Zoltan Istvan, "Should Transhumanists Have Children?"

by DN Irving


The article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/transhumanist-beliefs_b_4870636.html  by transhumanist Zoltan Istvan is nothing more than a grand scheme for population control.  To see this, read it first “as is” -- pure transhumanism (which is bad enough).   Then go back and read it again, against the backdrop of the essential Gnostic principles inherent in it (briefly summarized below).  I apologize for the repetition, but this article is a classic example of Gnostic Transhumanism that is hard to pass up. 

The Gnostic bottom line is that all “matter” is evil.  The piece of the divine in most human beings is imprisoned in an evil material body and material soul, and must be freed so that it can move back up through the spheres of the cosmos and finally fuse back into the Ultimate god/goddess from which it originally emanated to help heal this divine breach (not unlike the transhumanists’ goal of transferring our brains into computers in 2045 in order to ultimately fuse into The Singularity).  Every new birth is simply a further terrible dispersing and breaching of the Ultimate god/goddess.  Thus any and all manner of “birth control” or “population control” is required to stop this terrible continuous breaching of the Ultimate

As recently explained, the cosmology of the Gnostics is far different than most.  Although there are many different kinds of Gnostic myths that vary from century and geographical location, there are many common elements that they all share (see world expert in Gnosticism Hans Jonas’ encyclopedia article in Irving, "GNOSTICISM, the Heretical Gnostic Writings, and 'Judas'" (April 9, 2006), at:  http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_121gnosticism1.html,   Below is an example of some common elements that might help one understand the connections among transhumanism, Gnosticism and population control:

Most Gnostic myths are attempts at explaining how the world came to be, and based on the imagination.  Most are pantheistic (only ONE “thing” or Ultimate god/goddess in reality);  some are dualistic (only TWO “things” in reality).  They are polytheistic (many minor gods/goddesses of the Spheres).  In pantheism, the interior of the spiritual Ultimate is composed of an infinite number of “opposites” or “contraries” that are connected (because this is a pantheism), and are thus the same.  As Heraclitus said, “The path up and the path down are the same”.  Because these are “opposites” there is constant “strife” or “dialectic” among them all, resulting in an “explosion” or a breach of the Ultimate wherein some of the “opposites” flow out (emanate), and congeal beneath the Ultimate.

Thus the First Sphere is formed.  (Eventually, this terrible breach of the Ultimate must be stopped and repaired -- and that is where the population control element comes in).  The same is repeated multiple times because the interior constitution of each Sphere is also composed of “opposites” in strife, resulting in a group of Spheres.  There is a god/goddess of each Sphere.  The first group of Spheres to emanate are the divine spiritual Aeons (good guys, Messengers of Light);  the lowest Aeon goddess Sophia “sins” (often involving sex) and procreates a son named the Demiurge, often equated with the God of the Old Testament (thus Gnosticism is anti-Semitic and anti-Christian).  Both are kicked out of this group of Spheres into the Chaos

The monstrous Demiurge, ignorant of the divine Aeons and Ultimate above him, thinks he is god, and emanates the second physical group of Spheres called the Archons (the bad guys;  each one is a psychic power).  Again, the First group of Spheres and the Second group of Spheres are thus “opposites” within Gnosticism itself, and all connected because this is a pantheism.  The Demiurge and the Archons then emanate evil “matter” and the rest of the physical material cosmos, planets, stars, etc., including human beings.  There are no true “individuals” in the cosmos because they are really just “pieces” of the pantheistic Ultimate from which they have emanated. The Ultimate is the only true “individual”.  Because each item that has emanated from the divine Ultimate (and then from the divine gods/goddesses of the Spheres), most have a “piece” of the Ultimate divinity in them

In a human being that piece of the Ultimate is called, e.g., the “Self”,  “Pneuma”, “Spark”,  “Light” or “Spirit”, etc. -- and it is held captive as a prisoner in the evil material body and evil material soul.  In order to keep their “creations” or emanations intact and continuing to multiply, the Archons emanated physical human sexHuman beings are oblivious to the little piece of the Ultimate deity within them (at least, within the elite human beings), and every new human child born represents an even further and continuous breach of the Ultimate.  The Aeons of the upper divine realm of spheres have a solution.

To trick the Demiurge and his Archons and free the piece of divine entrapped in evil material bodies and souls, the Aeons defy them using two different methods.  Some Aeons defy the Archons by destroying and abusing anything having to do with the material body, especially sex or the product of sex, e.g., (in today’s terms) by promoting abortion, embryo research, "free sex", homosexuality, self-mutilation, etc.  Other Aeons defy them by simply not using sex, by abstaining from it, by being ascetics -- as Hans Jonas puts it, they “go on a metaphysical strike” against it -- and both Aeon-types include population control measures for that purpose.  That is, they want to stop any further breaching of the Ultimate any way they can.  Thus the Aeons, the Messengers of Light, trick the Archons by "revealing" to (elite) human beings their true divine "essence" and other secret knowledge (gnosis) while humans are meditating, dreaming, in any kind of altered mental states (even drugs). 

This gnosis also consists in informing humans that the laws of science and nature they are using are false, and provide them with their True Science in its place.  Gnosis also consists in “informing” humans that the Laws of Moses are false (Gnostics are anti-Semitic);  and gnosis also has an “ethical” dimension (or “knowledge of the way out of this material world”), i.e., instructions on how one should live one’s life in order to get on the PATH back to their origins -- i.e., the Ultimate.  Eventually the idea is that all this breaching of the Ultimate must stop, all the divine “pieces” in the cosmos (including that in man) must move back up through the many Spheres and finally FUSE BACK INTO (or merge or transfer back into -- not unlike The Singularity) -- the Ultimate from whence they emanated.  This is called The Ingathering of the Light or “salvation” -- when the Ultimate is made whole and healthy once again. 

Of course, this goal is “a-cosmic”, necessarily involving and willing the destruction of the cosmos itself.  These types of Gnostic myths have been passed down and around since at least 5000 B.C.  Some things never change.

NOW, try going back to Istvan’s article above and this time read it from the Gnostic perspective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/

 

[See also:  Psychology Today;  The Transhumanist Philosopher, at:  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-transhumanist-philosopher.  Also, Zi Ventures - Istvan Media, at:  http://www.istvanmedia.com/.



Death Panels: Court Orders Sick Toddler Killed Despite Parents’ Desperate Pleas

by Joshua Gill


A U.K. court upheld an earlier ruling Tuesday ordering a toddler to be taken off life support despite his parents’ desire to continue treating him.

London’s Court of Appeal denied the parents’ request to transfer their son, 21-month-old Alfie Evans, to the Vatican’s Bambino Gesu Pediatric Hospital. The appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling that sided with doctors at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, who say that continued treatment is “futile,” according to Crux Now.

Evans suffers from an unknown neurological degenerative condition that has reduced him to what the hospital has called a “semi-vegetable state,” but his parents argue that he is still responsive and say they will continue to fight for him to be treated.

“At this moment, Alfie’s not ready so we’re not ready to let go,” Tom Evans, the boy’s father, told the BBC.  Tom said that he would challenge the ruling before the U.K.’s Supreme Court.

The case bears similarities to the 2017 legal battle over treatment for Charlie Gard, who died at 11 months old after U.K. courts continually deliberated and denied him the option to receive treatment. Then as now, the hospital officials overseeing the treatment of the child have argued that attempting to treat him would be against the child’s best interest — a conclusion that Alfie’s parents contest.

“Our aim is always to try and reach an agreement with parents about the most appropriate care plan for their child. Unfortunately there are sometimes rare situations such as this where agreement cannot be reached and the treating team believe that continued active treatment is not in a child’s best interests,” Alder Hey Children’s Hospital said in a statement, according to Crux.

Justice Anthony Hayden of the U.K.’s High Court agreed in his Feb. 20 ruling with the hospital’s assessment that continuing to treat the Alfie was “unkind, unfair, and inhumane.”  Hayden praised the efforts of Alfie’s parents but ultimately denied them the chance to medically fight for their son’s life. He said that Tom’s urging to “fight on with Alfie’s army” was commendable but that the parents’ had no clear plan for their son’s betterment. Tom, incensed by the ruling, denounced it and vowed that he would continue the fight.

“My son has been sentenced to the death penalty. The system has worked against us. I’m not crying because I know how wrong they are, I know how strong my boy is doing. He is strong, he is comfortable. This isn’t the end. This is just the start. I’m going to take this NHS down. I’m not giving up, my son isn’t giving up. No-one, I repeat, no-one in this country, is taking my boy away from me. They are not violating his rights and they are violating my rights,” Tom said after Hayden’s ruling, according to the U.K. Daily Mail.

