The Beast System & The god of Technology

Psalm27

Robin
Gold Member

Here is something I believe the Holy Spirit has revealed to me and others like Brother Werks from the video above.

We humans are being herded into invisible cages where we are enslaved through the lusts of the flesh and the desires of the mind.

The carrot is that you can eat as much junk food, watch as much TV and play as much video games as you want, while also having casual intercourse through various means.

The stick is that you stand to lose this comfortable lifestyle of mindless consumerism if you go against the system. Roosh has certainly experienced both sides of the coin.

But there's more parts to this world wide human farming system. For example almost everyone carries networked GPS locators with microphones 24/7, AKA smartphones. These smartphones can not only record your location and audio through mic, but also your habits and personality through your usage of the device and various apps.

As a former post office worker, my trainer told me that he knew an awful lot about people just based on the mail they were getting, who was having financial problems, who was getting divorced etc. Now imagine how much Google or Facebook know about everyone of their users.

But it goes further than just a global human cattle farm for capitalist profit incentives. It seems to me that satan wants to make himself like the Most High, and on Earth he is seeking to do that through digital technology. In the future faster data links with 5G and artificial intelligence supercomputers could make all this manageable by a single person, the Anti-Christ. Kind of like a fly-by-wire system in jet aircraft.

How and why would people give all their power to this artificial intelligence system? Right now we are seeing a global "new humanist" religious movement taking place, spearheaded by the Catholic Church. This is a movement that seeks to "unite" the worlds religions and have "consensus" to fight "climate change" and protect "our common home". But really what it is doing is rejecting the Truth, which is that Jesus Christ is Lord and the God of the Bible is the One True Living God.

Check out the video above for more information on this subject.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
As requested, moving the conversation to a more appropriate ground.

And I apologize in advance for how long this reply will be.

911 said:
ilostabet said:
As you well know 911, the oligarchs promote good things mixed with bad things all the time. It's called poisoning the well. As for survival of current population, there is enough space for every one to have a small farm, capable of sustaining themselves. I never said everyone should go back to hunter gathering, that is you putting words in my mouth. Particularly, I don't believe we should go back to it because, unlike darwinistic Christians, I don't believe in the myth of 'pre-history' that we were cavemen. We became cavemen as we lost knowledge. We were originally, and as God intended, agriculturalists, tenders of nature - not exploiters, which hunter gatherers also are, though their scope and destructive power is very limited. But in this equation, which would allow for most current population to survive, outside of the natural dealings of life and death, which we also have conquered with monstrous consequences, what we wouldn't have in such a world is an entertainment industry, computers, cars, advertisements, not knowing our neighbors, no noise pollution and no feminism - and so on and so forth. I don't consider any of that essential, and worse, I don't consider them conducive to the worship of God - quite the opposite, as it's patently clear to everyone who is not in denial about the nature of man, human history and a Biblical understanding of both.

By 1950 the city had transformed completely the countryside, not only by the relative moving of some industry to the country (which was not a dismantling of the bad sides of the city, it was a colonization of the country by urban life), but also by the constant push from country people to join the city. Again, all of this is well documented and all we have to do is look around to see it is still happening. Urban sprawl is perhaps the worst testament to this.

I am not a worshiper of nature, but I am also not a worshiper of the technical society, as many seem to be under the guise of 'muh standard of living'. But it is good to remember that God created nature, but the technical society is purely of our creation. So even the nature worshipers are closer to the truth than those who put their faith in the products of man's hands. I am a worshiper of the God who put man in a garden to tend to it, and whose rebellion led to expulsion from it, and then further rebellion led to the creation of cities and all that go with it - which is, at the best of times, at least a highly volatile and sometimes morally ambiguous economic center, like in the middle ages, but at the worst of times, which is the vast majority of history, it is the place of godlessness, rebellion, slavery and war. So I won't support even a not-so-moderate, intermediary step like the 1950s in Western Countries because, unless I chose to close my eyes to the suffering of other people to my people's benefit, the fact is that it was only possible with the exploitation of early industrialism being exported to third world countries after having ravaged through our own countries. The violence ceased to be in our sight (and of course, because there was nothing more to destroy, the technical society had conquered our countries already). But to sustain itself, it had to go elsewhere. And it still does. The industrial society of today is still achieved through violence and subjugation of populations, including child slavery.

I had a thought recently when reading the Bible, when I noticed that throughout both the New and the Old Testament God's words and actions toward cities are very, very harsh, all the time. And it's weird because, just as we can say now that the countryside is mostly an expansion of the city, in those eras the cities were very limited in their scope and in many ways they were still an expansion of the countryside. But God's judgement of them seems to ignore this fact, like he knew the juggernaut that they would become, the crowded spaces in which man is forever alone, the ecological desiquilibrium ever more encroaching, the baby towers of Babel raised everywhere, the waste, the vileness, the godlessness. What I realized is that God was showing us already the disaster of what putting our faith in our inventions, of which the most symbolic is the city, would lead to - even if we would only be able understand it many centuries later. Child drag queens, obese polyamorous women, soy boys and cat ladies is what it leads to. And on top of the city Satan laughs, because he knows that while man is trapped there, amidst the noise and the distractions that it provides, with his survival assured without effort and his brow never feeling the wet of sweat, he has them permanently under his thumb.

***

911, I read your post again and I realized where our disagreement comes from. It's not even disagreement, just misalignment.

It's because we are not talking about the same thing. When you say the oligarchs want this and that, I really don't care. That is not what I'm aiming at.

When you say that de-industrialization is a form of control, when the industrialization was itself a product of oligarchy to control the lives of previously free people, clearly we are not talking about the same thing. When you say that returning to traditional agriculture would induce artificial poverty, it almost makes me laugh, because it would only induce natural poverty. What we have is artificial wealth.

I have absolutely no desire to reform the system. But I also don't believe it can be tore down. That would be hubris, the same sin that created it in the first place. Only God can do it. And it should go without saying that when I advocate for a return to tradition, I am not saying that I want most people to go back but leave all the wealth and technology to the oligarchs. Although I do think from Christian history, that it is in times of hardship that grace shines through more brightly. But regardless, what I am interested in is not a social program, but God's design.

I am making a theological argument, based on what we know from Scripture of God's revelation to man. And if God's revelation of how we were made to be and to live conflicts with a social improvement program for modern times, I shall more boldly reject modern times, not God's word. In other words, I don't think God wants better urbanism, a humane form of industrialization if that is possible (which I don't think it is), or a better social and political organization that atenuates the consequences of technical supremacy that is required for advanced civilization to exist. I think God wants us to live in a different world altogether, as seems to be the message of His revelation.

If I am theologically incorrect, if man's creation of the city is not rebellion, if the city is not the paramount example of that rebellion, and if God's vengeance and wrath towards the city is not the true story, I would like to know it. But the message seems clear enough, from Genesis to Revelation, that even when the coming Kingdom is a kingdom, and it is a city, it is God's city, not man's. It is not made out of our capacity, but God's appropriation of our doings, and transforming it to his purpose, the same way He did with Christ, conquering the death we brought into the world, and turning it in to glory.
Thanks for the response ILAB. Like Rheiner said, it's a bit of a wrong thread for elaborate thoughts that will quickly scroll away, but roughly, technology in a small business-oriented society (or even a large business in a non-usury monetary structure) is entirely compatible with Christian thought. It is for example a central aspect of the Benedictine order, whose motto is Oro et Labore.

Technology goes hand in hand with labor, there are many example of societies that have thrived under it, from the middle ages to the Jesuits in Paraguay to the 1950s West or 1970s Japan or 1990s Korea.

The modern problems are not directly due to technology, they stem from the amplification of social problems through technology, and not technology itself, and to the oligarchs pushing capital over labor in the neoliberal framework.

That's how you get feminism, lost women working, open borders, migrant replacements, etc. In the 1950s-60s technology enabled a single worker to raise a family on his salary. Technology/productivity and family welfare/purchasing power go hand in hand.

Feel free to quote this and reply in a separate thread, otherwise our effert here is wasted in an ephemeral thread.

I am absolutely in disagreement that Japan or Korea are good examples of societies where advanced technology brings benefits – the opposite, in fact. If anything they are extreme examples of what the advanced technology system does to a people. But I am not particularly interested in exploring those examples. If you do not see how destructive it is and how it is inextricably linked to the technological world, then I doubt anything I would point out will make a difference.

