by Hewitt E. Moore
Globalists have used social engineering to procure power and profits in the Western world. Social engineering can be described as psychological persuasion with rewards and repercussions. It's a form of manipulation that's based on deception, and gift wrapped as propaganda. Propaganda always has a target audience. For the globalists, it's primarily White people.
Here are a few illustrations:
Diversity is our strength – probably the biggest lie of the modern era. A slogan that says, “the fewer White people in a society, the better off it is.”
We all bleed red – a preschool analogy that attempts to validate human equality by concluding that blood is red. Dogs bleed red. So do alligators, eagles and cows.
White privilege – a feminist coined this term, in which she compared being White in a White country to having an “invisible knapsack” of survival gear when you're lost. She acknowledges that it's a good thing to be White in a White country. She just thinks Whites should feel bad about it (e.g., Like, OMG! I'm White, and my life is great. This totally sucks!).
These myths become accepted as truth via conformity, not logic or reason. For example, if you were to ask someone how diversity is a strength, they'll say something about taco trucks or sushi bars. Or that their favorite ballplayer or rapper is black. But other than that, you'll just get a strange look. Because if they're acting in good faith, they won't have a legitimate answer.
Those who reject this globalist newspeak are called names (e.g., racist, nazi, White supremacist) with the purpose of being socially ostracized, and without the benefit of appellate arbitration. In the status quo, being labeled a racist is the equivalent to being a child molester in prison.
The word “racist” has been used so much that it really doesn't have a definitive meaning. As a label, it carries an immense amount of power. But for all intents and purposes, it's just an anti-White epithet. It's the “N word” for White people.
Oddly enough, these haters of hate, who love White-shaming, proudly march under their inclusive banner of tolerance. For them, progress means a world with White people at the back of the line. And for some, it even means a world without White people.
There are three pertinent questions regarding the future innovation of gene-editing: availability, affordability and government culpability (ethics is included under government culpability). If the non-White world is able to affordably choose the genetics of their children, how many would opt for White features (Regardless of what People magazine publishes, blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin is the gold standard of beauty.)? And even though virtue-signaling actors/actresses would probably still adopt Africans to pose with on the cover of magazines, many elites would opt for genetically modified children. And initially they will be the only ones with the means to access the technology.
It's feasible to foresee a genesis generation of elite designer GMO babies. They'll have some variance of White features, disease immunity, excellent athletic ability, chiseled physical attributes, charming personalities, high IQs and lifelong 20/20 vision.
Consider this: elitism is hereditary. So these GMO babies would inevitably inherit the elite status of their parents. How will this generation of GMO elites influence the world? Could a possible side-effect of gene-editing produce a propensity for sociopathy? Thus creating a master-race of power hungry elites intent on world dominion?
The Chinese are the world leaders in genome research. The Chinese government spent a record $254 billion on research and development in 2017. That amount, and their fertile ground for research, has lured the world's leading scientists to come (or return) to China. An American immunotherapy specialist believes America and China are in a genetic arms race, which he labeled “Sputnik 2.0”.
In the course of time, the science will be universal. The battle will be over ethics. And the reality of gene-editing “ethics” is this: it will be acceptable to use genetic engineering to correct damaged genes, and produce immunity to diseases. But choosing eye color, hair color or skin tone will be considered unethical. Now ask yourself, why is that?
The answer is obvious: The worst nightmare of the anti-White globalists would be a world of genetically enhanced White geniuses who are not just White, but have chosen to be White.
Become a Patron!
Here are a few illustrations:
Diversity is our strength – probably the biggest lie of the modern era. A slogan that says, “the fewer White people in a society, the better off it is.”
We all bleed red – a preschool analogy that attempts to validate human equality by concluding that blood is red. Dogs bleed red. So do alligators, eagles and cows.
White privilege – a feminist coined this term, in which she compared being White in a White country to having an “invisible knapsack” of survival gear when you're lost. She acknowledges that it's a good thing to be White in a White country. She just thinks Whites should feel bad about it (e.g., Like, OMG! I'm White, and my life is great. This totally sucks!).
