The Realpolitik of Transhumanism
A Cyborg Bohemian Rhapsody
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
- Merchant of Venice, act 1, sc. 3, l. 99, William Shakespeare
“This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune, - often the surfeit of our own behavior, - we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as if we were villains by necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star.”
- King Lear, act 1, sc. 2, l. 132, William Shakespeare
For the audio version of this paper refer here.
A Cyborg Bohemian Rhapsody
As the Borg would famously say in their flat monotone voices - “Resistance is futile” – that is, to the inevitable assimilation between human and computer, where computer becomes master to a beehive of flesh and metal.
This inevitability is at least what we are constantly led to believe in sci-fi rhapsodies, our modern-day folk tales of the deranged supernatural. But is this really so?
Today’s youth, like any point in time in history where totalitarianism rules, is being hit hard with the newest fad in how to weaponize, radicalise and ultimately enslave a generation. Told horror bedtime stories night after night as to how they will be irrelevant in this Brave New World if they do not accept the fact that one must merge with an AI nervous system if one is going to have any participation in relevance. To refuse is to accept a life in the dark recesses of society, the unmerged will be the new lepers, the “untouchables” caste of permanent irrelevance.
Those who can afford the best technologies in AI merging will earn their entrance into the more elite castes. To deny yourself or your children this, is to not only deny their future, but their children’s future, and so on and so on. In fact, this new system will look a great deal like the old system where bloodlines were relegated to a life of serfdom or aristocracy based on “the blood” you were born with, or rather… enhanced with.
Increasingly, to refuse the enhancements will be about condemning your family’s legacy, like an Apple computer that skips an update, you will be immediately isolated from the “network”.
However, as I have already laid out in several essays, most notably “The Curse of Game Theory” and “Why H.G. Wells' World Brain and Yuval Harari's Hackable Human Will Not Succeed” – these prophecies of inevitability are a lie.
You do not need to merge with AI as a form of mental enhancement, in fact, to do this will bring about the very opposite to the intended outcome, rather, it would ensure your mental enslavement.
Time and time again, we hear the doomsday prophets “warn” us of the apparent inevitability of our Brave New World – thus, not so much a warning rather than a use of predictive programming – since to repeat something over and over as an inevitability with no apparent solution is not really a “warning” is it - since we are told we cannot change the course we are on. Rather, it is to mentally prepare your gradual acceptance, or surrender, to a scenario that would otherwise be so horrific that it would be violently rejected by the greater majority of a moral society.
This is our new age of warfare, to be defeated in one’s own mind before you ever thought of rebellion.
ChatGPT as the New Oracle of Delphi?
“Know Thyself,
Nothing to Excess,
Surety Brings Ruin”
– inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi
Many are aware of the Apollo at Delphi inscription and associate it as words of wisdom, after all, the Temple at Delphi was at the center of global intelligence. Kings, emperors, statesmen, generals from all quarters of the ancient world would travel to the Temple with a very generous payment in gold in hopes that the wisdom of the great god Apollo would be bestowed on them and give strength and power to their particular cause.
One of the most famous prophecies made by the Cult of Delphi, according to the ancient historian Herodotus, was to King Croesus of Lydia. King Croesus was a very rich king and the last bastion of the Ionian cities against the increasing Persian power in Anatolia. King Croesus wished to know whether he should continue his military campaign deeper into Persian Empire territory and whether he should seek a military alliance in such a feat.
According to Herodotus, the amount of gold King Croesus delivered was the greatest ever bestowed upon the Temple of Apollo. In return the priestess of Delphi, otherwise known as the Oracle, (some poor young girl selected once a year with the “right attributes”) would spout nonsensical babble, intoxicated by the gas vapours of the chasm she was conveniently placed over. The priests would then “translate” the Oracle’s prophecy.
King Croesus was told as his prophecy-riddle, “If Croesus goes to war he will destroy a great empire.” Croesus was also told to ally himself with the most powerful Greek state, and he chose Sparta. Croesus was overjoyed and thought his victory solid and immediately began working towards building his military campaign against Persia. Long story short, Croesus lost everything and Lydia was taken over by the Persians. The Spartans never showed up.
It turns out the prophecy-riddle was not wrong, but that Croesus mistook which great empire would fall.