So I will go another route.

First, we’re not talking about technology in general, we’re talking specifically about modern technology in particular.

Theologically Adam and Eve’s covering was the first technology, and it was a direct result of the Fall. Before that, they were in perfect sync with nature. That is no longer the case, no matter what we do – we can no longer survive just as God made us, because the world is tainted with death, brought by the Fall. So in order to survive we must use some technology. That is a given. But it doesn’t erase the fact that technology came about as a direct result of the Fall; that there are spiritual implications to this; and that it’s not like there is no qualitative difference between locally-sourced, non-mass produced, technology like a horse and buggy and something like the car.

While it’s true that a car is used for the same purpose as a horse we can already see the absurdity in asserting that a car is merely a faster horse, requiring no special attention and that we can apply the same analytic framework, and the same concern, to both.

First, and focusing only on the improvement in speed as a distinction, it is clear that there is a qualitative difference on that principle alone – akin to the difference between medicine and poison. The substance may be the same, but the key is in the amount. Unless we are prepared to change language, and abolish the word medicine, or the word poison, we cannot say in the same way that a car is merely a faster horse. A car is a completely, qualitatively, different beast, with very different implications.

Neither the horse, nor any of the other pre-industrial modes of transportation, has brought upon a complete revolution of space the way the train, the automobile or the plane have done; none has completely transformed urban spaces, nor created a new environment in the suburb, nor have they changed the nature of the countryside. But the industrial modes of transportation have done this, quickly and violently, and continue to do so.

Furthermore, pre-industrial modes of transportation could be, and were, assembled and repaired within a local community – they were self-contained not only in their implications, but in their requirements for existence. There was no need for international cooperation, no need for large capital investment, no need for factories and industrial masses, and all the rest that is necessary to produce cars, trains and planes.

The car is a product of globalism, not of localism. It is the product of utilitarianism, scientific absolutism and technical supremacy – as is the industrial system as a whole. None of the technology produced by the industrial system could be accomplished within a world which does not place material concerns above all others, which is self-contained within a local community and which does not sacrifice the local community to the development of the system.

And this is merely one example of a qualitatively different technology of the industrial world from previous technologies aimed at the same goal. The same observations could be made about communication technologies, or any other. Their removal from ‘traditional’ or ‘natural’ technologies follows the exact same pattern.

You like to point out the plans of the oligarchs, but you don’t acknowledge that the move to industrial production was (and still is in poorer countries) a purely oligarchical move, and in fact, the industrial system is itself an oligarch-producing machine, just as a mass worker/mass consumer producing machine.

The industrial revolution was not a clean ordeal, nor a natural occurrence. We are told that workers flocked to the factories, but we are not told that their previous way of life was violently destroyed by the power of the State for the benefit of moneyed industrialists. Oligarchs of the day published numerous pamphlets to distribute in their circles decrying the freedom, the leisure time and the autonomy of both independent artisans and peasants, which decided on their own time and amount of work, and in the materialist worldview of the industrialists wasted hours of labor that could be spent producing more, despite their production being perfectly suited to their needs.

We only have to give a passing look into what the oligarchs published and circulated at the time to know their real intentions:

“It would be easier, where property is well secured, to live without money than without poor; for who would do the work? … As they ought to be kept from starving, so they should receive nothing worth saving. If here and there one of the lowest class by uncommon industry, and pinching his belly, lifts himself above the condition he was brought up in, nobody ought to hinder him; …but it is the interest of all rich nations, that the greatest part of the poor should almost never be idle, and yet continually spend what they get… Those that get their living by their daily labour… have nothing to stir them up to be serviceable but their wants which it is prudence to relieve, but folly to cure… To make the society happy and people easier under the meanest circumstances, it is requisite that great numbers of them should be ignorant as well as poor..”. [Mandeville, Fable of the Bees]

“That mankind in general, are naturally inclined to ease and indolence, we fatally experience to be true, from the conduct of our manufacturing populace, who do not labour, upon an average, above four days in a week, unless provisions happen to be very dear… I hope I have said enough to make it appear that the moderate labour of six days in a week is no slavery… But our populace have adopted a notion, that as Englishmen they enjoy a birthright privilege of being more free and independent than in any country in Europe. Now this idea, as far as it may affect the bravery of our troops, may be of some use; but the less the manufacturing poor have of it, certainly the better for themselves and for the State. The labouring people should never think themselves independent of their superiors… It is extremely dangerous to encourage mobs in a commercial state like ours, where, perhaps, seven parts out of eight of the whole, are people with little or no property. The cure will not be perfect, till our manufacturing poor are contented to labour six days for the same sum which they now earn in four days”. [“Essay on Trade and Commerce” (1770)]

“…the use of common land by labourers operates upon the mind as a sort of independence.” [The Board of Agriculture report in Shropshire (1794)]

“[Among] the greatest of evils to agriculture would be to place the labourer in a state of independence”. [Gloucestershire Survey (1807)]

And they had (just like now) the full support of the state in destroying the old freedoms, lands and ways of life of artisans, farmers and monasteries. Arguing that this is what a Christian should support is absurd. The industrialists were able to destroy the freedom, autonomy and leisure of the common people by lobbying states to 1) privatize the commons, where cattle grazed freely and had done so for centuries, therefore destroying a major source of protein for the poor; 2) by revoking feudal obligations from the Lords, but maintaining them for the subjects, completely changing the power equilibrium that had existed since the Middle Ages; and 3) by stealing Church property and forcibly closing monasteries, thereby creating a mass of people with no means of sustenance, to be driven by utter despair and hunger to work in factories; and 4) by destroying the local markets with cheaply produced goods by what humanists would today call slave labor. Only after this, were artisans and peasants driven to the factories. To say that these men freely chose the factory over their old ways of life would be the same as to say that a young child freely chose to starve because his parents have died.

And let’s not fall into another trap, which is to acknowledge the bloody and violent nature of this initial industrial period but to say that it is over, that regulations have been imposed, that all the problems have been overcome in our contemporary times. This could not be further from the truth: in fact, the same destruction and coercion still goes on, it is merely happening in other parts of the world other than Europe. Industrial slave labor, including child slave labor, is still a major feature of the industrial world. The only thing we can say is that we are reaching a point of another qualitative change, in which automation will be widespread, and the people that have been used and abused by the system will be discarded summarily and left to starve, or – in the countries of Europe which practice a fake charity – will be given a monthly payment from the State, reducing them to mere consumers with no stake in reality and no reason to exist.

In other words, it is a system based on violence. It can’t be based on anything else other than exploitation. That is the essence of large systems in general, and of course of this system which is the largest ever devised. It is really a reenactment of the Tower of Babel, with not one but several common languages (a worldwide monetary system, a worldwide profit motive, programming languages and so on). And no surprise of course because having been ushered by the oligarchs, which we know are into all kinds of luciferian ideals, makes all the sense. It is absurd to defend the first stage of the plan but then say that the later stages are not so good. But you don’t even seem to say that. You say that all stages are good, as long as they are steered in the right direction. This is like thinking you can reign in the demons like Christ did. It is conceit. We have no such power. And it is obvious our societies are riddled with demons, that it has fallen out of our control. But as I’ve shown, that was always the objective.

The monks from that one order you and EMJ always cite are not such a great example. First, I think they would not be so blind to the qualitative difference between the technology of the middle ages to the all-encompassing phenomenon of the technical society of industrialism and much less the phase we entered in the 90s, the ‘digital age’. Remember «all things are lawful, but not all things are useful». Do you think the monks would have smartphones and advocate for them? Ora et labora, sure, but only in so far as the labora part is not so technologically advanced that it detracts from the prayer. And in layman’s terms, that it detracts from a spiritual connection. How one can say the current technological environment, not just its mismanagement or misdirection or manipulation (which is true, but inevitable in such a system), leads to a richer spiritual life is delusion. Just look around. That’s all one seriously and honestly has to do.

And you will notice that this religious order is geographically where the technologically obsessed mentality sprung out, where scientism sprung out, where the protestant revolution came about and where the industrial revolution happened. All in the West. All under Catholicism - not Orthodox, Oriental or Coptic. No coincidence there in the least. No other Christians elevated work, and much less technology, to a higher concern. They were wrong, the rest of Christianity right. But as I wrote before, even they could not foresee the effects of some of their inventions, probably the most illustrative of all being the clock, which provided the tool to change man’s view of time from a God ordained order to a schedule to be exploited, and helped the oligarchs subjugate man to a working schedule for profit. Again, rationalization, efficiency, organization. This is not what Christ is about, is what Cain and Nimrod are about.