These myths become accepted as truth via conformity, not logic or reason. For example, if you were to ask someone how diversity is a strength, they'll say something about taco trucks or sushi bars. Or that their favorite ballplayer or rapper is black. But other than that, you'll just get a strange look. Because if they're acting in good faith, they won't have a legitimate answer.
Those who reject this globalist newspeak are called names (e.g., racist, nazi, White supremacist) with the purpose of being socially ostracized, and without the benefit of appellate arbitration. In the status quo, being labeled a racist is the equivalent to being a child molester in prison.
The word “racist” has been used so much that it really doesn't have a definitive meaning. As a label, it carries an immense amount of power. But for all intents and purposes, it's just an anti-White epithet. It's the “N word” for White people.
Oddly enough, these haters of hate, who love White-shaming, proudly march under their inclusive banner of tolerance. For them, progress means a world with White people at the back of the line. And for some, it even means a world without White people.
If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing.Unlike their nonsensical memes, a world with fewer White people isn't just an anti-White's fantasy. It's an observable phenomenon. The percentage of the world's White population will reach single digits by 2060, down from almost 30% in 1950:
As a percentage of world inhabitants the white population will plummet to a single digit (9.76%) by 2060 from a high-water mark of 27.98% in 1950.But as the globalist's attempt to socially engineer White Genocide, scientists are busy perfecting genetic engineering, which could ironically reverse the rapid decline of the world's White population:
Humanity was reluctantly dragged into a new era this week.
In a video posted on YouTube, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced to the world that he successfully used the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the DNA of two embryos before birth, essentially creating the world’s first genetically modified humans.
The news, delivered on the eve of a high-profile scientific meeting in Hong Kong on human gene editing, left the science community in shock. “I see it as one of those moments that happens once every few decades,” said William Hurlbut, Senior Research Scholar at Stanford University Medical Center’s Department of Neurobiology. “Where someone does something that so dramatically changes the landscape that the world will never be the same again.”Gene-editing via technology like CRISPR is going to alter humanity as we know it. Just as evolution dethroned creation, biotechnology will ultimately supplant evolution. And we aren't just talking about the elimination of cancer, or immunity to the flu. This technology will not only change how we view race, but how we view the human race. At some point there will likely be a GMO race of humans that will be superior in many ways to non-GMO humans.
The Chinese are the world leaders in genome research. The Chinese government spent a record $254 billion on research and development in 2017. That amount, and their fertile ground for research, has lured the world's leading scientists to come (or return) to China. An American immunotherapy specialist believes America and China are in a genetic arms race, which he labeled “Sputnik 2.0”.
Chinese scientists have accomplished many firsts in the genome world, including the first CRISPR-edited monkeys, the first use of the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 in humans, and the first reported use of gene editing technology to modify nonviable human embryos.
China has also pumped huge amounts of government money into gene-editing technology, using it to lure leading Chinese scientists living abroad back to the country, as well as foreigners who see the country as fertile ground for this kind of research.
“I just think right now China is a lot more driven, they incentivize their scientists to move faster and be bolder and it shows,” said Victor J. Dzau, President of the Institute of Medicine at the US National Academy of Medicine.
Last year, China spent a record 1.76 trillion yuan ($254 billion) on research and development, and the country is catching up with the US’ investment in the same area, spurring a genetic arms race that has been labeled “Sputnik 2.0” by Dr. Carl June, an immunotherapy specialist at the University of Pennsylvania.Hypothetically speaking, let's assume the Chinese decide to forego ethic standards, and opt to play God. What if they genetically engineered a Chinese population with an average IQ of 140? And what if the majority of those Chinese were genetically coded with a White phenotype? Would they be considered White? Would this change our view on race?
In the course of time, the science will be universal. The battle will be over ethics. And the reality of gene-editing “ethics” is this: it will be acceptable to use genetic engineering to correct damaged genes, and produce immunity to diseases. But choosing eye color, hair color or skin tone will be considered unethical. Now ask yourself, why is that?
The answer is obvious: The worst nightmare of the anti-White globalists would be a world of genetically enhanced White geniuses who are not just White, but have chosen to be White.
Become a Patron!
