Page 1 of 1


PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:17 pm
by musashi
In the pre-history of the Dune series of books the failed central character – Mu'ad Dib – the initiator of his own religion (The Golden Path) and a Jihad which killed 40 billion people (and which is based solidly on Islam) there was an event known as The Butlerian Jihad. This jihad destroyed all computers and artificial life forms and led eventually to some humans being trained as “Mentats” - humans with super-fast computer-type intellectual abilities. This superior Mentat ability was based on early programming and dependent on a drug. We could see these Mentats as trans-humans. Mu'ad Dib's Jihad was a religious Jihad out of his home-grown religion, and the fictional Butlerian jihad, in my opinion, also came out of religion. The more subtle reasons for this Butlerian Jihad are never fully explained in the series, and nor is the subtle reason for the introduction of Mu'ad Dib's Golden Path for mankind.

Let me offer an answer which will, incidentally, also offer an explanation, beyond mere egotism, for the Cult of Personality introduced by every dictator known to man. The history of humanity is littered with examples and appears to point to an inborn need in mankind. A need to worship a divine being and to have a central reference point for that worship. The removal of organised religion, throughout history, has left a void in man and that void has been filled with a cult of personality of the dictator who destroyed, or is attempting to destroy, organised religion. We see it today in North Korea. We saw it Stalinist Russia (religion is the opium of the people); in Mao's China, where it is still ongoing today; in Hitler's Germany and one ancient, almost unknown event in Chinese History known as The Time of The Scholars in which tens of thousands of Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists were murdered in a number of seriously hideous ways. Rather like the reports of ISIS activity today. We see it in the Divinity of Kings in many Eastern cultures – like the Mikado in Japan. Man appears to have a need to worship and the void created by the removal and absence of organised religion must be filled.

Every revealed religion says that only God can create life. To claim otherwise is to make war on God, to deny his superiority, his divinity, his singularity - which is to deny that he is the Supreme Being who created us man and woman, and so on. To claim to be able to create life is to claim equality with God. To create a thing capable of attaining intellectual autonomy, capable of declarative statements, capable of experiencing emotion, is the sole and jealously guarded prerogative of God.

A great many science fiction authors have introduced the idea of A.I. gaining self-consciousness and being awarded the same human rights as humans. The destruction of a computer intelligence is seen as the murder of an individual. Andromeda, a warship in a space opera of the same name, which ran for about a hundred and thirty episodes, has an intelligent artificial life controlling the space warships. They have emotions, and the argument for “giving them” emotions is this;
'Do you want a powerful warship to be incapable of emotion? Incapable of pity, or loyalty?'
The “killing” of an A.I. is a capital crime and they and humans fall in love with each other, have relationships with them and grieve when they are killed. Even the A.I.s grieve when other A.I.s die. Also, think of Skynet in Terminator; Think of the Matrix. I've shown before that many science fiction writers are actually pushing this global elite programme through their medium just as certain film stars and pop stars are doing. Frank Herbert, who wrote Dune, was the student of Korzybski who was a member of The Vienna Circle – as were so many occultists attached to Sufi, The Hermetic Order, Wicca, Thelema etc. and are at the core of the global anthropocentric warming scam. Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, L. Sprague De Camp, L Ron Hubbard, Margaret Anderson and many more all pushed the same agenda. We now know this as Predictive Programming.
Artificial Intelligence is already here and so are semi-autonomous androids capable of feeling attacked and defending themselves with physical violence.

If you want to avoid a Religious Jihad against all this then religion has to go. The destruction of religion is in an advanced state, probably paralleling the rise of the machine, and is being pushed by many and diverse agencies. One such is Animal Rights, whose founder is on record as saying that animal rights will never succeed while we have Judeo-Christian-Islamic philosophies. The destruction of these, he says, is crucial to animal rights success. The bulk of western and westernised societies and cultures, where the science and technology comes from, are secular, politically correct, and science and technology oriented. A.I. is not only acceptable to them but highly desirable. Like PC people everywhere, there is no intellectual connection to be made with these shallow and limited thinkers. A.I. is here and it will grow and increase until a religious backlash in the form of Jihad rises up like the villagers with their pitchforks and torches to destroy Frankenstein's monster. You could say that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein story is an analogy of the clash of science and technology with humanity, and that the little girl drowned by the monster represents the innocence of mankind overwhelmed and submerged by the power of man's creation. The blind man killed by the monster could be said to represent the blindness of humanity in not recognising the inherent dangers of science driven by curiosity, lacking morality to guide and limit it, and a challenge to the established authority of God and his sole discretion to create life. Some of my last entries in The Wisdom of the Idiots series might reward a re-read at this point.