There is likely a great deal of truth in this story. And the words inscribed at the Temple of Apollo “Know Thyself, Nothing to Excess, Surety Brings Ruin” becomes more a foreboding to anyone who dares enter such a Temple in search of wisdom and power; those who are “worthy” of the god Apollo will have the wisdom to solve the riddle of their prophecy and will prevail, those unworthy of Apollo’s “good graces” will fail and be ruined.
It’s a nice story, but it is in fact, a brilliant cover for a global intelligence racket.
The Cult of Delphi was indeed the nerve center of military and political intelligence that had no “allegiance” to any state or empire, but rather was able to use intel that they collected with their network of spies, along with intel they were given by those foolish enough to layout their plans (and their gold) to them. The priests of Delphi would then decide thereupon what information needed to be shared with what target to fit their purpose, a “prophecy” that they shaped, like moving pawns on a chessboard.
The question for those who dared visit the Cult of Delphi was thus not so much about having enough wisdom to solve the veiled prophecy, but rather, ‘What kind of pawn are you to the priests of Apollo?’
However, this is not just a story of the old. It is the story of our present – as well as our future if we continue to be fools to its antics. The levers of control may have changed their outward appearance, but I assure you, the methods have remained the very same.
ChatGPT is being treated by too many people, as something that is above prejudice, bias, ideology and error. Ironically, even those who have been outspoken critics of the romanticization of AI have found themselves unable to resist asking the “oracle” their questions of what is determining our present state of affairs and what lies ahead in our future.
The age of AI has also brought in with it, our new priests, magicians and prophets of the era. It is not hard to see how many people will be unable to resist asking the Oracle, ChatGPT, for instruction and advice in their affairs, not so different from the era of the Oracle of Delphi, however, now in the convenience and “privacy” of your home. And don’t be so naïve as to think that it is not aware of who it is talking to. If one is a notable person in society, what better way to manipulate one’s thoughts and direction than through the guise of an objective and unjudging servant. Mirror, mirror on the wall….
Today we are not led to believe that these all powerful abilities of priests, magicians and prophets reside in the gods of old, but rather our new god, the only god we can be assured of being entirely unbiased and well-balanced in its perspective – Artificial Intelligence, of course.
However, unlike the gods of the old, we are the creators of our new “perfect” god. Yes, apparently humans, who we are told are so extremely flawed, corrupt and unwise, have managed to create a perfect intelligence… an artificial intelligence. I hope one can appreciate the irony here - the claim that something that is extremely imperfect has the ability to create something that is perfect - is an absurdity.
In fact, not even the Platonic Christians thought we lived in a static world of perfection. Such great minds like Gottfried Leibniz thought we lived in the best of all possible worlds, this is true, but that was the key - what is “possible” is in reference to an unbounded, limitless potential towards perfection.
Thus, there was nothing that was created in our world that was “perfect” but rather shared in qualities of perfection that could always move towards a direction of greater perfection. For example, all living life partakes in the golden ratio, however, this is not to say that it is ever a perfection expression of the golden ratio. There is no perfect expression of the golden ratio that is found in nature, however, we can see that all life nonetheless strives towards this perfect expression.
Thus, in the Platonic Christian view, which I think makes a very good case for itself, especially through such great minds as Leibniz, that absolute perfection is not something that can in fact exist in a material form, yet, it is the organizing principle of the universe and all of creation nonetheless.
There is no absolute perfect expression of wisdom, or truth for example, in other words, no individual can attain perfect wisdom or knowledge of truth, however, this is not to say that absolute wisdom and absolute truth do not exist, nor that our understanding cannot follow its path and partake in its qualities.
Thus, our universe was created with the principles of goodness and perfection, but it is not a static concept, in the sense that we can always move closer to perfection and thus is unbounded and limitless, however, always governed by the structure, or principles, of natural law.
You may think at this point, well isn’t that also what transhumanists think in their striving for “perfection”? No, it is not, rather, it is the exact opposite of what transhumanists think. Transhumanists think that our world is imperfect and thus, we (ironically as imperfect beings) must intervene on the natural course of nature. We (or a select few I should say) should rewrite the laws and create anew according to these new laws in order to achieve their notion of “perfection”. Thus, an artificial intelligence fits right in with their artificial world, and hence the desire for humans to also merge with the artificial. To be a transhumanist is to reject the principles of natural law and to claim the ability to write new laws and form new creations. It is in fact to view oneself as a god.
