Humans First!

How much of our humanity are we willing to lose? It would appear that this question is becoming most pertinent in our age. But another, more fundamental, question foregrounds this one – what is a human being? Are people bio-mass? If so, then only one idea is required to exist on this planet, namely, how best to manage populations.

If mankind is something other than bio-mass, then another idea is needed to live a happy and meaningful life, namely, how best to safeguard the value of the individual. Each answer also means that a particular type of government, or state, must come into existence – whether it be rule by an all-powerful polity before whose might, one person is worth nothing; or whether it be a limited government that does not stand in the way of the people.

As is obvious, the first question can only be answered properly within the context of either of these two ideas. The current “culture war” is, in fact, an expression of our inability to come to a definite answer for what a human being is. And in this confusion, the very notion of citizenship is fast disappearing. If a citizen is bio-mass, then his value to the state is determined purely by the state. If the citizen is not bio-mass, then his value exists beyond the reach of politics because he innately possesses individual sovereignty, or self-worth, which no court of law or government can take from him.

But the more powerful a state becomes, the less a human life is valued. Consequently, those who agree with the state are deemed “good citizens,” while those that deny the power of the state are held in contempt and labeled as, “dissidents.” Currently, in the West, both these ideas are in contention. Which idea will win out in the end, will decide what type of society comes to exist in the West.

Into this struggle intrudes technology, which has assumed the structure of the all-powerful state – because it is intrinsically about the micro-management and even control of individuals. But it is a “state” of a very peculiar type. We watch screens. The screens watch us. It really is a watcher’s world, in which the boundary between public and private life is much corroded, so that individuals must continually yield their sovereignty in order to access the various necessities now contained solely within technology.

Indeed, it is now impossible to deal with money, information and communication without the intermediacy of the screen. This means that whenever we need to enter into any sort of transactional relationship with the world around us, we need to go and interact with a screen. There really is no other choice. And this “screened” interaction means people must assume two roles – there are those who need what screens dispense; and there are those who mange this dispensation.

In other words, the watchers are watched. And those that watch, do so continually, ensuring that entire populations are under constant surveillance. In this way, technology has created an entirely new form of “politics” – one where constant surveillance both exploits and controls. It exploits by charting what we buy and then tagging us as specific types of consumers. And it controls by telling us what to think – so that screens determine our behavior. We agree to be watched so that we might reap the benefits provided by the screen.

But this is consent of a different kind, because there is no other choice. There is no alternative to the screen. This also means that there really is no consent at all, only compliance, if we want to participate in commerce, communication or banking. In this way, each of us becomes nothing more than a technological “process.”

Much has been written about the surveillance culture and the surveillance economy. But recently an interesting set of three books has been published by Cyrus Parsa, each of which explores the serious threat to humanity posed by technology. These three books were published quickly, from August to October 2019. And all three, offer troubling, if not shocking, insights as to what becomes possible when technology and the state become a seamless entity – a merging that is coming into being in the West, but which is fully entrenched in China.

The three books are meant to be read one-after-the-other, it would appear, since each develops and builds upon two themes – “bio-digital social programming” and the anti-human agenda embedded within technology. Since these books seem to be self-published, a good editor was certainly needed– but this drawback does not distract from the value of the insights and information provided by the author, for he brings to the discussion a point of view that is very little understood and therefore little discussed, namely, the vast anti-human possibilities of technology.

More importantly, Parsa also offers insights as to how we ought to answer the two questions that were raised at the very beginning: How much of our humanity will we agree to give up in order to use technology? And, how shall we define a human being, given the anti-human assumptions that are the modus operandi of high-tech?

In his first book, Raped Via Bio-Digital Social Programming, Parsa posits the idea that technology promotes a “rape-mind,” that is, a mind that is perpetually sexualized and therefore always looking to either rape or be raped. As an aside, Parsa is also creating a vocabulary to help in his analysis, because the topics that he is engaged in have been so little studied that they do not yet possess specific terminology. “Bio-digital social programming” is one such neologism, by which he means the connections made with the human body by all digital transmissions (machines, robotics, computers, smart phones, smart cities, IoT devices, facial recognition and Artificial Intelligence).