I actually don’t think those monks really had the love of technology you and EMJ claim they do. But if they did, it is extremely ironic that their orders were destroyed in order to make way for the factory. Poetic, even.

And as I wrote somewhere else in the forum, if we want to realize just how totalitarian the industrial system (and the more advanced it gets the worse) we just have to ask ourselves what has happened to one of the most basic premises of human existence: that of a father providing guidance to his sons about the world. Modern technology, with its rapidly changing environment, destroys this basic feature of human life. Parents are no longer capable of providing any guidance to the young with regards to the future. The only thing they know about the future and its requirements is that they will be radically different from the ones they endured. My own generation, the maligned Millennials, has had to adapt constantly to as many radical and revolutionary changes in the technological environment that took centuries in eras before the industrial revolution. ‘Future Shock’ is what someone once called it in the 1970s, and the speed of change in that decade was almost laughably slow compared to what it is now, because of the totalitarian nature of modern technology. All of our assumptions about life are uprooted, reality changed before our very eyes. Is it any surprise that parental authority over children has diminished to the point of being almost non existent? The old dynamic of the wisdom of the elders cannot survive in such a rapidly changing environment – and because every aspect of our society is tied to technology, those without a grasp of where it is and where it is going, have essentially no wisdom to impart. It renders one of the most basic commandments almost impossible: «Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honour your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land."» (Ephesians 6:1–2)

So it is absurd and almost offensive to say that the modern technological milieu isn’t any different from that of the Middle Ages, or even that of the Renaissance. It is one which shatters reality to bits every few years, a permanent revolution, the ultimate attack on basic human existence.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
911 said:
Thanks for the response ILAB. Like Rheiner said, it's a bit of a wrong thread for elaborate thoughts that will quickly scroll away, but roughly, technology in a small business-oriented society (or even a large business in a non-usury monetary structure) is entirely compatible with Christian thought. It is for example a central aspect of the Benedictine order, whose motto is Oro et Labore.
Ok I didn't read mr. bet's long answer yet, but still out of curiosity : you once said that europeans got their work ethic from the benedictine monasteries (something I obviously disagree with, but anyway) - how do you explain that the countries with the highest work ethic all turned protestant, while those with a lower work ethic stayed catholic ?
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
@ilostabet

Excellent post. And its noted that advanced technology is one of the keys in waging warfare. societies with superior technology tend to overcome less technological societies.

Romans vs Germanic peoples, The Civilized vs the Hunter-Gatherers.

Even the nomads who overcame civilization many times had superior technology in some respects like the compound bow and utilized experts of civilization(artisans, engineers, doctors) to gain the technological edge over civilization. They also tend to be absorbed by civilization.

However Gunpowder changed everything so the nomadic horsemen were overcome along with the superior organization of gunpowder armies.

I will not be surprised that the "Image of the Beast" may be demon possessed technology.

And AI will actually be Angelic Intelligence.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Oberrheiner said:
911 said:
Thanks for the response ILAB. Like Rheiner said, it's a bit of a wrong thread for elaborate thoughts that will quickly scroll away, but roughly, technology in a small business-oriented society (or even a large business in a non-usury monetary structure) is entirely compatible with Christian thought. It is for example a central aspect of the Benedictine order, whose motto is Oro et Labore.
Ok I didn't read mr. bet's long answer yet, but still out of curiosity : you once said that europeans got their work ethic from the benedictine monasteries (something I obviously disagree with, but anyway) - how do you explain that the countries with the highest work ethic all turned protestant, while those with a lower work ethic stayed catholic ?
It's more a matter of different nationalities and cultures than religious denomination. For example, the culture of work ethic in Germany is similar in German Catholic areas to that in Protestant ones:

[img=350x380]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Roman_catholics_germany_2012_de.svg[/img]

Same in Holland, the southeastern third of the country is predominantly Catholic, but there is no difference in work ethic there.

[img=270x330]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Nederlandgodsdienst1849.PNG[/img]

The Protestant schism happened nearly half a millennium after the Christianisation in Germany and in the rest of Europe, therefore the culture was shaped and die was cast many centuries before that.
 

Enigma

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Excellent posts by ilostabet.

I'd also point out that industrialization wasn't just imposed on a domestic level, it was imposed on an international one as well, as every society that tried to resist, whether Russia, China, or the American South, was destroyed. Not just beaten in a military conflict, but thoroughly and utterly ravaged on a societal and cultural level.

Of course, the usual globalist propaganda tries to portray these places as backwards and undeveloped, but old Russia and the old South were consciously agrarian.
 

ilostabet

Pelican

On-point video, documenting the push to "resurrect" dead people, including Jesus Christ, through modern technology, among other insane anti-human and anti-God ideas. The only good thing about these developments is that it will be impossible to claim anymore that technology is neutral. It is never neutral, because we are fallen creatures. And I think even the technological agnostics will be taken aback by the idea of trying to 'resurrect' dead people through technological means. It is literally trying to be God.

But this anti-human and luciferian aspect has always been present in the plans of the technical society, and these extreme iterations we are seeing (and living) now, and it has always been the end-goal of the technical society, of which industrialism was the first phase and 'transhumanism' is the last. It was always to abolish humanity, because we are not efficient enough. We need to be upgraded. We need to become 'gods' ourselves.

Jacques Ellul wrote about this exact thing in the early 60s and not many people listened, or if they did, they forgot - or they just chose to ignore it because it seemed so far away and the technical society at the time seemed tolerable, like we could pick and choose the good parts of it and leave out the bad. Well, not anymore. Specifically in the last chapter, 'A Look at the Future', it is speaking about the exact same things described in this video with eerie accuracy.

I'll leave you with the last few paragraphs of the book (sorry for the formatting):

«If we take a hard, unromantic look at the golden age itself, we
are struck with the incredible naivete of these scientists. They say,
for example, that they will be able to shape and reshape at will
human emotions, desires, and thoughts and arrive scientifically at
certain efficient, pre-established collective decisions. They claim
they will be in a position to develop certain collective desires, to
constitute certain homogeneous social units out of aggregates of
individuals, to forbid men to raise their children, and even to
persuade them to renounce having any. At the same time, they
speak of assuring the triumph of freedom and of the necessity of
avoiding dictatorship at any price.* They seem incapable of grasp-
ing the contradiction involved, or of understanding that what
they are proposing, even after the intermediary period, is in fact
the harshest of dictatorships. In comparison, Hitler’s was a trifling
affair. That it is to be a dictatorship of test tubes rather than of
hobnailed boots will not make it any less a dictatorship.

When our savants characterize their golden age in any but scien-
tific terms, they emit a quantity of down-at-the-heel platitudes that
would gladden the heart of the pettiest politician. Let’s take a few
samples. “To render human nature nobler, more beautiful, and
more harmonious.” What on earth can this mean? What criteria,
what content, do they propose? Not many, I fear, would be able
to reply. “To assure the triumph of peace, liberty, and reason,”
Fine words with no substance behind them. ‘‘To eliminate cultural
lag ” What culture? And would the culture they have in mind be
able to subsist in this harsh social organization? “To conquer outer
space.” For what purpose? The conquest of space seems to be an
end in itself, which dispenses with any need for reflection.

