THEY HAVE BECOME DEATH
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
Today, I have been contemplating my place in the big scheme of everything. It was an epiphany that should have been obvious to me from the very beginning of my career.
I have said many times that I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am not here to be unconditionally devoted to any political philosophy, because when it comes to the safety of my friends and family, it is not up to some political savior to protect them – it is up to me.
My epiphany today was both a blessing and a curse and over thinking it made me feel a bit vulnerable but I think that if I share it with you I may be able to find strength in numbers as I know that I am not alone in my thinking.
I figured out today that I am a third rail thinker.
You may laugh at my discovery and I am kind of laughing too – and what got me to thinking about this was the woman who called my show saying that Facebook determined she was an ultra-conservative.
I thought out loud – I wonder what they would think of me?
Now while I haven’t downloaded the app to figure out how Facebook judges me, I just took it upon myself to declare that I speak from the third rail and usually being a third rail kind of guy, you are going to tap dance on the frayed nerves of a lot of people.
Some will recover from it, while others will disown you or flee from you. That does not change the fact I will always see things from the third rail.
Whenever an act of war is implemented, the media takes over and the propaganda begins. The alchemical change in the populace also can be felt and hears and sides are then taken by the pacifists and those who feel that the only way a country can survive is through continuous warfare.
Usually when attacks are planned, they certainly have an objective that cripples the enemy, keeping them from being a strategic threat.
Usually there is an ideological ultimatum where a government pushes an alchemical transformation of the public view – creating the “other” and demanding that sides should be taken and that it is either us or them.
Now, we live a in a time of war, but with a number of contradictions and regrettable rhetoric. With Syria now fading from the talking points, the hypocrisy of finger pointing about the death of innocent children has us in a cloud of double thinks as our government condemns one country for their lack of humanity and supports the Saudi Arabian attacks in Yemen along with the blockades that are starving women and children there.
We hear from the callous that war is war is war and the words continue as a justification for actions which are confusing and deadly. The Saudis are our “friends” now but the confusing thing is that they were our enemies when Mohammed Atta and his fellow hijackers, the majority of them Saudis rammed a plane into the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.
That is of course, if the official story is a true story, but war is war is war right? The court of the public is always the last to know – and is always the most confused.
When someone questions the validity of all of it, they are told that they are being political. that may be the reality is that what we are seeing being developed is a war culture – a weaponizing of the minds through mass brainwash and group think.
I guess if you want to be part of the Washington mainstream, then more power to you, but as we have learned in the past there is never a reward or benefit with siding with the war hawks.
Not supporting the Washington mainstream makes me a third rail thinker. Reaching out beyond the mainstream is a far more interesting task for me – I am just not satisfied with the mainstream agenda and their passion for emotionally blackmailing the consensus.
They are so hell bent on doing this that they have forgotten how to challenge the minds of the public. They have forgotten how to investigate and uncover the real reasons why our leaders do what they do.
Not everything is political and equally not everything is a conspiracy, but there are intriguing detours that if found to be true can change the paradigm.
A few days before the bombing of Syria, I was made aware of a news story that referenced a report given by the Ambassador of Syria to the U.N. council. The story was peculiar as it was about genetically modified super soldiers of terrorists that apparently are on the ground in Syria fighting alongside other soldiers.
On March 12th, 2018 Syriana analysis documented an exchange between United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley and Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari where Ja’afari makes the accusation that the some of the solders that he calls “terrorists” are not even human.
He called upon the Council’s member states who sympathize with what he called “genetically modified moderate terrorists” to bring back their brutal garbage which they have exported to Syria over the past five years.
Business Finance News also reports that DARPA has begun a heavily funded project to “enhance human ability in war zones, by altering the genetic code of their soldiers.” The aim is to achieve battlefield supremacy by making soldiers who lack empathy and are smarter, more focused, and much stronger than enemy counterparts.
The research is taking place under a relatively new scientific field called genetic engineering, wherein scientists conduct research and experiment with the “cookbook” of a person’s genetic make-up.
Business Finance News stated:
“All life forms have their own recipe, and just like food, there are a finite number of ingredients to choose from. Combination of different ingredients in different proportions makes different life forms. Genetic engineers are practically capable of making glow in the dark babies, by simply adding certain genetic codes of jellyfish into the human genetic code.”