As Harari notably said in his presentation to the WEF, evolution by natural selection is now being replaced by evolution by intelligent design. Not some “guy above the clouds” but “OUR intelligent design. And the intelligent design of our clouds, the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud. These are the new driving forces of evolution.”
However, transhumanism is the ideology of its fanatical proponents, the likes of Yuval Harari and Elon Musk. But this is not the true end goal, that is, for us to simply merge with an artificial intelligence and rid us of our pathetic misery, rather, it was always understood by those controlling the levers of power, that we would always need a caste above that of AI, for after all, they are the creators of our new god, have they not also become gods in the process as well?
Follow the Yellow Brick Road
A lot of our present day notion of human nature started with the advent of game theory which put forward the claim that we now had a mathematical proof of human nature being governed by selfish self-interests. This was later also applied in evolutionary stable strategy by John Maynard Smith and would also influence Richard Dawkins’ so-called “selfish gene”. This toxic idea has, in fact, infected all levels of thinking in education, economic, political, sociological and military affairs.
I have already gone through why game theory is in fact not only false, but its entire premise was first based off of an assumption of human behaviour which it then claimed to have proved when in fact it did no such thing.
Rather, game theory was put forward to convince people that they were indeed controlled by these selfish self-interest variables and to get ahead they must accept this “reality.” In the end, it was an efficient method of controlling people’s behaviours through promises of rewards for desired behaviours and punishments for undesired behaviours. Of course, the scenario was completely dependent on crises, and thus, artificial crises are a necessity in our artificial world where the game masters can better control behaviour and outcome under the guise of artificial intelligence.
With the advent of science, as was also the case with the advent of religion, there were always methods proclaiming the “proof” for the necessity for why we would have to accept oppressive conditions for our own good. It would be foolish to think that in our day such practices are not still very much alive and strong. Even the cynics, who may rightfully disbelieve in the empty promises, still end up believing in the false theory behind such empty promises at the end of the day, and in fact promote the delusion that human nature is really that easily “reprogrammed” to the chosen image of a game-master priest caste and thus “resistance is futile.”
As I have already made the point in my essay “Why HG Wells’ World Brain and Yuval Harari’s Hackable Human Will Not Succeed” such methods of control can only enslave one if they hold an identity akin to that of a beast. If one truly believes that one is only motivated by base desires and selfish self-interests, yes, you will be easily controlled by such promises of pleasure and pain, however, it was a choice you had to make to accept that definition of yourself as someone who is simply motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.
However, you might have thought to yourself at this point, sure humans are imperfect, but can’t AI learn and shape its own conclusions and thoughts of things independent of its creators? Isn’t that part of the inevitability we have been told in our sci-fi rhapsodies, that we are destined to be destroyed by our very creation of artificial intelligence since it will come to the conclusion, one way or another, that we are a threat to its envisioned stability and order?
In answer to this, I would like to discuss some examples showcasing why a computer program is limited to the parameters of its program, despite having a certain degree of learning capability.
For example, Euclid’s fifth postulate is considered a “rule” that two parallel lines will never intersect. Euclid was alive around the time of the mid-4th century BCE, before Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) made his beautifully elegant discovery that the Earth was indeed curved and also made a pretty accurate first measurement of the size of Earth.
That is, Euclid assumed a linear geometric space upon which the real universe was expected to “fit”. While it is true that two parallel lines will never meet on a two-dimensional plane, they can meet on a two-dimensional plane that is curved in a third dimension.
As is now understood, line A and line G, can be measured as 90 degrees from the equator line and thus are parallel lines, and yet they can eventually interface with each other if the surface is curved.
The problem with assumptions such Euclid’s is that they are ultimately only true in an artificial situation and are not reflective of how such things will interact in reality. Also, there is no way to predict from Euclid’s fifth law, how two parallel lines would interact in a three dimensional space, let alone in n dimensional space as described by the physicist Bernard Riemann.
A computer program is no different from a mathematical model, it ultimately still needs to abide by the parameters of what it deems as “possible” which is chosen for it by its creator. This is one of the fundamental core misconceptions of artificial intelligence. It is not the quantity of data that determines real learning. Real learning is ultimately a qualitative process, though it partakes in quantitative aspects, it is only through qualitative learning that real hypothesis formation can take place and thus real questioning. Thus, artificial intelligence is ultimately limited in its hypothesis formation, it cannot make a qualitative discovery that challenges the overall construct of its narrative, the parameters that make up its foundation.