We are forced to conclude that our scientists are incapable of
any but the emptiest platitudes when they stray from their special-
ties. It makes one think back on the collection of mediocrities ac-
cumulated by Einstein when he spoke of God, the state, peace, and
the meaning of life. It is clear that Einstein, extraordinary mathe-
matical genius that he was, was no Pascal; he knew nothing of
political or human reality, or, in fact, anything at all outside his
mathematical reach. The banality of Einstein s remarks in matters
outside his specialty is as astonishing as his genius within it. It
seems as though the specialized application of all one’s faculties in
a particular area inhibits the consideration of things in general.
Even J. Robert Oppenheimer, who seems receptive to a general
culture, is not outside this judgment. His political and social dec-
larations, for example, scarcely go beyond the level of those of the
man in the street. And the opinions of the scientists quoted by
V Express are not even on the level of Einstein or Oppenheimer.
Their pomposities, in fact, do not rise to the level of the average.
They are vague generalities inherited from the nineteenth century,
and the fact that they represent the furthest limits of thought of our
scientific worthies must be symptomatic of arrested development
or of a mental block. Particularly disquieting is the gap between
the enormous power they wield and their critical ability, which
must be estimated as null. To wield power well entails a certain
faculty of criticism, discrimination, judgment, and option. It is im-
possible to have confidence in men who apparently lack these
faculties. Yet it is apparently our fate to be facing a “golden age”
in the power of sorcerers who are totally blind to the meaning of
the human adventure. When they speak of preserving the seed of
outstanding men, whom, pray, do they mean to be the judges. It
is clear, alas, that they propose to sit in judgment themselves. It is
hardly likely that they will deem a Rimbaud or a Nietszche worthy
of posterity. When they announce that they will conserve the
genetic mutations which appear to them .most favorable, and that
they propose to modify the very germ cells in order to produce
such and such traits; and when we consider the mediocrity of the
scientists themselves outside the confines of their specialties, we
can only shudder at the thought of what they will esteem most
“favorable.”

None of our wise men ever pose the question of the end of all
their marvels. The “wherefore” is resolutely passed by. The re-
sponse which would occur to our contemporaries is: for the sake
of happiness. Unfortunately, there is no longer any question of
that One of our best-known specialists in diseases of the nervous
system writes: “We will be able to modify man’s emotions, desires
and thoughts, as we have already done in a rudimentary way with
tranquillizers,” It will be possible, says our specialist to produce a
conviction or an impression of happiness without any real basis
for it. Our man of the golden age, therefore, will be capable of
“happiness” amid the worst privations. Why, then, promise us
extraordinary comforts, hygiene, knowledge, and nourishment if,
by simply manipulating our nervous systems, we can be happy
without them? The last meager motive we could possibly ascribe to
the technical adventure thus vanishes into thin air through the very
existence of technique itself.

But what good is it to pose questions of motives? of Why? All that
must be the work of some miserable intellectual who balks at tech-
nical progress. The attitude of the scientists, at any rate, is clear.
Technique exists because it is technique. The golden age will be
because it will be. Any other answer is superfluous.
»
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
ilostabet said:

On-point video, documenting the push to "resurrect" dead people, including Jesus Christ, through modern technology, among other insane anti-human and anti-God ideas. The only good thing about these developments is that it will be impossible to claim anymore that technology is neutral. It is never neutral, because we are fallen creatures. And I think even the technological agnostics will be taken aback by the idea of trying to 'resurrect' dead people through technological means. It is literally trying to be God.

But this anti-human and luciferian aspect has always been present in the plans of the technical society, and these extreme iterations we are seeing (and living) now, and it has always been the end-goal of the technical society, of which industrialism was the first phase and 'transhumanism' is the last. It was always to abolish humanity, because we are not efficient enough. We need to be upgraded. We need to become 'gods' ourselves.

Jacques Ellul wrote about this exact thing in the early 60s and not many people listened, or if they did, they forgot - or they just chose to ignore it because it seemed so far away and the technical society at the time seemed tolerable, like we could pick and choose the good parts of it and leave out the bad. Well, not anymore. Specifically in the last chapter, 'A Look at the Future', it is speaking about the exact same things described in this video with eerie accuracy.
This is a Satanic imitation of the resurrection bodies promised by Christ:

20But our citizenship is in heaven, and we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables Him to subject all things to Himself, will transform our lowly bodies to be like His glorious body.
Phillipians 3:20-21 BSB



39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-15/
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
ilostabet said:
Jacques Ellul wrote about this exact thing in the early 60s and not many people listened, or if they did, they forgot - or they just chose to ignore it because it seemed so far away and the technical society at the time seemed tolerable, like we could pick and choose the good parts of it and leave out the bad. Well, not anymore. Specifically in the last chapter, 'A Look at the Future', it is speaking about the exact same things described in this video with eerie accuracy.

I'll leave you with the last few paragraphs of the book (sorry for the formatting):

«If we take a hard, unromantic look at the golden age itself, we
are struck with the incredible naivete of these scientists. They say,
for example, that they will be able to shape and reshape at will
human emotions, desires, and thoughts and arrive scientifically at
certain efficient, pre-established collective decisions. They claim
they will be in a position to develop certain collective desires, to
constitute certain homogeneous social units out of aggregates of
individuals, to forbid men to raise their children, and even to
persuade them to renounce having any. At the same time, they
speak of assuring the triumph of freedom and of the necessity of
avoiding dictatorship at any price.* They seem incapable of grasp-
ing the contradiction involved, or of understanding that what
they are proposing, even after the intermediary period, is in fact
the harshest of dictatorships. In comparison, Hitler’s was a trifling
affair. That it is to be a dictatorship of test tubes rather than of
hobnailed boots will not make it any less a dictatorship.

When our savants characterize their golden age in any but scien-
tific terms, they emit a quantity of down-at-the-heel platitudes that
would gladden the heart of the pettiest politician. Let’s take a few
samples. “To render human nature nobler, more beautiful, and
more harmonious.” What on earth can this mean? What criteria,
what content, do they propose? Not many, I fear, would be able
to reply. “To assure the triumph of peace, liberty, and reason,”
Fine words with no substance behind them. ‘‘To eliminate cultural
lag ” What culture? And would the culture they have in mind be
able to subsist in this harsh social organization? “To conquer outer
space.” For what purpose? The conquest of space seems to be an
end in itself, which dispenses with any need for reflection.

We are forced to conclude that our scientists are incapable of
any but the emptiest platitudes when they stray from their special-
ties. It makes one think back on the collection of mediocrities ac-
cumulated by Einstein when he spoke of God, the state, peace, and
the meaning of life. It is clear that Einstein, extraordinary mathe-
matical genius that he was, was no Pascal; he knew nothing of
political or human reality, or, in fact, anything at all outside his
mathematical reach. The banality of Einstein s remarks in matters
outside his specialty is as astonishing as his genius within it. It
seems as though the specialized application of all one’s faculties in
a particular area inhibits the consideration of things in general.
Even J. Robert Oppenheimer, who seems receptive to a general
culture, is not outside this judgment. His political and social dec-
larations, for example, scarcely go beyond the level of those of the
man in the street. And the opinions of the scientists quoted by
V Express are not even on the level of Einstein or Oppenheimer.
Their pomposities, in fact, do not rise to the level of the average.
They are vague generalities inherited from the nineteenth century,
and the fact that they represent the furthest limits of thought of our
scientific worthies must be symptomatic of arrested development
or of a mental block. Particularly disquieting is the gap between
the enormous power they wield and their critical ability, which
must be estimated as null. To wield power well entails a certain
faculty of criticism, discrimination, judgment, and option. It is im-
possible to have confidence in men who apparently lack these
faculties. Yet it is apparently our fate to be facing a “golden age”
in the power of sorcerers who are totally blind to the meaning of
the human adventure. When they speak of preserving the seed of
outstanding men, whom, pray, do they mean to be the judges. It
is clear, alas, that they propose to sit in judgment themselves. It is
hardly likely that they will deem a Rimbaud or a Nietszche worthy
of posterity. When they announce that they will conserve the
genetic mutations which appear to them .most favorable, and that
they propose to modify the very germ cells in order to produce
such and such traits; and when we consider the mediocrity of the
scientists themselves outside the confines of their specialties, we
can only shudder at the thought of what they will esteem most
“favorable.”

None of our wise men ever pose the question of the end of all
their marvels. The “wherefore” is resolutely passed by. The re-
sponse which would occur to our contemporaries is: for the sake
of happiness. Unfortunately, there is no longer any question of
that One of our best-known specialists in diseases of the nervous
system writes: “We will be able to modify man’s emotions, desires
and thoughts, as we have already done in a rudimentary way with
tranquillizers,” It will be possible, says our specialist to produce a
conviction or an impression of happiness without any real basis
for it. Our man of the golden age, therefore, will be capable of
“happiness” amid the worst privations. Why, then, promise us
extraordinary comforts, hygiene, knowledge, and nourishment if,
by simply manipulating our nervous systems, we can be happy
without them? The last meager motive we could possibly ascribe to
the technical adventure thus vanishes into thin air through the very
existence of technique itself.

