of data and potential job displacement. As rapid advances in machine learning (ML) increase the scope and scale of AI’s deployment across all aspects of daily life, and as the technology can learn and change on its own, multistakeholder collaboration is required.

Of course, the stakeholders are already in place to provide the solutions to the problems they’ve created! Regarding the inscrutable black boxes specifically, Cynthia Rudin and Joanna Radin explicate:

In machine learning, these black box models are created directly from data by an algorithm, meaning that humans, even those who design them, cannot understand how variables are being combined to make predictions. Even if one has a list of the input variables, black box predictive models can be such complicated functions of the variables that no human can understand how the variables are jointly related to each other to reach a final prediction.

The existence of black box algorithms and self-perpetuating systems lends credence to the idea that the carefully calculated and scripted events we have seen play out over the past eighteen months may well be driven by some sort of superintelligence that merely has humans doing its bidding. For Rudin and Radin, “Trusting a black box model”—trusting the science, as it were—“means that you trust not only the model’s equations, but also the entire database that it was built from.” For Juan Manuel Duran and Karin Rolanda Jongsma, “By outlining that more transparency in algorithms is not always necessary, and by explaining that computational processes are indeed methodologically opaque to humans, we argue that the reliability of algorithms provides reasons for trusting the outcomes of medical artificial intelligence (AI).” Trust the numbers/data set (cough, COVID, cough) and the authorities. Shut up and obey. For Harari:

We are developing superior algorithms that utilise unprecedented computing power and giant databases. The Google and Facebook algorithms not only know exactly how you feel, they also know myriad other things about you that you hardly suspect. Consequently you should stop listening to your feelings and start listening to these external algorithms instead. … Whereas humanism commanded: ‘Listen to your feelings!’ Dataism now commands: ‘Listen to the algorithms! They know how you feel.’[5]

This new religion of Dataism may well spell the death of mankind, or, at the very least the demise of its autonomy. As Harari continues, “If humankind is indeed a single data-processing system, what is its output? Dataists would say that its output will be the creation of a new and even more efficient data-processing system, called the Internet-of-All-Things. Once this mission is accomplished, Homo sapiens will vanish.”[6]

It is not coincidental that Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s “Internet of Things” (IoT) and its vast network of sensors and the free flow of information will by “necessity” beget the Internet-of-All-Things (IoAT), the bringing-online of an all-encompassing network representing the coup de grace of humanity and — very possibly — all living matter. The IoAT may well, as Harari writes in Homo Deus, “pervade the whole galaxy and even the whole universe. This cosmic data-processing system would be like God. It will be everywhere and will control everything, and humans are destined to merge into it.”[7] Provided a superintelligence does not eliminate humanity altogether before such a merger occurs. But, in any case, neither scenario is appealing for those who value human life and/or sovereignty.

When humanity is reduced to nothing but sets of code, cut off as it were from the Creator and the responsibility of stewardship, such a philosophical leap becomes quite possible, especially enamored as he is with his own abilities. In the realm of scientism, which is rapidly displacing secular humanism as the prevailing dogma of the people who are actually designing the systems to replace themselves and/or to merge with their creation, the creation of the IoAT has become their religious obsession. For Harari, “In Silicon Valley the Dataist prophets consciously use traditional messianic language. For example, Ray Kurzweil’s book of prophecies is called The Singularity is Near, echoing John the Baptist’s cry: ‘the kingdom of heaven is near’ (Matthew 3:2).”[8]^,[9]

As I stated in my previous article, these zealots are not content to allow unmodified humanity to exist unmolested. As Harari writes, “Dataism is also missionary. Its second commandment is to link everything to the system, including heretics who don’t want to be plugged in. And ‘everything’ means more than just humans. It means every thing.”[10] Thus the World Economic Forum and its obsession with Smart Cities and a vast network encompassing everything from biometric data to trees in the park takes on a whole new light. With an impetus to “build back better”—where have we heard that before?—the WEF’s Global Future Council on Cities of Tomorrow notes that they “will seek to identify how cities can be re-designed to build back better and provide the climate and resilience, social and digital infrastructure to do so.” With partnering organizations such as Microsoft, Peking University, the Australian Smart Communities Association, Access Israel, Google, the Centre for Digital Built Britain, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Columbia University, Bloomberg Associates, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), the WEF’s Future of Cities initiative encompasses the Global Future Council on Cities of Tomorrow, as well as Infrastructure 4.0, Net Zero Carbon Cities, and the G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance (note the constant inclusion of the buzzword “smart,” which typically occurs in close proximity to others like “sustainable”—with the proposals anything but—and “clean”).