The research suggests that DARPA’s so-called super soldiers are now being triggered in the part of the brain that is responsible for empathy and mercy; scientists have found that it can be effectively shut off using gene therapy. This would essentially create a soldier who is oblivious to fear, fatigue and emotions.
However, what makes this even more disturbing, Business Finance News noted, is the “Human Assisted Neutral Devices program” that focuses on brain control. The result could be a next-generation biological war “machine” controllable via a sophisticated “joystick.”
In other words, a soldier guided by remote control.
According to Wired Magazine, DARPA awarded Texas A&M University’s Institute for Preclinical Studies a $9.9 million contract to develop medical treatments that would extend a “golden period” when traumatically injured troops would have the best chance of surviving massive blood loss. Researchers were aware that the evacuation and treatment of such individuals in the thick of battle within the all-important one-hour window is often impossible.
DARPA has handed out a $40 million grant to California and Pennsylvania Universities to develop memory-controlling implants.
This reality is Transhumanism for the battlefield; part of what is being called the Human Enhancement Revolution.
We now know enough about biology, neuroscience, computing, robotics, and materials to hack the human body, reshaping it in our own image. And defense-related applications are a major driver of science and technology research.
So, if what Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari is saying is true, then this opens up a whole new can for genetic worms and ethical violations when it comes to modern warfare.
The Human Enhancement Revolution has created the human weapon – the idea of the weaponized soldier.
We now face serious ethical, legal, social, and operational issues in enhancing warfighters.
What do the laws of war say about military human enhancements?
Laws and rules are already being established for the use of technologies such as robotics and cyber weapons, but when it comes to weaponizing a human that is a bigger issue as it is easy to hide from a potential enemy.
Should enhancement technologies, which typically do not directly interact with anyone other than the human subject be nevertheless subject to a weapons legal-review? That is, is there a sense in which enhancements could be considered as “weapons” and therefore under the authority of certain laws?
In International Humanitarian Law, also known as the Laws of War, the primary instruments relevant to human enhancements include: Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907), Geneva Conventions (1949 and Additional Protocols I, II, and III), Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (1972), Chemical Weapons Convention (1993), and other law.
Article 36 of the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I of 1977, specifies:
In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.
But does Article 36 apply to human enhancement technologies? That is, should they be considered as a “weapon” or “means or method of warfare” in the first place? Unlike other weapons contemplated by IHL, enhancements usually do not directly harm others, so it is not obvious that Article 36 of Additional Protocol I would apply here. If anyone’s safety is immediately at risk, it would seem to be that of the individual warfighter — thereby turning the debate into one about bioethics. To that extent, warfighters, whether enhanced or not, are not weapons as typically understood.
Yet in a broader sense, the warfighter is not only a weapon but perhaps a military’s best and oldest weapon.
A warfighter that is genetically modified can carry out missions, they sometimes kill enemies, and they represent one of the largest expenditures or investments of a military. They have cognitive and physical capabilities that no other technology currently has.
The human fighter, engaged in hand-to-hand combat, would be the last remaining weapon when all others have been exhausted. So in this basic sense, the war fighter is undeniably a weapon or instrument of war.
If autonomous robots are regulated weapons, then consider the spectrum of cyborgs -part-human, part-machine that exists between robots and unenhanced humans. Replacing one body part, say a human knee, with a robotic part starts us on the cybernetic path.
And as other body parts are replaced, the organism becomes less human and more robotic. Finally, after hypothetically replacing every body part, including the brain, the organism is entirely robotic with no trace of the original human. If we want to say that robots are weapons but humans are not, then we would be challenged to identify the point on that spectrum at which the human becomes a robot or a weapon.
Integrated robotics is only one form of enhancement, but we can also consider scenarios involving biomedical enhancements such as pharmaceuticals and genetic engineering.
Again, on one end of the spectrum would stand a normal, unenhanced human. One step toward the path of being fully enhanced may be a warfighter who drinks coffee or pops amphetamines as a cognitive stimulant or enhancer. Another step may be taking drugs that increase strength, erase fear, or eliminate the need for sleep. At the far, more radical end may be a warfighter so enhanced that he or she no longer resembles a human being, such as a creature with four muscular arms, fangs, fur, and other animal-like features.