But what good is it to pose questions of motives? of Why? All that
must be the work of some miserable intellectual who balks at tech-
nical progress. The attitude of the scientists, at any rate, is clear.
Technique exists because it is technique. The golden age will be
because it will be. Any other answer is superfluous.
»
I'm struck by the similarity of these sentiments to those interspersed throughout the novel of Jurassic Park, using Ian Malcolm as the mouthpiece character. As usual, he was the most popular character out of the series, brought back for both book and film despite basically having died in the original novel, and despite anyone actually listening to or acting on what he had to say.

The film, of course, whether out of runtime or knowing not to bite the hand that feeds it, skips most of this except for the one line about how the scientists were so entranced with the idea that they could do something they never stopped to think whether they should.

The book gives the scientific community both barrels. Scientists and engineers are thintelligent. They don't see the context, they don't see the consequences. And Crichton also has a couple of things to say about power:

You know what's wrong with scientific power?... It's a form of inherited wealth... Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power. There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years. Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual Guru. Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort. You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you. And once you have attained it, it is your power. It can't be given away: it resides in you. It is literally the result of your discipline. Now, what is interesting about this process is that, by the time someone has acquired the ability to his with his bare hands, he has also matured to the point where he won't use it unwisely. So that kind of power has a built-in control. The discipline of the getting the power changes you so that you won't abuse it. But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step... There is no discipline... no mastery: old scientists are ignored. There is no humility before nature... A karate master does not kill people with his bare hands. He does not lose his temper and kill his wife. The person who kills is the person who has no discipline, no restraint, and who has purchased his power in the form of a Saturday night special. And that is the kind of power that science fosters, and permits.
And indeed Crichton takes a meat-axe to the scientific method itself in a manner that would make Nassim Taleb proud:

Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something. They conveniently define such considerations as pointless. If they don’t do it, someone else will. Discovery, they believe, is inevitable. So they just try to do it first. That’s the game in science. Even pure scientific discovery is an aggressive, penetrative act. It takes big equipment, and it literally changes the world afterward. Particle accelerators scar the land, and leave radioactive byproducts. Astronauts leave trash on the moon. There is always some proof that scientists were there, making their discoveries. Discovery is always a rape of the natural world. Always.

But now science is the belief system that is hundreds of years old. And, like the medieval system before it, science is starting not to fit the world any more. Science has attained so much power that its practical limits begin to be apparent. Largely through science, billions of us live in one small world, densely packed and intercommunicating. But science cannot help us decide what to do with that world, or how to live. Science can make a nuclear reactor, but it cannot tell us not to build it. Science can make pesticide, but cannot tell us not to use it. And our world starts to seem polluted in fundamental ways---air, and water, and land---because of ungovernable science.
More interestingly, the book also correctly pointing out the inevitable and coming final debasement of science: the dinosaurs are not financially sustainable except as entertainment for others, and science can't even give the world 'real' dinosaurs; Wu's team creates bastardised hybrids, where missing dinosaur DNA is filled in with other species ... the blunder that causes the dinosaurs' ability to reproduce.

And finally:

Science has always said that it may not know everything now but it will know, eventually. But now we see that isn’t true. It is an idle boast. As foolish, and as misguided, as the child who jumps off a building because he believes he can fly.
This idle boast, when applied by fedora-wearing atheists to the belief system that preceded their own, has a specific name: the God of the Gaps fallacy. Saying 'well science will know why this is eventually' is no different to saying 'Okay, God doesn't lift the Sun up and down each day, but there's lots of other stuff that he does control.'
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
911 said:
It's more a matter of different nationalities and cultures than religious denomination.
[...]
The Protestant schism happened nearly half a millennium after the Christianisation in Germany and in the rest of Europe, therefore the culture was shaped and die was cast many centuries before that.
Disputable of course, but I just don't get how would that serve your argument anyway ?
I believe it's genetics (exposure to a harsh environment combined with natural selection).
You believe it's cultural (the benedictine monks).

Now you just showed that the apparent regional differences in exposure to the monks (or deviations from their original line) was in fact irrelevant.
But the fact still remains that (if I sum it up quickly) we have northern/germanic europe having a higher work ethic than southern/latin europe.
Yet for you it's not genetic and it's the monks .. ?
 

Sherman

Ostrich
Technology was addressed centuries ago with the Tower of Babel Story. Man developed the technology to build a tower to the sky, so God introduced different languages to confuse the people and defeat the project. This is the most relevant story to our situation today. Man is developing powerful technology to alter nature (God’s original design). The solution of introducing different languages would be something like the computers that run the Internet can’t talk to each other anymore. The solution of the Bible thus is to take the mass of humanity and decentralize them, breaking them into small tribal groups (which was God’s original plan), by destroying their means to produce technology.

What we are seeing with the China virus is just the beginning. It is the direct consequences of industrialization. The globalists have made a deal with the totalitarian communists to produce commodities using slave labor. In order to manage a global techostate requires coordination and regulation of billions of people. Thus liberty and a global technostate are inherently contradictory. You can have one but not the other. The virus resulted from the industrial abuse of the environment – a densely packed, unhygienic area of the world with rampant animal abuse. The technostate solution is to chip every human being with a vaccine tag.

The conspiracy theorists are in the trees and don’t see the forest. They argue about whether it is Fred or Ethel who are running the show. Is it Bill Gates? It doesn’t matter. Those are the details. What we are seeing is the natural consequence of industrialization. And that goes back to the Enlightenment, or even farther back to Sir Francis Bacon and the invention of the idea of progress.

A technostate needs a highly complex coordination of technology over the entire world and thus is antithetical to freedom. Here is an example of the fallacy of a libertarian embracing technology. Suppose you are a libertarian, and your children, and grandchildren are libertarians? In one hundred years your grandchild will be part human and part machine. The collective hive restricts freedom. If your grandchild wants to drop out, go to the forest, and be a libertarian, he will last maybe one week without the support of the system. But, he won’t even be permitted to do that. Because dropping out will be a criminal offense. Anyone who drops out is a potential murderer because he threatens a system that billions depend on.

Technology never goes backwards. Once created it only gets more complicated. Once you have a Windows 7, there will be a windows 10, and it never stops. It’s a one-way street. Genetic engineering intends to alter all of life, including human beings. The Tower of Babel story gives up hope. Nature is a living being with defense mechanisms that can deal with a potential threat to its existence.
 

Mr Gibbs

Robin
ilostabet said:
As requested, moving the conversation to a more appropriate ground.

And I apologize in advance for how long this reply will be.

911 said:
ilostabet said:
As you well know 911, the oligarchs promote good things mixed with bad things all the time. It's called poisoning the well. As for survival of current population, there is enough space for every one to have a small farm, capable of sustaining themselves. I never said everyone should go back to hunter gathering, that is you putting words in my mouth. Particularly, I don't believe we should go back to it because, unlike darwinistic Christians, I don't believe in the myth of 'pre-history' that we were cavemen. We became cavemen as we lost knowledge. We were originally, and as God intended, agriculturalists, tenders of nature - not exploiters, which hunter gatherers also are, though their scope and destructive power is very limited. But in this equation, which would allow for most current population to survive, outside of the natural dealings of life and death, which we also have conquered with monstrous consequences, what we wouldn't have in such a world is an entertainment industry, computers, cars, advertisements, not knowing our neighbors, no noise pollution and no feminism - and so on and so forth. I don't consider any of that essential, and worse, I don't consider them conducive to the worship of God - quite the opposite, as it's patently clear to everyone who is not in denial about the nature of man, human history and a Biblical understanding of both.

By 1950 the city had transformed completely the countryside, not only by the relative moving of some industry to the country (which was not a dismantling of the bad sides of the city, it was a colonization of the country by urban life), but also by the constant push from country people to join the city. Again, all of this is well documented and all we have to do is look around to see it is still happening. Urban sprawl is perhaps the worst testament to this.

I am not a worshiper of nature, but I am also not a worshiper of the technical society, as many seem to be under the guise of 'muh standard of living'. But it is good to remember that God created nature, but the technical society is purely of our creation. So even the nature worshipers are closer to the truth than those who put their faith in the products of man's hands. I am a worshiper of the God who put man in a garden to tend to it, and whose rebellion led to expulsion from it, and then further rebellion led to the creation of cities and all that go with it - which is, at the best of times, at least a highly volatile and sometimes morally ambiguous economic center, like in the middle ages, but at the worst of times, which is the vast majority of history, it is the place of godlessness, rebellion, slavery and war. So I won't support even a not-so-moderate, intermediary step like the 1950s in Western Countries because, unless I chose to close my eyes to the suffering of other people to my people's benefit, the fact is that it was only possible with the exploitation of early industrialism being exported to third world countries after having ravaged through our own countries. The violence ceased to be in our sight (and of course, because there was nothing more to destroy, the technical society had conquered our countries already). But to sustain itself, it had to go elsewhere. And it still does. The industrial society of today is still achieved through violence and subjugation of populations, including child slavery.