The three judges of the appeals court, however, echoed Hayden’s reasoning Tuesday and said that the hospital had given due consideration to the parents’ wishes.

They ruled hospital staff’s decision to remove Alfie from life support and deny his transfer to another hospital was justified since Alfie is, according to their assessment, comatose and unaware of his surroundings.

The parents argue that Alfie is still aware and can still respond to them, but hospital staff say that what the parents interpret as responses are actually seizures, according to the Daily Mail.

Barrister Stephen Knafler QC, who represents Alfie’s parents against the state, argued that, regardless of the hospital’s assessment, the courts’ rulings overstep their boundaries and interfere with “parental choice,” according to Crux.

Please like and share this story on Facebook if you think this court’s ruling is sickening.



A Duty to Die

by Phill Kline

The perfect storm in support of the Culture of Death has arrived. Consumerism, self-indulgence, the worship of government, stardom and economic crisis is poised to transform the Shining City on the Hill into a death camp. The nation founded on the principle that all human life has value ordained by God is adopting a utilitarian view of life that casts aside the voiceless, defenseless, broken, disabled, diseased, unborn and elderly. The Land of Plenty is fast becoming a land where government shall ration its plenty only to those who it perceives add value, creating a duty to die for those who government perceives lessen value. We are losing our way.

The Culture of Death - (a) A health care bill introduced by House Democrats forces the elderly to attend consults regarding the withholding of food and water for the chronically ill; and (b) President Obama and the Democrat congressional leadership is attempting to force all Americans to pay for abortions and all hospitals to provide abortions.

Abortion has always claimed "choice" and "liberty" as its driving value. The same with Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Yet, at its core, both are about a belief that there is not enough compassion, not enough love, not enough money, not enough life to share. We do not want to face those who by their condition awaken our conscience to our duty to provide for such needs. We'd rather they die.

The most common reason for an abortion is fear of the impact a child will have on the future of the mother, father or parents of the mother. The top reason for assisted suicide is fear of becoming a burden on another.

Abortion is not about the "life" of the mother, nor is assisted suicide about eliminating physical pain as both concerns can be addressed without loss of life.. Rather, euthanasia and abortion are about America's increasing fear that bears the fruit of stinginess through lack of faith.

We are becoming a self-indulgent culture demanding immediate answers to life's intractable problems and thanks to an obsessive media focus, casting our hopes and eyes constantly towards government for answers. This is why government is constantly growing, regardless of which political party holds the keys - both parties have learned that promoting false solutions through government action appeals to America's demands for answers. Government plies our fears, creating false hope and doing so by our political wannabes warrants TV time with the talking heads resulting in Stardom. In government, you do not generate power by depowering government.

Government already dictates much in the medical industry. Medicare and Medicaid are now the largest player in the health care market providing 46 cents of every health care dollar spent in America. Private insurance provides 42 cents of every dollar and the remaining 12 cents comes from consumers through out-of-pocket expenditures.

Markets are intelligent - they know where their money comes from! As a result, as government has increased its play in the market - those who earn in the health care market have turned their eyes on government. Increasingly, physicians, medical manufacturers and hospitals have moved away from protecting free market principles and moved towards demanding more from government.

Professional associations representing these groups have demanded increased government payouts for various procedures and services. Increasingly, they have become employees of government - not directly responsive to patient needs or demands. And put simply, they want a pay raise.

Politicians recognize the political truism that you gain a more loyal following by passing out dollar bills than allowing people to keep their own money: dependency is a great source of power. Honoring this truism grows government - creating ever more powerful constituencies that protect every government dollar spent.

The loss of these constituencies commitment to free market principles has been devasting and increasingly resulted in physician decisions being dictated by government formularies - government reimbursement pay formulas for certain medical services and equipment. These pay formulas are the new values driving decisions in medical care. And now, the primary articulator of these values - government - is ready to pomote a claim of value in death.

A child that is unwanted and uneeded - is simply a burden. Abort it! The elderly - more of a drain than a benefit - encourage physician assisted suicide.

The President's new health care bill will mandate your participation in abortion. And a new "reform" bill introduced in the US House by Representatives John Dingell (D-Michigan) and Charlie Rangel (D-New York) creates government mandated death consultants who will encourage the elderly and disabled to choose death.

In 1985, withholding fluid and nutrition from a patient unable to feed himself or herself was considered criminal. Afterall, we are unable to feed ourselves at numerous stages of life and if we were not in the process of dying, someone wihtholding fluids and food was denying what was considered humane care.