Parsa suggests that humanity now exists as a “bio-digital” entity, which learns and understands the purpose and meaning of life now only through technology. This interchange, or cross-over, means that the difference between humanity and robotics is starting to blur. If a human is merely a set of mechanical functions, then bio-digitality makes sense, where the desire of human existence to self-perpetuate is channeled off into technology.

This, then, calls into question the very purpose of sex itself – for freed from reproduction it can only become another form of self-gratification. And because of this separation of sex from procreation, the various hybrids being created become expressions of progress rather than monstrosity. This “logic” also informs the entire transgender movement, where a New Man can be created by chemical means.

Given technology’s assumption about the human body as a mechanical object that can be programmed, Parsa suggests that the most effective method of such programming is digi-sexuality, which is then managed through the various gadgets we all possess, such as, smart phones and IoT devices, and which together create a hyper-sexualized mind, or the “rape-mind.” Parsa then connects this mind with the great upsurge in human and child-trafficking, and a “pornified” youth culture, which seeks to not only imitate but outdo the sexual acts portrayed on the screens of their various devices.

Such “rape automation” offers a precise explanation of what human sexuality has been turned into by technology – wide-spread and freely-available pornography, epidemic levels of pedophilia, sex-robots as a growth industry, and the bizarre promotion by the state of transgenderism. In other words, what Parsa describes is a culture that no longer understands what it means to be human, because it has transformed sexuality into a mechanism for controlling populations, in that people become what they see on their screens.

In his second book, AI, Trump, China & the Weaponization of Robotics with 5G, Parsa delves into another neologism of his, namely, “micro-botic terrorism” (or, MBT), by which he means the weaponization of biometric data. Just as technology has weaponized sex, likewise the human body itself has been turned into an effective means to destroy the individual, so that if the metrics of the individual do not match the “ideal citizen” required by the state, then that individual becomes the enemy of the state, and is dealt with accordingly.

The state needs to know who its enemies are, and technology steps in to identify (or tag) such “undesirables,” by way data. This data is created in such a way that “enemies” can be easily recognized, marked off (tagged) and then dealt with. This data consists of facial recognition, fingerprinting, individual manner of walking and speaking, skeletal structure, eye-scans, and so on.

Our very bodies betray us to the state, in that “enemies” possess physical traits that are markedly different from those that support, comply and agree with the state. Thus, enemies of the state actually possess different faces, postures, speech, mannerisms, gait – which clearly marks them off from the “friendlies” of the state. In other words, in the process of mass surveillance of crowds, enemies can easily be identified.

Such is the grim message that Parsa meticulously lays out; and he identifies China as the foremost user of such anti-human technology. This is obvious, given the idea that China follows in its understanding of what a human being is – nothing more than bio-mass.

Aside from the well-known harvesting of organs from citizens that have been tagged as unfit to live in the “ideal China” (and the trade in such organs is brisk and highly profitable), China also has far grander ambitions. With the help of the big-tech corporations, it has gathered, or is in the process of gathering, bio-metric data of over 6 billion people on this planet.

This means that China now knows, for example, who belongs in the military, police, national security, academia, the government, as well as who belongs to which private sector. And it can also identify who are the friendlies within other nations, and which are enemies. Given the fact that humanity is bio-mass, if any mistakes get made and friendlies get killed by the state – it matters little, so long as the goals of the state continue to be achieved.

Using biometrics, Parsa also details how his own company analyzed one-thousand members of big-tech corporations and one-thousand high-profile media personalities, journalists and reporters. His conclusion was that they are all actively promoting the interests of China; they are friendlies.

If Parsa’s biometric data is correct (and if we assume that data does not lie), then his conclusions must come as a resopunding alarm bell, because those who manage how we receive information have entirely bought into the Chinese model of governance – and the Chinese understanding of humanity.