I had a thought recently when reading the Bible, when I noticed that throughout both the New and the Old Testament God's words and actions toward cities are very, very harsh, all the time. And it's weird because, just as we can say now that the countryside is mostly an expansion of the city, in those eras the cities were very limited in their scope and in many ways they were still an expansion of the countryside. But God's judgement of them seems to ignore this fact, like he knew the juggernaut that they would become, the crowded spaces in which man is forever alone, the ecological desiquilibrium ever more encroaching, the baby towers of Babel raised everywhere, the waste, the vileness, the godlessness. What I realized is that God was showing us already the disaster of what putting our faith in our inventions, of which the most symbolic is the city, would lead to - even if we would only be able understand it many centuries later. Child drag queens, obese polyamorous women, soy boys and cat ladies is what it leads to. And on top of the city Satan laughs, because he knows that while man is trapped there, amidst the noise and the distractions that it provides, with his survival assured without effort and his brow never feeling the wet of sweat, he has them permanently under his thumb.

***

911, I read your post again and I realized where our disagreement comes from. It's not even disagreement, just misalignment.

It's because we are not talking about the same thing. When you say the oligarchs want this and that, I really don't care. That is not what I'm aiming at.

When you say that de-industrialization is a form of control, when the industrialization was itself a product of oligarchy to control the lives of previously free people, clearly we are not talking about the same thing. When you say that returning to traditional agriculture would induce artificial poverty, it almost makes me laugh, because it would only induce natural poverty. What we have is artificial wealth.

I have absolutely no desire to reform the system. But I also don't believe it can be tore down. That would be hubris, the same sin that created it in the first place. Only God can do it. And it should go without saying that when I advocate for a return to tradition, I am not saying that I want most people to go back but leave all the wealth and technology to the oligarchs. Although I do think from Christian history, that it is in times of hardship that grace shines through more brightly. But regardless, what I am interested in is not a social program, but God's design.

I am making a theological argument, based on what we know from Scripture of God's revelation to man. And if God's revelation of how we were made to be and to live conflicts with a social improvement program for modern times, I shall more boldly reject modern times, not God's word. In other words, I don't think God wants better urbanism, a humane form of industrialization if that is possible (which I don't think it is), or a better social and political organization that atenuates the consequences of technical supremacy that is required for advanced civilization to exist. I think God wants us to live in a different world altogether, as seems to be the message of His revelation.

If I am theologically incorrect, if man's creation of the city is not rebellion, if the city is not the paramount example of that rebellion, and if God's vengeance and wrath towards the city is not the true story, I would like to know it. But the message seems clear enough, from Genesis to Revelation, that even when the coming Kingdom is a kingdom, and it is a city, it is God's city, not man's. It is not made out of our capacity, but God's appropriation of our doings, and transforming it to his purpose, the same way He did with Christ, conquering the death we brought into the world, and turning it in to glory.
Thanks for the response ILAB. Like Rheiner said, it's a bit of a wrong thread for elaborate thoughts that will quickly scroll away, but roughly, technology in a small business-oriented society (or even a large business in a non-usury monetary structure) is entirely compatible with Christian thought. It is for example a central aspect of the Benedictine order, whose motto is Oro et Labore.

Technology goes hand in hand with labor, there are many example of societies that have thrived under it, from the middle ages to the Jesuits in Paraguay to the 1950s West or 1970s Japan or 1990s Korea.

The modern problems are not directly due to technology, they stem from the amplification of social problems through technology, and not technology itself, and to the oligarchs pushing capital over labor in the neoliberal framework.

That's how you get feminism, lost women working, open borders, migrant replacements, etc. In the 1950s-60s technology enabled a single worker to raise a family on his salary. Technology/productivity and family welfare/purchasing power go hand in hand.

Feel free to quote this and reply in a separate thread, otherwise our effert here is wasted in an ephemeral thread.

I am absolutely in disagreement that Japan or Korea are good examples of societies where advanced technology brings benefits – the opposite, in fact. If anything they are extreme examples of what the advanced technology system does to a people. But I am not particularly interested in exploring those examples. If you do not see how destructive it is and how it is inextricably linked to the technological world, then I doubt anything I would point out will make a difference.

So I will go another route.

First, we’re not talking about technology in general, we’re talking specifically about modern technology in particular.

Theologically Adam and Eve’s covering was the first technology, and it was a direct result of the Fall. Before that, they were in perfect sync with nature. That is no longer the case, no matter what we do – we can no longer survive just as God made us, because the world is tainted with death, brought by the Fall. So in order to survive we must use some technology. That is a given. But it doesn’t erase the fact that technology came about as a direct result of the Fall; that there are spiritual implications to this; and that it’s not like there is no qualitative difference between locally-sourced, non-mass produced, technology like a horse and buggy and something like the car.

While it’s true that a car is used for the same purpose as a horse we can already see the absurdity in asserting that a car is merely a faster horse, requiring no special attention and that we can apply the same analytic framework, and the same concern, to both.

First, and focusing only on the improvement in speed as a distinction, it is clear that there is a qualitative difference on that principle alone – akin to the difference between medicine and poison. The substance may be the same, but the key is in the amount. Unless we are prepared to change language, and abolish the word medicine, or the word poison, we cannot say in the same way that a car is merely a faster horse. A car is a completely, qualitatively, different beast, with very different implications.

Neither the horse, nor any of the other pre-industrial modes of transportation, has brought upon a complete revolution of space the way the train, the automobile or the plane have done; none has completely transformed urban spaces, nor created a new environment in the suburb, nor have they changed the nature of the countryside. But the industrial modes of transportation have done this, quickly and violently, and continue to do so.

Furthermore, pre-industrial modes of transportation could be, and were, assembled and repaired within a local community – they were self-contained not only in their implications, but in their requirements for existence. There was no need for international cooperation, no need for large capital investment, no need for factories and industrial masses, and all the rest that is necessary to produce cars, trains and planes.

The car is a product of globalism, not of localism. It is the product of utilitarianism, scientific absolutism and technical supremacy – as is the industrial system as a whole. None of the technology produced by the industrial system could be accomplished within a world which does not place material concerns above all others, which is self-contained within a local community and which does not sacrifice the local community to the development of the system.

And this is merely one example of a qualitatively different technology of the industrial world from previous technologies aimed at the same goal. The same observations could be made about communication technologies, or any other. Their removal from ‘traditional’ or ‘natural’ technologies follows the exact same pattern.

You like to point out the plans of the oligarchs, but you don’t acknowledge that the move to industrial production was (and still is in poorer countries) a purely oligarchical move, and in fact, the industrial system is itself an oligarch-producing machine, just as a mass worker/mass consumer producing machine.

The industrial revolution was not a clean ordeal, nor a natural occurrence. We are told that workers flocked to the factories, but we are not told that their previous way of life was violently destroyed by the power of the State for the benefit of moneyed industrialists. Oligarchs of the day published numerous pamphlets to distribute in their circles decrying the freedom, the leisure time and the autonomy of both independent artisans and peasants, which decided on their own time and amount of work, and in the materialist worldview of the industrialists wasted hours of labor that could be spent producing more, despite their production being perfectly suited to their needs.