Such care is not medical treatment it is an act of compassion. Yet, with high profile court cases in numerous states and the trend towards death and a rationing of care - in 1986, the American Medical Association for the first time defined the provision of food and water as "medical treatment." The impact is monumental. Medical treatment can be withheld, humane care cannot.

Death by dehydration is brutal and lengthy.  It is accomplished with dozens of people standing by who, with simple effort, can sustain a life they watch wither, suffer and die.

And now in the Dingell/Rangel bill, the government will get into the act. Under Subtitle C - "Miscellaneous Improvements" beginning on page 420 of the 1,018 page bill, the government would mandate under Section 1233 what it terms "Advance Care Planning Consultation."

The consultation requires reviewing with all medicare patients the options of withholding care, including providing information on "the use of artificially administered nutrients and hydration."

There is not a need to educate patients about the need of hydration and nutrients. All of us have lived with that need all of our lives. We obtain it - or we die. This provision is there to encourage a pre-determination of death by neglect in order to, as the bill's title suggests, "provide affordable health care."

The proposed law takes the next step and requires these death consultations when a patient and family are most vulnerable. The consultations are to take place "if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including the diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease."

This sets up the dynamic for withholding food and water due to non-life threatening conditions. Further, it invites a patient, if conversant, to make a decision about their future during an ultimate time of stress.

This language invites an approach similar to Oregon's assisted suicide legislation, which was sold as a "compassionate" way out for those terminally ill and in constant pain. This was and is a lie.

Studies indicate that none of the 43 who were assisted in their suicides during the first two years of that legislation were facing such problems. The overwhelming concern was being a burden on family and requiring assistance in daily living.

Just as abortion plays on the fears of frightened mothers, euthanasia plays on the fears of frightened seniors and the disabled.

Further, the bill establishes a special government study called the "physician's quality reporting initiative" which will create special government funded "patient decision aids" and government consultation groups to assist paitents in understanding these issues.

These committees will represent different disciplines but with one commonality - all will be paid by government. And government is interested in saving "costs."

The only thing that breaks this cycle is principled leadership or Americans demanding principled action. Americans, however, are increasingly being taught that liberty is a frightening concept - it requires initiative and exists in a state of uncertainty. Today, there is the ever-present temptation to trade liberty for a false sense of security. This has happened with health care.

Health care is now government business and as with all those who pay the bill, government is attempting to cut costs and this means rationing - choosing one over the other. This is one of the main threads of the hidden debate on health care. Proponents of government making such choices are struggling to find the right Orwellian terms to confuse or mislead the American public.

At least Princeton University Professor Peter Singer, although confused, was blunt and direct in the July 19th edition of the NY Times Sunday Magazine. Professor Singer argues that such rationing is logical. Singer is right - it is. The crux, however, is who makes the choice of rationing and whose values are reflected in that decision. Singer and President Obama support government making these decisions.

Singer writes "(r)ationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for...." And Singer invites us to answer the following problem as an example: "saving the life of one teenager is equivalent to saving the lives of___ 85 year-olds."[ix] Or how about, preserving the quality of life of one adult is worth the lives of how many unborn? Or, saving the life of___ university professors is worth the life of___ unemployed steel workers? (Prof. Singer probably does not want to put that one up for a vote). You can see the problem.

Families make difficult choices of rationing every day - saving for college, purchasing a new and safer car, enhancing savings, moving to a new home, determining health care costs. Increasingly, government is making these decisions for us through the coercive impact of law or through tax code encouragement. This loss of liberty has profound implications. The government solution scheme incrementally replaces opportunity with government promises, diminishes personal accountability creating government inefficiencies and more ominously, invites government dictates in the cause of controlling costs.

And now President Obama is attempting to have government dictate abortion in the name of "choice." Soon, you government may be dictating the duty to die to the disabled, sick and elderly in the cause of universal health care.

Accordingly, the President and Democrat congressional leadership are trying to force through mandated health insurance coverage for abortion and the mandatory provision of abortion services for all Americans as well. All Americans will be forced into health insurance plans that include abortion coverage - forcing all Americans to pay for abortions through their premiums.

It is in these battles that we will define ourselves as a nation and a people.


{Phill Kline is the former Kansas Attorney General and now a visiting law professor in Virginia. His web site is http://www.standwithTruth.com - Ed.)