Next, Parsa details the weaponization of AI by China. This means that through the AI operating system, deep learning and machine learning, human-tracking technologies easily become human-targeting methodologies, where a mass-kill of humans can be done quickly and efficiently.

As a frightening example, Parsa details one current project of the Chinese – the tagging of “House Christians,” or those Christians who refuse to follow the party-approved “church” in which President Xi is given status equal to Christ.

These House Christians have had their biometrics recorded, and this data is then used to identity other House Christians in the general population. This means that the Chinese state recognizes as a fact that Christians look, walk, talk, and generally carry themselves differently from the larger, non-Christian population. The companies engaged in this surveillance are Huawei, Megvii Face++, Sensetime and several others, Parsa tells us.

The purpose of identifying Christians is not only to determine dissidents, but to tag them for organ harvesting – and they can be picked up anytime and rendered.

This is far more than execution. Given that in China humans are bio-mass, the state can remove, without any qualms, people deemed incompatible with, and not fit to live in, Chinese society. And those thus removed are made useful by way of their body parts. Thus, their kidneys, hearts, cornea, livers, lungs and other components are harvested and sold in the international market. Or, “medical tourists” come and receive whatever transplants that they need.

China has been doing such “harvests” for the past fifteen years, with anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 organs harvested in each of those years. Tagged Christians are treated like livestock on the hoof, in that they are kept alive until their organs are needed.

Parsa’s research further shows that there are about 500 Chinese and 600 western AI and tech companies engaged in such collection and categorizing of biometric data, which is gathered by way of smart phones, IoT, automated vehicles, virtual reality, mixed reality, augmented reality, holograms, surveillance grids, and smart cities.

All this information has created a vast human-bio-digital network, wherein humans are connected to machines by way of the Internet and who can then be managed effectively. This means that people are tagged, classified, and their information stored for later use, as they walk about, unawares, on the street, or even as they carry on their private lives inside their own homes. Such AI reach is made possible by G5 and soon G6 technology, which China is rapidly expanding.

Again, given its understanding of humanity, it matters little if G5 and G6 pose a great health risk to people. Indeed, even now, China uses biometric data not only to gather and process individuals tagged for organ harvesting, but to construct vast concentration camps, where individuals are placed for eventual processing. Thus, China carries out the greatest amount of surveillance in its cities. And the same tagging process is being used to identify Hong Kong protesters.

China is also developing “micro-bots,” or “micro-drones,” also known as, Robo-Bees, or Slaughterbots, which are tiny, and insect-like, and which gather data by way of Lidar, facial recognition, and heat-body-motion detection.

These micro-bots have full spatial awareness and can be used for human targeting, in which case they can deliver lethal doses of poison with a quick jab. They can also be trained to swarm and carry out mass attacks on large crowds. Parsa suggests that China is actively using such technology against the United States, and that he has advised the current Trump-administration about this surveillance.

In his third book, Artificial Intelligence. Dangers to Humanity, Parsa fully engages with robotics, and issues an open challenge to the various high-tech firms that are intent on developing capabilities which will lead to profound anti-human outcomes. Taking the lead in this development is China’s robotic and cyborg program, whose sole purpose is the control of all humanity on this planet.

Parsa rightly points out that China has only been able to advance so much in technology because of outright theft (it has sophisticated methods of stealing the latest innovations), tech espionage, forced tech transfers, open-source sharing, and outright collaboration with western companies.

In Parsa’s estimation, China has roughly 1000 new tech startups each day. Some of the things these new companies are developing include robotics, cybernetics, wearable AI surveillance gear, deep fake apps that are easily weaponized, IoT, smart phones, drones, and AI weapons (in which the Chinese military is particularly active). The goal is to record the biometrics of every human being on this planet, a task that is not hard to do, as many might imagine, despite the vast numbers. In fact, AI is built for precisely such massive data.