We only have to give a passing look into what the oligarchs published and circulated at the time to know their real intentions:

“It would be easier, where property is well secured, to live without money than without poor; for who would do the work? … As they ought to be kept from starving, so they should receive nothing worth saving. If here and there one of the lowest class by uncommon industry, and pinching his belly, lifts himself above the condition he was brought up in, nobody ought to hinder him; …but it is the interest of all rich nations, that the greatest part of the poor should almost never be idle, and yet continually spend what they get… Those that get their living by their daily labour… have nothing to stir them up to be serviceable but their wants which it is prudence to relieve, but folly to cure… To make the society happy and people easier under the meanest circumstances, it is requisite that great numbers of them should be ignorant as well as poor..”. [Mandeville, Fable of the Bees]

“That mankind in general, are naturally inclined to ease and indolence, we fatally experience to be true, from the conduct of our manufacturing populace, who do not labour, upon an average, above four days in a week, unless provisions happen to be very dear… I hope I have said enough to make it appear that the moderate labour of six days in a week is no slavery… But our populace have adopted a notion, that as Englishmen they enjoy a birthright privilege of being more free and independent than in any country in Europe. Now this idea, as far as it may affect the bravery of our troops, may be of some use; but the less the manufacturing poor have of it, certainly the better for themselves and for the State. The labouring people should never think themselves independent of their superiors… It is extremely dangerous to encourage mobs in a commercial state like ours, where, perhaps, seven parts out of eight of the whole, are people with little or no property. The cure will not be perfect, till our manufacturing poor are contented to labour six days for the same sum which they now earn in four days”. [“Essay on Trade and Commerce” (1770)]

“…the use of common land by labourers operates upon the mind as a sort of independence.” [The Board of Agriculture report in Shropshire (1794)]

“[Among] the greatest of evils to agriculture would be to place the labourer in a state of independence”. [Gloucestershire Survey (1807)]

And they had (just like now) the full support of the state in destroying the old freedoms, lands and ways of life of artisans, farmers and monasteries. Arguing that this is what a Christian should support is absurd. The industrialists were able to destroy the freedom, autonomy and leisure of the common people by lobbying states to 1) privatize the commons, where cattle grazed freely and had done so for centuries, therefore destroying a major source of protein for the poor; 2) by revoking feudal obligations from the Lords, but maintaining them for the subjects, completely changing the power equilibrium that had existed since the Middle Ages; and 3) by stealing Church property and forcibly closing monasteries, thereby creating a mass of people with no means of sustenance, to be driven by utter despair and hunger to work in factories; and 4) by destroying the local markets with cheaply produced goods by what humanists would today call slave labor. Only after this, were artisans and peasants driven to the factories. To say that these men freely chose the factory over their old ways of life would be the same as to say that a young child freely chose to starve because his parents have died.

And let’s not fall into another trap, which is to acknowledge the bloody and violent nature of this initial industrial period but to say that it is over, that regulations have been imposed, that all the problems have been overcome in our contemporary times. This could not be further from the truth: in fact, the same destruction and coercion still goes on, it is merely happening in other parts of the world other than Europe. Industrial slave labor, including child slave labor, is still a major feature of the industrial world. The only thing we can say is that we are reaching a point of another qualitative change, in which automation will be widespread, and the people that have been used and abused by the system will be discarded summarily and left to starve, or – in the countries of Europe which practice a fake charity – will be given a monthly payment from the State, reducing them to mere consumers with no stake in reality and no reason to exist.

In other words, it is a system based on violence. It can’t be based on anything else other than exploitation. That is the essence of large systems in general, and of course of this system which is the largest ever devised. It is really a reenactment of the Tower of Babel, with not one but several common languages (a worldwide monetary system, a worldwide profit motive, programming languages and so on). And no surprise of course because having been ushered by the oligarchs, which we know are into all kinds of luciferian ideals, makes all the sense. It is absurd to defend the first stage of the plan but then say that the later stages are not so good. But you don’t even seem to say that. You say that all stages are good, as long as they are steered in the right direction. This is like thinking you can reign in the demons like Christ did. It is conceit. We have no such power. And it is obvious our societies are riddled with demons, that it has fallen out of our control. But as I’ve shown, that was always the objective.

The monks from that one order you and EMJ always cite are not such a great example. First, I think they would not be so blind to the qualitative difference between the technology of the middle ages to the all-encompassing phenomenon of the technical society of industrialism and much less the phase we entered in the 90s, the ‘digital age’. Remember «all things are lawful, but not all things are useful». Do you think the monks would have smartphones and advocate for them? Ora et labora, sure, but only in so far as the labora part is not so technologically advanced that it detracts from the prayer. And in layman’s terms, that it detracts from a spiritual connection. How one can say the current technological environment, not just its mismanagement or misdirection or manipulation (which is true, but inevitable in such a system), leads to a richer spiritual life is delusion. Just look around. That’s all one seriously and honestly has to do.

And you will notice that this religious order is geographically where the technologically obsessed mentality sprung out, where scientism sprung out, where the protestant revolution came about and where the industrial revolution happened. All in the West. All under Catholicism - not Orthodox, Oriental or Coptic. No coincidence there in the least. No other Christians elevated work, and much less technology, to a higher concern. They were wrong, the rest of Christianity right. But as I wrote before, even they could not foresee the effects of some of their inventions, probably the most illustrative of all being the clock, which provided the tool to change man’s view of time from a God ordained order to a schedule to be exploited, and helped the oligarchs subjugate man to a working schedule for profit. Again, rationalization, efficiency, organization. This is not what Christ is about, is what Cain and Nimrod are about.

I actually don’t think those monks really had the love of technology you and EMJ claim they do. But if they did, it is extremely ironic that their orders were destroyed in order to make way for the factory. Poetic, even.

And as I wrote somewhere else in the forum, if we want to realize just how totalitarian the industrial system (and the more advanced it gets the worse) we just have to ask ourselves what has happened to one of the most basic premises of human existence: that of a father providing guidance to his sons about the world. Modern technology, with its rapidly changing environment, destroys this basic feature of human life. Parents are no longer capable of providing any guidance to the young with regards to the future. The only thing they know about the future and its requirements is that they will be radically different from the ones they endured. My own generation, the maligned Millennials, has had to adapt constantly to as many radical and revolutionary changes in the technological environment that took centuries in eras before the industrial revolution. ‘Future Shock’ is what someone once called it in the 1970s, and the speed of change in that decade was almost laughably slow compared to what it is now, because of the totalitarian nature of modern technology. All of our assumptions about life are uprooted, reality changed before our very eyes. Is it any surprise that parental authority over children has diminished to the point of being almost non existent? The old dynamic of the wisdom of the elders cannot survive in such a rapidly changing environment – and because every aspect of our society is tied to technology, those without a grasp of where it is and where it is going, have essentially no wisdom to impart. It renders one of the most basic commandments almost impossible: «Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honour your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land."» (Ephesians 6:1–2)

So it is absurd and almost offensive to say that the modern technological milieu isn’t any different from that of the Middle Ages, or even that of the Renaissance. It is one which shatters reality to bits every few years, a permanent revolution, the ultimate attack on basic human existence.
Great post. Who needs a grandpa when you have youtube, amiright?
 

y2k

Sparrow
Forget about being chipped for now, you can pay using your face.

This technology already exists and is in use.

Quran said:
(28:38) And Pharaoh said, "O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a god other than me. Then ignite for me, O Haman, [a fire] upon the clay and make for me a tower that I may look at the God of Moses. And indeed, I do think he is among the liars."

(28:39) And he was arrogant, he and his soldiers, in the land, without right, and they thought that they would not be returned to Us.

(28:40) So We took him and his soldiers and threw them into the sea. So see how was the end of the wrongdoers.

(28:41) And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped.
*The emphasis is mine
Chapter 28 - The Stories

A video on Chinese surveillance
This has been posted before

TLDR:
  • Facial recognition
  • National CCTV
  • Artificial intelligence

Faces in CCTV can now be cross-checked against databases in real time.

A YouTube comment said:
I don't think people understand how creepy this is.
A video on Sesame Credit in China

TLDR: Imagine mandatory social media, and the government assigning everyone a social credit score and that this had real consequences for the citizens (rent prices, speed of and eligibility to services etc )
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
But if technology inevitably has these immoral effects, yet technology-embracing people also inevitably eradicate non-technological ones, what choice do those non-technological people have but to also embrace technology in order to survive?

Could there be a balancing point at which technological societies automatically end up imploding through SJW madness and other suicidal technological cults like "import migrants to raise GDP"?
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Sherman said:
Technology was addressed centuries ago with the Tower of Babel Story. Man developed the technology to build a tower to the sky, so God introduced different languages to confuse the people and defeat the project.
This is a very naive interpretation though.