Yes, we have to include mutant chimera corps because there is always the chance that human enhancements would include animal cross breeding or cross genetic tampering of the germ line.
If we agree that enhanced human warfighters could be properly weapons subject to Article 36, what are the implications? Historically, new weapons and tactics needed to conform to at least the following: (1) principle of distinction, (2) principle of proportionality, and (3) prohibition on superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
The principle of distinction demands that a weapon must be discriminating enough to target only combatants and never noncombatants. Biological weapons and most anti-personnel landmines, then, are indiscriminate and therefore illegal in that they cannot distinguish whether they are about to infect or blow up a small child versus an enemy combatant. This is why we are triggered to fight against those who use these illegal weapons indiscriminately.
Unintended killings of noncombatants – or “collateral damage” – may be permissible, but not their deliberate targeting; but to the extent that biological weapons today target anyone, they also target everyone. (If they don’t target anyone in particular but still kill people, then immediately they would seem to be indiscriminate.) However, future biological weapons, e.g., a virus that attacks only blue-eyed people or a certain DNA signature, may be discriminate and therefore would not violate this principle (but could violate others).
Second, the principle of proportionality demands that the use of a weapon be proportional to the military objective, so to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. For instance, dropping a nuclear bomb to kill a hidden sniper would be a disproportionate use of force, since other less drastic methods could have been used.
Third, the superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering principle is related to proportionality in that it requires methods of attack to be minimally harmful in rendering a warfighter unable to fight.
This prohibition has led to the ban of such weapons as poison, exploding bullets, and blinding lasers, which cause more injury or suffering than needed to neutralize a combatant.
However implausible, we can imagine a human enhancement that violates these and other provisions — for instance, a hypothetical “berserker” drug would likely be illegal if it causes the warfighter to be inhumanely vicious, aggressive, and indiscriminate in his attacks, potentially killing children and then eating their bodies.
We also have to consider if they are a biological threat to the combatants or to non combatants. This could put enhanced soldiers into the category of weapons of mass destruction.
In the past 70 years, scientists have identified the specific genes involved in increasing muscle mass and improving the oxygen-carrying load of blood. They also have developed tools for selectively activating and deactivating individual genes like flipping a light switch, a process termed epigenetic. Can you imagine an epigenetic soldier with acidic blood or spit—or even shooting quills that are tipped with poisons?
Convinced that such use would be repugnant to the conscience of mankind, I am sure this is unethical and would be considered a breach of all codes of warfare.
Epigenetic warriors can be found all over science fiction in fact Marvel Comics’ Avengers have succeeded in the comic book world and have now splashed on the movie screen as an example of what can be done in laboratories. In cases like that of Captain America, Steve Rogers was well aware of the program that was to change him from a puny solder to super soldier.
Now in reality if human DNA is secretly exposed to toxins, in this case Bruce Banner and the Hulk come to mind – when gamma radiation hits DNA, it breaks the molecule’s double-stranded, ladder-like helix, a process known as chromothripsis. Your body can repair a few breaks without significant loss of function.
If many breaks occur say, if you were caught in a giant gamma explosion — the repairs can become sloppy, and new instructions can be keyed into the genetic code.
Your DNA sends junk code messages to cells and things like cancer and abnormal growth occurs. Once again the epigenetic switch that turns on and off. When Banner’s DNA reassembled after the initial blast, it now included a handful of epigenetic switches. Instead of the switches being activated by light, however, the hormones produced when Banner is angry or excited might flip the genetic switches to reconfigure his DNA to transform him into the big, green Hulk.
In order to control the monster within, Bruce Banner creates a “safety switch” to regulate his change.
This epigenetic switch was once science fiction but now science has created an on and off switch that they can use to modify human activity and behavioral systems.
Researchers at Harvard and Yale have used some extreme gene-manipulation tools to engineer safety features into designer organisms.
This work goes far beyond traditional genetic engineering, which involves moving a gene from one organism to another. In this case, they’re actually rewriting the language of genetics.
In fact, this could very well indicate that they have achieved a new branch of life and life control. Science doesn’t offer absolutes. But this technology is evolving quickly and will be used as we take that leap into Transhuman substantiation.