The World Economic Forum’s Platform for Shaping the Future of the Internet of Things and Urban Transformation states that, with COVID-19 having “forced us to rethink the way we live. It is transforming industries and how we do business. It is intensifying social and environmental crises in our communities. And it is challenging fundamental assumptions and global trends. … A growing suite of connected devices and smart technologies, commonly referred to as the internet of things (IoT), offers a means to reimagine and transform physical spaces—our homes, offices, factories, farms, healthcare facilities and public spaces.” COVID-19 forced none of this, but was a handy excuse to accelerate projects and proposals years in the making, in the same way that pressure for everyone to get the so-called “vaccine” represents the chance for a very large sample size to test mRNA modifications on, if not itself be the Trojan Horse to cause a mass die-off and get those pesky carbon emissions under control. Other possibilities include the uploading of more data sets into the expanding IoAT and a breaking-down of biological barriers to biotechnological mergers.

Indeed, were one to break down all of the barriers to getting everything online, you’d do worse than using the language of humanism to do it—the WEF’s Future of the Connected World initiative lists “combatting inequality” alongside other essential actions, such as “improving security,” which will be familiar to readers of my last piece as these things are all of a piece. In fact, their inherent neatness and seamlessness almost leads one to wonder if there is already a kind of superintelligence guiding the implementation of all of these systems which can and do operate independent of human intervention in many cases already — often needing only human inputs, which gives grim meaning to “human resources,” does it not? In a grotesque paradox, many of the most avowed liberal humanists such as Niall Ferguson cede human sovereignty to systems; is it such a stretch to go from The Square and the Tower’s premise that “Man, with his unrivaled neural network, was born to network” to Man actually becoming the network? Reflect on the social network that is Facebook, for example, and consider the role of data in its expanding AI efforts. For Stuart Montgomery, “One of the most common iterations of machine learning in use today is called a ‘neural network,’ because it takes its basic metaphorical structure from the brain.” After all, all processes are reducible to algorithms to follow Harari’s logic—a logic, it should be noted, that is widely held by many a Dataist. Crucially, for Harari and synching with Ferguson:

Every day I absorb countless data … and transmit back new bits. … I don’t really know where I fit into the greater scheme of things. … This relentless flow of data sparks new inventions and disruptions that nobody plans, controls or comprehends. … No one needs to understand. All you need to do is answer your emails faster—and allow the system to read them. … As the global data-processing system becomes all-knowing and all-powerful, so connecting to the system becomes the source of all meaning.[11]

In this way we can see the utter reliance of humans on the systems they’ve constructed, not the other way around. Rather than gods, humans have made themselves into slaves, serving the system and becoming just more data sets in the process. As Harari writes, “Dataism isn’t anti-humanist. It has nothing against human experiences. It just doesn’t think they are intrinsically valuable.” It is not a stretch here to go from the worthlessness of human experiences to the worthlessness of humans.

Our extinction in one possible scenario is simply a by-product. For Gordon Bell of Microsoft Research, “Singularity is that point in time when computing is able to know all human and natural-systems knowledge and exceed it in problem-solving capability with the diminished need for humankind as we know it. I basically support the notion.” In trying to upgrade humanity, Harari concedes it “may not be enough” and that humanity may well need to be “retired.” This is should we continue on the current trajectory, and the entirety of the so-called “elites” are committed to doing just that, whether they are Dataists, techno-humanists, power-mad sociopaths, or servile functionaries (or some combination thereof).

A slightly different point of view is held by John Casti of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and designer of computer simulations of complex human systems, like the stock market, highway traffic, and the insurance industry: “I think [the singularity is] scientifically and philosophically on sound footing. The only real issue for me is the time frame over which the singularity will unfold. [The singularity represents] the end of the supremacy of Homo sapiens as the dominant species on planet Earth. At that point a new species appears, and humans and machines will go their separate ways, not merge one with the other.” Though Casti does not believe this implies machines or superintelligences annihilating humans (“unless human interests start to interfere with those of the machines”), it is telling that he cites the relationship of humans with bees—whom we exploit for resources and to whom we are societally indifferent to their declining populations as we wreak havoc on the environment.

The globalist network must now be understood in the context of this project. Although perhaps not even all senior leadership is on board with this particular vision, this is the prevailing vision of those who are implementing autonomous systems, using high-energy particle physics (CERN) to try to unlock sub-atomic secrets, and driving the quantum-computing explosion and the proliferation of the infrastructure to support the IoAT. The talk about “sustainability” and “combatting inequality” is just co-opted humanist drivel; admittedly, many people preaching and practicing this globalist vision believe in these ideals, but they are a means to an end. As Jeff Merritt, Head of IoT, Robotics and Smart Cities for the World Economic Forum, Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution states, “Our research on hundreds of IoT implementations showed that 84 percent of them directly addressed, or had the potential to address, UN Sustainable Development Goals.”

The United Nations is a very useful vehicle, especially if for Dataists the unrestricted flow of information in ever-increasing velocity—like goods, capital, and labor for globalist neo-liberals before them—is viewed as the central pillar of their religion. We know that the World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a Strategic Partnership Framework outlining areas of cooperation to “deepen institutional engagement and jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The Strategic Partnership Framework, signed in June 2019, focuses on the areas of not just financing the 2030 Agenda, but also on digital cooperation, health, education and skills, gender equality and the empowerment of women, and climate change. As the UN Secretary-General’s “Roadmap for Financing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” outlines:

The 2030 Agenda, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change provide a pathway for a more prosperous, equitable and sustainable future. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) establishes a blueprint to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda by providing a global framework for financing sustainable development that aligns all financing flows and policies with economic, social and environmental priorities. … The upcoming ‘decade of action’ (2020 – 2030) requires significant public and private investment to bring the SDGs and goals of the Paris Agreement to life for all people, everywhere.

In other words, creating a fully-integrated global network. While Harari claims that the “relentless flow of data sparks new inventions and disruptions that nobody plans, controls or comprehends,” that’s not entirely accurate, at least at this juncture (unless, as some have surmised, a superintelligence guiding events has already been brought online—a superintelligence that, theologically, could represent a downright sinister inhabitation).

The World Economic Forum, foremost champion of this project, is not some fringe organization, either. In addition to the partners previously mentioned, among the staggering array are included: BlackRock, Bloomberg, the Gates Foundation, Amazon, Zoom, Visa, Tyson Foods, Uber, Coca-Cola, the State Bank of India, the Royal Bank of Canada, Qatar National Bank, PayPal, Pfizer, Palantir, Alibaba, Pepsi, the American Heart Association, AstraZeneca, the New York Times, Bank of America, NBCUniversal, Nasdaq, the Development Bank of Southern Africa, the New York Stock Exchange, Grain Management, Google, Facebook, Nestlé, Goldman Sachs, Huawei, the Islamic Development Bank, IBM, Heineken, Johnson & Johnson, LinkedIn, JP Morgan Chase, the Mayo Clinic, Manchester United, Mastercard, and the list goes on and on.

Understanding that many aspects of this topic require the reader to go out on quite a limb, at bare minimum, whether they believe them or not, the zealots of Dataism, just the same as the zealots of communism or “social justice,” do believe in what they’re preaching and doing with religious fervor. It is worth recalling that there was a slight possibility that the Trinity tests of the Manhattan Project could ignite the atmosphere, but they went ahead anyway. This naturally begs the question: will you “follow the science”?

[1] By the way, if you were already feeling persecuted for your beliefs, Bloomberg is now priming the population for amped-up targeting via the “vaccine” with some ready-made scapegoats for the next engineered outbreak:

As much of the country emerges from masking and social distancing, undervaccinated pockets in the U.S. still threaten to bring the virus roaring back. Less than 25% of the population is fully vaccinated in at least 482 counties, according to an analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data by Bloomberg News. Many of these counties are more rural and less economically advantaged than the rest of the U.S., and a majority of their voters in the last presidential election chose Donald Trump.

[2] Harari, Yuval Noah, Homo Deus, 2017. p. 402.

[3] Ibid. p. 395.

[4] The New Zealand Government is deeply enmeshed with the WEF’s AI projects; as a 2020 white paper informs:

A number of initiatives in New Zealand – such as the government’s Algorithm Assessment Report, the Centre for AI and Public Policy, Otago University report, Government Use of AI in New Zealand, and the AI Forum of New Zealand’s work on AI in the economy and society – have raised the importance of AI and explored opportunities…New Zealand has expressed interest in working with the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution on this topic, given the need for a global, multistakeholder perspective on the complex question of regulating AI. New Zealand has been keen to work with the Centre to identify tools and approaches that would promote innovation, protect society and build trust in AI use…Also in New Zealand, the Data Futures Partnership framed social licence in 2017 as the acceptance by individuals for organizations to use their data, information and stories.

[5] Harari. p. 397.

[6] Ibid. p. 386.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Our friend from last time, Bill Gates, describes Kurzweil’s vision as “optimistic.”

[10] Ibid. p. 387.

[11] Ibid. pp. 390-91.