Just an anecdote if you'll allow me :
I listened to a conference on trans-humanism recently, where one of the guys present was france's great rabbi (so basically the highest jewish religious authority of the country).
At one point someone in the audience asked whether it was really a good idea to try to "play god" like that, and the rabbi answered that god made man to his image, therefore man is like god (or god-like, difficult to translate but I'll link the video), therefore of course man should play god and therefore trans-humanism (and its potential abuse) is good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WRMZaGpCZ4

I think several people touched already on the white man's biggest blind spot being that he thinks that the whole world is and thinks like him .. then he's surprised when he realizes it's not the case.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
But if technology inevitably has these immoral effects, yet technology-embracing people also inevitably eradicate non-technological ones, what choice do those non-technological people have but to also embrace technology in order to survive?

Could there be a balancing point at which technological societies automatically end up imploding through SJW madness and other suicidal technological cults like "import migrants to raise GDP"?
This is a very pertinent question. It goes to the heart of the matter, which is that we must choose at every turn between doing what is right in the eyes of God and what is advantageous in the eyes of man. It is a question that is posed to us in our daily lives on a micro scale and to peoples on a macro scale.

While there are examples of both nations purposefully regressing technologically (such as Christian civilization after the fall of Rome, or the Japanese in the 13th and 16th centuries) and of nations less technologically advanced prevailing over more advanced ones (same examples as above), it seems those victories are always only temporary, a sort of breathing space to prepare for further trials, as it is undoubtedly the case that technological superiority does give a huge advantage over technologically inferior peoples - the history of the post-Christian West ('Renaissance' onward) is the perfect example of this. While it may appeal to our pride to say that we conquered the world, it is a fact that, as Ober pointed out, that it wasn't us doing the conquering, it was our technology. We didn't spread 'westerness', we spread our techniques. And we see clearly how they are used against us now as they were before against more 'primitive' peoples.

So what is the answer? It seems from Scripture that only through God's intervention is the continuation of more 'primitive' peoples assured against the powerful technicians. But this is at a cost. And the cost is the people's faithfulness. The Biblical Israel defeated more powerful people's only when it was faithful, as soon as it was faithless the blessing is removed and they are subjugated. When they themselves become powerful, they become faithless, and the cycle begins again.

So the choice is clear, and this is why I think this discussion is important: it's not that we have any earthly means of defeating the technological juggernaut. We have no power against it. But we must choose nonetheless to be appart from it, as much as we are capable of. We must not fight it, but we must not submit to it. Just like all Christian martyrs, we do not rebel, but we also do not embrace it. We embrace Christ - and that means embracing destruction as well. The Amish will for sure be brought under the thumb of the technological society and subjugated like everyone else. But in the meantime, they are free - truly free, they do not depend on any large system for their survival and they are practicing Christian morals unburdened by all the compromises a Christian has to make in order to survive in the amoral world of technique.

I mentioned earlier that Christ has very harsh words for the city, but he utters them outside of it, for inside its walls, inside the world of technique that the city represents, only marvels can rival with the technical marvels, that is, miracles. So inside the city Christ does all his miracles. He does not speak. God created the world through speech, but in the city, man's creation to be apart from God, the Word made flesh cannot utter any words, for they are useless. Only miracles - because man was always in awe of magic, and in today's world he is in awe of technology, because he does not know how it works, it is in a very real sense, magical. It brings benefits out of thin air - common man looks at the smartphone the way ancient man looked at spells. And yet, Christ doesn't succeed against the city, he must drive the people out so he can speak to them. And also Satan tempts Christ precisely with the temptations of the modern world, so clear to everyone: Comfort (food), Spectacle (entertainment), and Power (technology). But Christ rejects them - even though (or precisely because) he knows that he will not succeed through them. If he were to use these means to bring the people to Him (like, say Joel Olsteen does), they wouldn't worship Him, but the things themselves. No, he must suffer and die, and overcome the world through suffering and dying. Anything else, paradise on earth, is Satan's doing. And this is why we should be careful: when the Christian is too at ease, when he is not being persecuted, when the world seems at rest and content with his message, it must mean he is neglecting the faith, it is Satan's will that is being done, not Christ's.

I am sorry I cannot give you a more earthly optimistic answer, but since the Fall there is an active opposition between God and the world. We are all descendants of Cain. The works of our hands (and I don't mean the spiritual works, I mean the physical works) are forever intertwined with Cain's rebellion. There are no descendants of Abel, the shepherd, only of Cain, the farmer. But Cain did not accept God's protection, he wanted his own, separate from God, so he is not content with farming. He must build cities, and his descendants more and more technology, until the earth is filled with violence, entertainment and sexual immorality. God promised not to send another deluge, but it doesn't mean that we can accomplish anything against the Evil of the world without Him. The dynamic remains the same.

We must make peace with it. We must not think of ways to solve this unsolvable dilemma. There is no earthly solution because it is not for us to solve. The only thing we can do is be faithful, and remove ourselves as much as possible from the technological nexus. Because the more involved we are in it, the more compromises we have to make to our faith, the more disconnected from God we become. And we need all the spiritual strength we can muster in this war between the technical and the spiritual.

When we see the talks of microchips, forced vaccinations, perpetual surveillance and all the rest of it, it is undeniable this is Satan's work and that, soon, we will not longer be allowed the ambiguity we have had for the last centuries, in which we can participate in the world and cling to Christ. That space is getting narrower by the minute.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
Oberrheiner said:
Sherman said:
Technology was addressed centuries ago with the Tower of Babel Story. Man developed the technology to build a tower to the sky, so God introduced different languages to confuse the people and defeat the project.
This is a very naive interpretation though.

Just an anecdote if you'll allow me :
I listened to a conference on trans-humanism recently, where one of the guys present was france's great rabbi (so basically the highest jewish religious authority of the country).
At one point someone in the audience asked whether it was really a good idea to try to "play god" like that, and the rabbi answered that god made man to his image, therefore man is like god (or god-like, difficult to translate but I'll link the video), therefore of course man should play god and therefore trans-humanism (and its potential abuse) is good.
Babel is not a parable against technology, it's a parable against pride. So far as it's relevant, God is indifferent to technology, and He (as Christ tells us) calls money at best a tainted thing. The limits of science are apparent: can't pass lightspeed, can't put a pin on a photon like they've put so many pins in beautiful butterflies preserved and dead on boards in dusty old museums that no one visits. God has only ever cared about what man does to himself with his technology.

Oddly enough, Jurassic Park contains an appropos analogy as well: Hammond is worried the dinosaurs will get loose and destroy the Earth. Malcolm laughs and says the Earth will get along just fine; it's been there long before men and will be there long after if they do destroy themselves.

Same deal with God, technology, and atheism: God was there long before man managed to light a fire, he was there long before the first fool decided he wasn't, and he'll be there long after if -- God forbid -- we are foolish enough as a species to start pressing the red buttons and letting the nukes fly. The only way man hurts God is by sinning against him ... and even then, the tears God sheds are for us, not for Himself.

I think that's part of why we call God the Father.

Any man who has a child might not understand God, but he at least has a model: every time his son disobeys him, as a petulant child, just because he can, just because his son wants to keep playing and doing something he doesn't realise will hurt himself.

Any man with a child who has a son who screams at him, who doesn't respect him, no matter how gently he speaks to his son, no matter how much love he has shown him, has a model for the relationship between God and man.

Because a father knows his child truly does not know what he does.

A father can give instruction as far as he can, but even in the story of the Prodigal Son, the father Jesus tells the story about hands over half his lands to a wayward boy he knows he has been unable to teach and who he knows will destroy himself. But the father does so, and receives his son back, with all love, because that's what a father does.

Taking the American Douay-Rheims (1899) version for lack of time, Genesis 11:

1 And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.

2 And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

3 And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar.

4 And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

6 And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.

7 Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

9 And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.
God scatters men before the entirety of mankind as one commits a sin on the scale of Adam's first sin: the desire to be as like God. The temptation of Eve was of the same character: you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
ilostabet said:
Anything else, paradise on earth, is Satan's doing. And this is why we should be careful: when the Christian is too at ease, when he is not being persecuted, when the world seems at rest and content with his message, it must mean he is neglecting the faith, it is Satan's will that is being done, not Christ's.
Only God can bring about Paradise without a dark side to it. I believe since the New Creation with a New Earth will definitely be a Paradise. At least with God there is no catch. No slaves suffering to build the Palatial Cities so to speak.

And I think this Perfect Paradise condition will extend to the entire Cosmos in that New Creation.

Ease in Satan's world always comes at the suffering of the countless masses. And would always be confined to the privileged.
 
Top