It is this technology-theft and espionage that has led to the recent Huawei affair. Parsa states that the goal of China is to dominate and control AI and the entirety of the global digital system; and one of the programs that Huawei is implementing is a robot police force, which can effectively track down and quarantine a person who has been tagged for such treatment by the Chinese state.

Huawei is also a Chinese vanguard organization, well-established in over 170 countries, where it creates and manages digital infrastructure. This means that their technology is now being used by 3 billion people, which is a third of the planet’s population. Their network effectively tracks, spies on and controls financial networks and even entire populations. That is vast reach. In fact, Huawei is implementing China’s larger global goals – the domination of financial and political infrastructures of the entire planet, and then the transformation of these infrastructures into one seamless and massive AI digital mega-brain – all run from somewhere in China.

But it is humanoid robotics that holds a special interest for China, in which it is investing a lot of its energy. The end-game of this pursuit is the creation of autonomous weapons, a cyborg army, which can be programmed to kill certain types of humans who have been tagged for elimination. All this is for a very old dream – China wants to be the master of the world.

Then, there is China’s leading role in creating sexbots (which also gather data and transmit it to a centralized system). Such robots are becoming more and more lifelike, and their demand is increasing. Of course, this is also weaponized sexuality, for it is solitary self-gratification, which negates the very idea of love between two human beings, and rather quickly undermines human worth.

Perhaps the question that the rest of need to ask is a simple one – why has the West (which created all this technology in the first place) allow China to become so powerful? And why is a country, which is a clear threat to the West, being empowered still?

The answers to these two questions return us to the original ones asked earlier. The West is confused about how it should understand the human being. Some in power (high-tech companies, the media, Hollywood, politicians) want to follow the Chinese definition. Others are not so sure. And only a minority, it would appear, vehemently reject such classification. This is the real culture war.

And, as an active participant in this culture war, Parsa has taken another unusual step. He has commenced the largest lawsuit of this century by charging corporations, politicians, the media, and banks, under Article 3 of the Genocide Convention, for complicity in the mass murder of humanity. This is a bold step and it will be interesting to see where it leads – whether it is dismissed as frivolous by the courts, or whether it actually gains its sea-legs and proceeds further (as it rightly should).

Whatever the outcome of this lawsuit, Parsa has set a worthy example to us all. His three books are a wake-up call – and the time now has come that we take back our humanity – before we lose it to Chinese and tech tyranny.

But to do so, we must first demand that our politicians be pro-human. We must stop believing in all the anti-human ideologies that now hold sway (such as, environmentalism, transgenderism, abortion, euthanasia). Our strange love of such attitudes and outlooks can only lead to destruction.

We must reject the madness that is environmentalism, because it is simply Neo-Malthusian eugenics. We must demand that a “China Divestment Policy” be implemented, whereby each nation is freed from reliance on cheap Chinese labor (for the Chinese state has enslaved its own population). And most important of all, we must stop being so darned agreeable and compliant when it comes to our own future. The boldness shown by Parsa is much-needed. Let us get behind a cause that really matters – humanity first! A good place to start is the Lethal Autonomous Weapons Pledge.

The image shows a poster for the film, Metropolis, from 1927.

Of Universities And Soul-Murder

Have universities gone the way of the spittoon? Does anyone still need them? Why do students go into mountains of debt to keep these institutions in business? What do they offer that is worth so much investment?

There are countless explanations and discussions seeking to demarcate the nature of higher education in our time. The vast majority of them can be boiled down to two arguments.

First, there’s the call for more or better funding because universities aren’t doing enough, aren’t inclusive enough. More cash might put “education” right. Of course, no one explains what “enough” really means.

The second argument seeks to align higher education with supposed market needs, where degrees become “jobful.”

“Jobful” being that seamless fusion of education and guaranteed future employment – you go to college so you can get a job.

Both of these arguments, however, labor under an unquestioned assumption – that society still actually needs what colleges and universities continue to supply.

But it’s precisely this given, this uncritically accepted supposition that must be thoroughly questioned. Has higher education gone off the rails?

First, what do students pay for when they go to get higher education?

The most popular courses are the Humanities, which do everything but worry about humanity, let alone employment. Their focus is political training of the youth, which they do by offering:

  • A Marxist-postmodernist mindset. Literature, history, philosophy, and all of the many distortions of these once noble disciplines (such as, sociology, anthropology, gender studies, political science, cultural studies, communications, media studies, psychology, and so on) – are all taught by way of a deep anti-west prejudice.
  • A professoriate that is radically left-wing, which holds up socialism as the great tool by and through which utopia is to be built. Little do they realize that if they actually succeed in bringing such a utopia about, they would be the first ones lynched from the nearest lamppost, since they all belong to the highly privileged 1 percent.
  • A plethora of so-called “applied courses,” which supposedly “prepare” graduates for immediate employment. The reality is far harsher. Most graduates with such degrees end up as retreads (those forever taking yet more courses to get a job). How many journalists does society need? How many lawyers? How many social workers? How many MBAs?
  • A vicious cycle of poverty, as graduates struggle to manage huge student debts. Is training in Marxist ideology worth it?

This is truly soul-murder.

Humanities remain the bread-and-butter of higher education, since that is where the majority of the students end up. This “education” strips the graduate of all independence of thought, rendering him/her an atomized creature.

The universities know these humanities degrees are worthless, which mold individuals to live in perpetual conflict with society, since said society will always fail to live up to the socialist ideals of the collective, the all-powerful political machine, high taxes, and the expansion of the working poor,

Isn’t it about time that people saw through this scam? Do parents really want their children becoming some version of the Social Justice Warrior?

On the other hand, there are also the sciences, which are often divided into two types:

  • Theoretical science (mathematics, physics, astronomy), which seeks to add to scientific knowledge, and which often has no immediate practical application.
  • Practical or empirical science (health, chemistry, biology), which investigates cause-and-effect in nature in order to devise solutions for various problems.

The sciences have retained their traditional role, because they cannot do without discipline, merit, and talent. There is no postmodernist leveling of the playing field here.

Thus, the sciences have not abandoned truth (though this does not mean that attempts have not been made).

That said, “jobfulness” has infected the sciences also, so that theoretical science now takes a backseat to empirical science. Students would rather be doctors or pharmaceutical researchers than mathematicians or astronomers.

Theoretical knowledge has been made subordinate to instrumentalism, so that ideas are only important if they have direct, practical application. Utility is greater than wisdom, and thinking has declined.

Although science has remained true to its root, it is ultimately inadequate to care for the complexities of life, because it cannot answer any questions concerning the soul.

Thus, “jobfulness” creates soullessness in higher education.

Is there not a deep hunger for the good in life? To live a good life is to possess that soul-wisdom which gives you happiness, even in an empty room.

There is this story told of Stilpo the philosopher. When his city of Megara was captured by the Macedonians, their king, out of respect for the philosopher, offered him compensation for the loss of property. But Stilpo refused, saying that no one had carried off his learning, no one had taken away that which made him a man.

Education is not about acquiring physical things – it is about possessing a treasure that cannot rust, that cannot be looted, that cannot be lost. Education is a treasure of the soul.

Human beings need good ideas, because life is inherently about the practice of goodness. If you do not know how to practice your individual goodness within the larger goodness of society, you will be lost, you will be disgruntled, you will be unfulfilled, because without goodness, you cannot be human.

Goodness alone defines us, because it gives us value in this world.

Understanding and developing your goodness into maturity is the true purpose of education, either in the Humanities or the sciences. This is what once made education invaluable to life.

But the education of today has nothing to do with goodness, and therefore it has become profoundly anti-human. All it can offer is nihilism.

The professors have prostituted themselves to falsehoods and lies – that is why they can only speak about “social justice” (which is nothing other than that old Marxist fable about the “redistribution of wealth”).

These professors have no wisdom to offer their students, since they have no goodness to call their own. They only know the grisly tussle of politics, and what they preach they themselves do not want – otherwise, they would have long rushed to the few Marxist “paradises” that still remain on the earth. They proclaim Marxist austerity for all, while being paid by the prosperity of capitalism.