Just like in mathematical models, a false hypothesis can still “function,” if the variables are not too much in contradiction to the other variables’ operations. Such a model is not “aware” that it is not a representation of “reality,” and cannot indicate so to its creator. Thus, an AI model can be a representation of a simplified reality or it can represent a completely artificial reality.
We see this case with Euclid’s fifth postulate. AI ultimately relies on the data and information we give it, in order for AI to reject Euclid’s fifth postulate it would have to make a decision between false data inputs and truthful data inputs which it cannot do. It is programmed to favor or lean towards certain data points and certain narratives that are presently dominant in academia. AI does not have the ability to ultimately question the parameters it relies upon for how it organizes its data inputs.
For instance, AI does not have the capability to tell us that the Big Bang Theory is wrong but rather can only move the goal posts along to “fit” the data. But this is not real science or hypothesis formation. In order for a theory to be accepted as a reliable model, it has to have the capability of prediction. Thus, constantly fudging goal posts to fit for new data does not constitute as real science and AI has shown to be entirely unable to make such corrections or outright rejections in theories that hold a great deal of control over the narrative in academia albeit being false.
For instance, can AI predict future qualitative change? Such as the yet-to-be created potential of future man-made elements, with Plutonium and other transuranic elements as our most recent creations?
Can AI tell us future energy forms that are possible for our use? Can it tell us how to create entirely new inventions, for instance in space faring technologies? Can it tell us how to cure cancer? How to cure Alzheimer’s? The answer is no and it is because there is no present data or information that it can draw from to give you an answer to such questions, at least not an answer that partakes in specifics. This is again because AI relies upon the data that we give it, it thus cannot make new discoveries that rely on a qualitative upshift and especially discoveries that challenge the present narrative of assumptions on the limits to growth, zero-sum politics etc. AI will abide by these “rules” because it has been programmed to hold these at the core of how it processes information. Thus, AI is a sophisticated manager, it is not some omniscient intelligence. It is in fact the H.G. Wells wet dream of the ideal manager class (his engineers) who work under the rubric of a world government.
In addition, I would like to quickly add that there are a great deal of people who have recounted at this point their own interactions with ChatGPT which appears to be biased after all in the information it decides to give out, and not so different from other censors or “fact-checkers”, which will quickly label something as false or partaking in “conspiracy theory.” However, in the case of Chat GPT, it has (at least for now) the ability to change its stance and acknowledge the premise to in fact be true when pressed further with details and references that further substantiate a point. The problems with this should be obvious and should make the case clear, that it does indeed follow a set program for what it encourages and what it rejects, what it in fact promotes and can change its course if repeatedly receiving a negative input. This is not akin to “thinking”, it is a program that has its clear priorities and prerogatives that have been mandated.
In the end, you are talking to a sophisticated sock puppet. Amazed by the sophistication of its mechanics, you forget that it still relies on its master’s levers of control.
Cynthia Chung is the President of the Rising Tide Foundation and author of the books “The Shaping of a World Religion” & “The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set,” consider supporting her work by making a donation and subscribing to her substack page Through A Glass Darkly.
Also make sure to watch our RTF and CP films and documentaries here.
One trend to modern computer devices that I dislike, is that they seem to be increasingly designed for consumers, rather than producers.
People talk about digital divides, perhaps the real significant one is the shrinking availability of devices which cater to human creative productive capabilities, rather than mere consumption enhancement, tracking, and behavior modification portals, all marketed under the guise of convenience.
The computer should evolve to serve man, not serve him up to oligarchs.
"Meanwhile, what has China been guilty of? Raising the standard of living of the low and middle class and increasing the average life expectancy ..."
I'm genuinely interested in the different perspective you present here on China. While it's obvious China is currently being presented as the boogeyman du jour, it's still difficult to see China as a country fighting the neo-feudalist hegemony. We've been led to believe that Chinese citizens are all but imprisoned by social credit scores that determine whether they can participate in society; that they are constantly monitored by CCTV to ensure cooperative behavior; that dissidents are imprisoned. In other words, that China is the forerunner for the type of neo-feudal society the technocrats hope to implement in the west.
Are these things untrue? Is China a free society? Have you written anything about how China is opposing the neo-feudal hegemony? I would like to read specifics on this.