The ordinary, street-level Judeo-Christian-Islamic adherents are probably where the new Butlerian Jihad will spring from in defence of the uniqueness, the singularity and superiority of God – if it comes, that is. I can argue, based on The Assissi Declaration and the new volatile and vocal schisms it has created, that the leaders of all mainstream religions are now at one with each other in their subtle objectives.
To the ordinary man and woman in the street, Christianity states emphatically and categorically the unmatched authority of God to create life. Islam does so in no uncertain terms and readily kills any who deny it. So does Judaism. Christianity used to as well but it's been politically corrected and now just wants to be nice.
When the grass roots adherents understand exactly what A.I. means, the implicit claim of equality with the creator of all things, there may well be a reaction which will destroy science and technology as we know it. It could be argued that that Jihad has already started in the Middle-East - although I am far from certain about that. The Koran challenges unbelievers on that very point – who but Allah can create life? This is also acknowledged in The Lord of Rings Prequel, The Sillmarrilion, where the Dark Lord, Sauron, cannot create life but only mock it with his genetic perversion of Elves to create the Orc race.

As for organic-computer interfaces – they are already in the science fiction shows and have been for many years – watch Lexx. Of course, the predictive programming, like many other things, only shows that which we will we be happy with, how useful and friendly and nice it all is. Every benefit has a consequence, of course, and the consequences here are as yet to be determined fully. They are unlikely to be ultimately beneficial to the generality of mankind.
Their ultimate use could be said to be as the replacement of mankind when AGENDA 21 has been completed. Who knows, but automation is here and getting 'here-er by the day. I would imagine that a trans-humanised individual, infinitely programmeable, would be a wonderful thing for the elite.

In line with this off-the-top-of-my-head-and-not-too-deeply-thought-out little rant, I might craft a (much reduced) letter to be sent to various religious people in mosques, churches and synagogues. I would be very interested to hear their opinions vis a vis what I've just written. I might even enter one of these said establishments and hope to leave alive at the end of it. Well, they sometimes shoot the messenger, n'est ce pas? Perhaps if you know any rligious types personally you may care to enquire of them on the matter - although I would be much inclined to be seen as a neutral enquirer rather than a supporter.
Kind regards, Musashi.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:34 pm
by cassandra
Musashi's reference to the Time of the Scholars is incorrect.
It is known in Chinese history as "The burning of books and the burying of scholars" and refers to the burning of texts in 213 BC and the live burial of 460 Confucian scholars in 210 BC by the First Emperor of the Qin dynasty. The event caused the loss of many philosophical treatises of the Hundred Schools of Thought, although the official philosophy of government - "legalism" - survived. According to the Sima Qian's Records his chancellor, Li Si, suggested suppressing intellectual discourse to unify thought and political opinion.
Chancellor Li Si Said:
"I, your servant, propose that all historians' records other than those of Qin's be burned. With the exception of the academics whose duty includes possessing books, if anyone under heaven has copies of the Shi Jing [Classic of Poetry], the Shujing [Classic of History], or the writings of the hundred schools of philosophy, they shall deliver them (the books) to the governor or the commandant for burning. Anyone who dares to discuss the Shi Jing or the Classic of History shall be publicly executed. Anyone who uses history to criticize the present shall have his family executed. Any official who sees the violations but fails to report them is equally guilty. Anyone who has failed to burn the books after thirty days of this announcement shall be subjected to tattooing and be sent to build the Great Wall. The books that have exemption are those on medicine, divination, agriculture, and forestry. Those who have interest in laws shall instead study from officials."
—Shiji Chapter 6. "The Basic Annals of the First Emperor of Qin" thirty-fourth year (213 BC)

Three categories of books were viewed by Li Si to be politically dangerous: poetry, history and, in particular, historical records of other countries, and philosophy. The ancient collection of poetry and historical records contained many stories concerning the "Ancient virtuous rulers". Li Si believed that if the people were to read these works they were likely to invoke the past and become dissatisfied with the present. The reason for opposing various schools of philosophy was that they advocated political ideas that were incompatible with the totalitarian regime.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:56 am
by musashi
Artificial Intelligence? There's a lot of that right here. :giggle: