You have to take a short leap from Ukraine to the WEF, Fourth Industrial Revolutionaries, Transumanism Backers, and understand how the Power of AI to Control Us all is their goal, but we have to leap backward in order to look at why leadership is so disconnected, so transhumanist, so censorious, so Farenheit 451, so Brave New World, so Lord of the Flies, so 1984, so eugenics drenched. These people are in their own world, but their polarized colored glasses and Stem cell smoothies are killing us, even those of us who believe in full stop/time out/precautionary limits on their machinations, on their scientific disgust, on their world of more and smaller and quantumized this and nano-tech that, CRISPR-flogging us all into oblivion.

These people, the policymakers, CEOs, politicians, lobbyists, they live in their own smeared up bubble of hubris and hasbara. They are the Frankenstein masters.

And that propensity is particularly dangerous when leadership groups have become both selfish and short-termist. There really was once upon a time some people who went into government service for the service part, and not for the revolving door and networking. There was also a time, before the rise of global elites, where the powerful had ties to particular physical communities and some took interest in their betterment. In other words, while there were plenty of self-promoting and mediocre people at the helm, there were often enough in the room who were concerned about long-term risks to put a check on the worst behavior. (“US Geopolitics: Believing Impossible Things”)

There are no ethics, really, when the stage is set at places like CIA-DARPA-DoD-FinTech Stanford, or name the one of a thousand universities, even community colleges:

(Introductions by Professor Rob Reich, President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and grad student Margaret Guo end at 13:52.) Twin revolutions at the start of the 21st century are shaking up the very idea of what it means to be human. Computer vision and image recognition are at the heart of the AI revolution. And CRISPR is a powerful new technique for genetic editing that allows humans to intervene in evolution. Jennifer Doudna and Fei-Fei Li, pioneering scientists in the fields of gene editing and artificial intelligence, respectively, discuss the ethics of scientific discovery. Russ Altman moderated the conversation.

This corrupt Big Time Stanford U, and the rottenness of the Prez: Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne is in hot water.

These high-tech, anything goes in science corrupt folks:

Since last fall, allegations of image manipulation in scientific papers for which Tessier-Lavigne is listed as an author have spurred questions about his decades-long scientific career. While members of Stanford’s Board of Trustees and several outside legal and scientific experts review the claims of scientific misconduct, Tessier-Lavigne has remained at the helm of one of the world’s premier research institutions.

His unusual position as president-under-investigation mirrors an unusual public-relations approach. Instead of staying silent, as many embattled leaders do during an investigation, Tessier-Lavigne has vocally defended his actions, criticized the student newspaper in harsh terms, and cast himself as a faculty member first and president second.

Some experts in higher ed and science have raised their eyebrows at the president’s tack. In embracing a defensive posture, critics say, he may have compromised his role as a community leader.

So, some egghead with the all that AI love and the other egghead with all the valorizing of CRISPR, they have zero weight in a discussion on the ethics of their Frankensteins, their creations, but in the world of controlled oppositions, controlled MSM, the media spinners in Academia who never scratch truth or rebelliousness, with of all of those secret private security bullet proof legions protecting bankers, millionaires, billionaires, the lot of them at Davos or Aspen, we will never get what we need — real debates with real revolutionaires, whether the beautiful people do or do not call us all Luddites.

Here, from the Stanford student newspaper, god love them:

Meanwhile, Tessier-Lavigne continues to evade questions. After a recent event with Colombian president Gustavo Petro, Tessier-Lavigne was approached by a Daily reporter about his research. To two questions, Tessier-Lavigne responded with silence: “Why did you publish Alzheimer’s research you knew wasn’t reproducible?” and “What was the decision-making process behind not retracting that paper?” To a third question, “What do you have to say to people who are wondering why there are so many allegations of research misconduct from your lab?” Tessier-Lavigne told the reporter, “very nice to see you and look forward to corresponding.” (source)

There are so many studies on this fact, how research is not reproducible. And, the solution to this? Yep, AI: Currently, researchers that have the most-cited or most popular studies in “high-impact” journals get rewarded — even though the methods may not be reproducible. In a recent piece in Issues in Science and Medicine, former Lown Institute VP Shannon Brownlee and National Institutes of Health researcher Bibiana Bielekova propose using machine learning algorithms to identify articles by their rigor, reproducibility, and societal impact, rather than their popularity or number of citations. This could incentivize better research methods while illuminating future research paths that are most likely to bear fruit.

Science as ideology. We think we follow science, but we are following blind ideology. Academic research has many problems. One is the replication crisis starting around 2005. In medical and biological sciences, 85 percent of research papers are not replicable/reproducible.

Did we overreact to “the virus” in 2020? Did we march out mRNA too quickly? Or, were those mRNA “things” way advanced in the pipeline? Well, it was in the plan. And if you put “it” (“Event 201” … or … “Moderna as already working on mRNA corona before 2019”) in a search box in Pharma-CIA-FinTech-DARPA Google, you will get pure deniability:

In October, 2019 Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who, together with his wife (now ex-wife), runs the richest and most powerful foundation in the world, co-organized a simulation exercise on a worldwide corona epidemic. Videos were posted documenting the exercise. Find them. Gates now denies such an exercise ever took place.

Why? On April 12, 2020, Bill Gates said in an interview to the BBC, “Now here we are. We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”

This is the same person who, just six months before the outbreak of the pandemic, organised a series of four role-playing simulations of a corona pandemic with very high-ranking participants. Event 201 was a simulation of a corona pandemic conducted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins University in October 2019.

Participants from the private and public sectors were presented with a scenario, not unlike the one that has unfolded in reality, and discussed what needed to be done. There are official videos of the four meetings and a best-of-video scenario presentation and discussion by the participants, who are members of a pandemic control council in the role play.

It is true that if a little less emphasis had been placed on opinion manipulation, more attention could have been paid to health and economic policy. One of the four meetings was entirely devoted to this. But health and economic policies did get discussed. Gates can hardly have forgotten that.

The video on control of public opinion is the most interesting one, as it helps to put in perspective the efforts in this regard, which we are currently experiencing. One participant tells us that Bill Gates is financing work on algorithms which comb through the information on social media platforms to make sure that people can trust the information that they find there.

And the Chinese participant, the head of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control muses about ways to counter rumours that the virus is man-made. Remember, this exercise took place in October 2019, before the current pandemic broke out. (source)

So are we “anti-science” and “anti-knowledge” and “anti-civilization” if we QUESTION from the bottom of our intellects? Luddites? Am I blind?

Am I a Luddite: According to an article by Richard Conniff:

As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”

The original Luddites lived in an era of “reassuringly clear-cut targets—machines one could still destroy with a sledgehammer,” Loyola’s Jones writes in his 2006 book Against Technology, making them easy to romanticize. By contrast, our technology is as nebulous as “the cloud,” that Web-based limbo where our digital thoughts increasingly go to spend eternity. It’s as liquid as the chemical contaminants our infants suck down with their mothers’ milk and as ubiquitous as the genetically modified crops in our gas tanks and on our dinner plates. Technology is everywhere, knows all our thoughts and, in the words of the technology utopian Kevin Kelly, is even “a divine phenomenon that is a reflection of God.” Who are we to resist?

“The original Luddites would answer that we are human. Getting past the myth and seeing their protest more clearly is a reminder that it’s possible to live well with technology—but only if we continually question the ways it shapes our lives.” (source)

Men are grown mechanical in head and in heart, as well as in hand.
— Thomas Carlyle (source)