Of course, tenured faculty remain the most privileged group in society.

Universities are also severe socialist enclaves, maintained within a free society, paid for by the free market, which are given free license to murder the souls of the youth with nihilism. Why?

Why do we continue to maintain these Moloch-institutions?

Where is the outrage from parents, especially, given the high cost in actual dollars that every student has to incur in order to offer up their souls for slaughter?

We need to begin judging universities harshly. We must reject their appeal to expertise, because they have none. The Humanities, as taught today, have nothing to do with expertise. They have everything to do with brainwashing.

This tyranny of the education-industrial-complex needs to be broken, because nothing can reform it, given its strength and its backers (who have their own agendas).

Should it not be the concern of every parent to keep the minds and souls of their children safe from the wounding and destruction that the universities offer?

Here are some ways to move forward:

  • Seek out only those institutions that conform to the moral values of your family. They certainly exist. Here are some of them: New Saint Andrews College, Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, Our Lady Seat Of Wisdom College, Wyoming Catholic College, and there are a few others.
  • Do not automatically send your children off to university, as if that is an ultimate good which will benefit your child. There are other options.
  • Pool resources and start creating your own institutions of higher learning. This is not impossible to do. It only requires persistence and determination. There are enough disgruntled professors out there who are always looking for ways to escape the tyranny of their universities. Take the next step after home-schooling.
  • Remember, all colleges and universities exist because of the goodwill of the people. Remove this goodwill and these oppressive institutions will fall. Every sensible parent should work to bring about the fall of these modern-day Babylons.
  • Withhold your tax contribution earmarked for public education. Give this money to those institutions which conform to your values. This requires courage, but it’s important to dry up the money flowing into these institutions.

The higher education-industry-complex exists in opposition to your society, and to your civilization. Isn’t it time to dismantle it?

A few words on education itself, since it’s important to have a proper understanding of it in this age of mass confusion.

Walter Lippmann made this crucial observation many years ago: “We have established a system of education in which we insist that while everyone must be educated, yet there is nothing in particular that an educated man should know.”

This is the dilemma of the entire modern educational system – the insistence on education for all, without any explanation of what education should be. It is truly the blind leading the blind.

Before the fog of postmodernism, education was about building the good human being. Yes, good. Not the efficient human being, not the compliant human being, not the robotic, party-member human being – but the good human being.

This meant that education was about the care of the soul, which is the practice of self-discipline and integrity, which is the nurturing of restraint within freedom, which is using wisdom to fashion understanding, which is living within the bounds of obligation and responsibility.

How many times do we hear, “I am proud to…, I am proud of….” How little (perhaps never) do we hear the phrase, “I am humbled to…, I am humbled by….” This readiness to display pride, this inability to declare humility is the greatest failing of higher education dished out by the education-industry-complex.

Only through the efforts of parents will education again be aligned to its true root, which is morality, as found in the wisdom of Greece and Rome and Judea. This is the root that nourished western civilization, a civilization which has become the desire of all the world.

In other words, western civilization cannot be anything other than Christian. If we move towards a post-Christian mind-set, then our societies will be cut off from the root and will become everything but civilized and everything but western.

Is it right that we should let this civilization be destroyed by the tyranny of the university elite, who care nothing for the souls of their students?

Let us finally start afresh and return education to its true purpose.

The English philosopher, A.N. Whitehead observed: “The essence of education is that it be religious ….A religious education is an education which inculcates duty and reverence ….The foundation of reverence is this perception, that the present holds within itself the complete sum of existence, backwards and forwards, that whole amplitude of time, which is eternity.”

Higher education needs to return to its true root, which is the care of the soul. Once we understand how to care for the soul, only then can we know how to educate our children, who can then walk into life and build the good world.


The photo shows, “Sunday Reading At Country School,” 1895, by Nikolay Bogdanov-Belsky.